Do Krakens have lairs or nests or dens? Whatever, this Kraken can be found here: CJ-PEARSON-V.-KEMP. The PDF is a little over a hundred pages and I haven't had time to digest it, so this post will be, or begin as, a bit of a placemarker while I try to get up to speed on a number of things. I'll be republishing several comments regarding this Kraken by Yancey Ward to get discussion started. However, a few preliminary remarks.
For anyone looking for informed discussion of where the Trump challenge is right now, Andrea Widburg has a useful compilation of links and articles at American Thinker this morning (h/t commenter Mike Edmonson): Nine useful articles and data points showcasing 2020's election theft. These articles generally track the discussions we've been having, with the emphasis on the last few days, especially:
What's The Trump Strategy In Wisconsin?
Very Brief Election Challenge Update
Most of the challenges in the various states revolve around similar issues (so far), but their are twists and nuances depending on the statutory and even state constitutional lay of the land in each state. In addition, different plaintiffs have adopted somewhat varying approaches. For example, the filings by the Thomas More Society's Amistad Project (in WI and GA) take aim at Mark Zuckerberg's direct funding of county and municipal government efforts to influence the election--which is illegal in every state that I'm aware of. So, a brief review of the two linked posts may be helpful.
The last time I listened to a Sidney Powell interview--and I believe I've probably listened to virtually all of them re the election--she had refined her narrative regarding the role of remote manipulation of the election somewhat. At least that was my impression, so when I read her complaint I'll be looking at that angle carefully. My recollection of what she said in that interview ran like this: That the election had, indeed, been manipulated remotely but that a concerted effort had been made to conceal these actions by the use of more traditional means. This is what happened during the famous early morning coordinated shutdowns in key swing states. Early accounts of commenters suggest that this is perhaps the weakest part of Powell's complaint. In the big picture, that may not matter because of the strength of the case for more traditional voter fraud. There may be time enough in the future to get to the bottom of the election fraud issue.
I find that theory somewhat compelling. As you'll see, Yancey Ward makes the point that the Trump lead was so large and so difficult to overcome that it was necessary to take extraordinary--and reckless--steps. This presented simple physical obstacles--coming up with such a large number of 'backup' ballots (as it were) in such a short space of time. Powell's theory--as I thought I understood it most recently--is that the steps Yancey describes were needed to back up the remote manipulation.
All I can say at this point is, compare and see what you think. I agree with Yancey that, at this point, there appears to be an increasingly clear way forward for the Trump challenge in most swing states, thanks in great part to the yeoman work of Matt Braynard. That way forward centers around variations on the fraudulent use of absentee ballots. I emphasize 'variations,' because there were clearly multiple ways to game that technique--including the straightforward failure to count Republican ballots.
One further caveat, regarding Arizona. Arizona, for the time being, doesn't appear to figure in the Trump challenge. That may change, of course. One factor to keep in mind with regard to Arizona is that, while there is a Republican governor in place (in itself no guarantee of honest elections), the Secretary of State is a straight up Soros puppet. That almost certainly guarantees some degree of shenanigans--the question being, was it sufficient to influence the outcome.
Now, here are Yancey Ward's comments:
I read all 100+ pages of the Georgia lawsuit filed by Powell etal. Very strong on the ballot stuffing and absentee vote counting irregularities and outright disregard for the actual Georgia laws involved.
Far weaker material on the Dominion stuff, though- no Kraken there that I saw. I have written it several times, the fraud was good ole ballot stuffing, and Powell's complaint does, I believe, highlight exactly what happened:
The Democrats were cheating for weeks prior to November 3rd, and I think they failed to carry the state anyway (I suspect they did the same thing in North Carolina, but there is no Atlanta in North Carolina to make up an 80K deficit in the early hours of November 4th. You have to remember what the ground was like at 1 a.m. on November 4th -- Trump was up 100k in Wisconsin, almost 300K ahead in Michigan, and almost 700k ahead in Pennsylvania. The Democrats in Georgia, I think, panicked and did really, really stupid stuff and printed off a bunch of fake abseentee ballots during the big water leak- like 96,000 such pristine ballots all for Biden.
I think if Powell gets the discovery she wants, she and her team will be able to prove that, in Georgia alone, the Democrats created at least 250,000 fraudulent absentee ballots for Biden, and/or canned tens of thousands of Trump votes at the same time. I think the big error that is going to do them in is the extra 96,000 that they created in haste- ballots that they could no longer record as "returned" because they didn't have the ability to go back in time and fix those registers.
This is one of the strong points of the Amistad Project filings. They are able to document that the cheating was going on long before the election. They are also able to document the illegality of the funding mechanism that was used. They then are also able to document clear evidence of various types of direct fraud--dead voters, non-resident voters, voting in other people's names, etc. The whole picture is a compelling narrative of a highly organized and well funded effort to steal an election.
My feeling is that Powell will probably get something from the courts in Georgia, and if I were Trump's team, I would repeat this exact lawsuit in WI, MI, and PA along with NV and AZ. I think the Democrats probably didn't have to do any late night fixes in Arizona- Trump's feud with McCain put the state in play in a fair election, so not much was needed to tip it over, but I think the Democrats had the same problems at midnight on November 3rd/4th in WI, MI, and PA -- Trump's lead was bigger than they expected, so some extra votes had to found on the fly -- in PA, it probably required 672K new ballots to show up from somewhere, and in Michigan, probably around 200K, and in Wisconsin, 150K -- all created on the evening/morning of November 3rd/4th. That will have a trail -- either the ballot counts won't match (see PA), and the signatures will not match or there will turn out to no envelopes for all those votes totals I listed above -- they will be absentee ballots with no corresponding envelopes. I think this why the Democrats are so adamant that no one get to look at signatures- there are none on a massive amount of those vote totals. This, by the way, is how Milwaukee got to 90% turnout -- at 1 a.m. on November 4th, Milwaukee was all the Democrats had left in Wisconsin, so all the new ballots were created for that county alone in haste.
This also will explain the pristine ballots in Georgia -- it did the Democrats no good if it took 3 days to fill out the 96,000 ballots they needed -- so they mechanized the fill of the ovals in some manner. If Powell gets discovery, those are the ballots I would be looking for first.
Reading the Michigan complaint right now. First note -- whoever did the PDF conversion on that document has never done a Word to PDF conversion before. Yikes!
That being pointed out, however:
The notable thing about the complaint is the story about the ballots being delivered in the middle of the night after November 3rd and again at 9 P.M. on the 4th is interesting. One of the problems that the cheaters in Michigan may have had is that there was a Senate race with a black Republican candidate- for the longest time, James ran ahead of Peters even after Biden had comfortably been put ahead of Trump. The Democrats had to keep creating new ballots after the early morning hours of November 4th precisely because they needed more ballots get Peters ahead of James enough to evade an automatic recount. Just my theory as to why the Democrats ended up having to create so many more fraudulent votes than they actually needed in Michigan -- they had two races two worry about, and in the second one, they needed quite a larger number of fake votes.
Thanks again to Yancey for the overview.
So what if Powell decides to bring forth witnesses that will testify about the covert NSA/CIA infrastructure for election monitoring based in Germany (hello Frankfurt server seizure)? Her current law suit pertains to election fraud, and since there is a hard December 14th deadline coming up, this will more or less guarantees fast-track action by the Judiciary.ReplyDelete
And since the Frankfurt server farm is a highly classified Black OP, normally DOJ would intercede to preempt a court proceeding that could reveal national security secrets.
If Powell forces his hand, what will Bill Barr do? And what would be the political impact if DOJ sits on it's hands while rampant election fraud is perpetrated, but then steps in at the last minute to oppose transparency that could be critically germane to proving election fraud.
We live in strange times indeed.
Based on my own cursory reading of the Georgia complaint, there's no need to include the server farm info.Delete
While it might indeed be the "clincher" why include something if you can make your case without it? Sidney doesn't necessarily have to prove that all these acts occurred, but merely that they could have occurred and there cast doubt on the results.
The GA SoS agreement with the Dems to ignore certain "inconvenient" parts of GA election law should be more than enough - talk about ultra vires....
Because you always include all the allegations available and one of her witnesses stated in an affidavit the the server can be accessed over the internet and change votes; so she had to include that, also.Delete
What are the potential penalties Zuckerberg faces?Delete
Would love to see that little prick go to prison. Same for Jack Dorsey.
Don't know. I'd be concerned if I had received that money. Since it's illegal it looks a lot like a bribe, and especially because they entered into an agreement that was a clear quid pro quo.Delete
Unfortunately it's hard to imagine Zuck going to the big house. He would buy a scapegoat to send instead of himself.Delete
I’m being told, from someone who is involved in special forces, that FBI, CIA and DoJ are being left out because this involves national security and foreign actors. He said had no details as the several related missions were extremely covert. He speculated that this part is still being put together. Sounded plausible to me, so I think there is more to come.ReplyDelete
It couldn't possibly be the case that those agencies would be excluded BECAUSE national security is involved. They are the primary agencies charged with addressing non-military action national security threats.Delete
I may have incorrectly remembered what he said. I think I now remember him say foreign military actors. It was brief dog walk chat. I’ll try to get a clarification.Delete
Nice quick hit... Now go work on digesting food and let us pick apart Powell's filing at leisure today!!!
Take a break Sir, you've definitely earned it!
As always... Thank you and happy Thanksgiving!!!
Thanks. Same to you and all readers and commenters!Delete
And, same to you and all readers and commenters!Delete
GP is suggesting this morning there is video of the State Farm center "pipe malfunction outage" where someone unknown manipulates the ballot counting device. Go figure. And I live in the Chicago area "Vote early vote often"...ReplyDelete
I saw that... I'm hopeful that's what it shows but being GWP I suspect they are speculating on the implication of Lyn Wood's tweet yesterday more than reporting a development.Delete
Powell’s 2nd lawsuit in Michigan...ReplyDelete
Somewhere out there is another objection (Michigan? PA.?) to the effect that 284,000+ votes were counted in an hour, whereas the machine count-capability was only 98,000+/hour.ReplyDelete
One can reminisce about how Pabst Brewing goosed its bottling machinery to enhance production by 100 bottles/minute.....but that's not appropriate here, is it?
That point is raised by Ramsland, I believe.Delete
So because my OCD wouldn't leave it alone I just read all 104 pages between consuming slices of a very awesome smoked ham my dad cooked up for today. 😉ReplyDelete
I would concur with the majority of Yancy's assessment. (not that I can hold a candle)
I didn't find the kraken evidence to be disapointing. I think it's a fair crack at seeing if a court is going to bite on the subject. Just enough plausible fact to see if they will allow a injunction against grabbing up the machines for analysis.
If so... I am sure there will be much much more to come later on that and I don't think she needs that evidence in Georgia, I think it would be more helpful elsewhere (27 other states) if it can be properly torn apart. I'm also glad she inst resting on that as her plan of attack.
What I like is that she is doing a really good job of going after 12+ different avenues of issues wrapped into the fabric of both state and federal law.
She has both witnesses and even co witnesses from the dem party on some issues.
Several instances where the observation can be back up or solidly disproven by simple matters of record. (Custody chain docs, video evidence, etc)
A slew of statical data... Valid in election cases but I am glad that's not what this whole thing rests on.
The focus of any of these pathways leads to the same issue, any one of them would completely change the election outcome in Georgia.
The "no cure" issues are going to be a heavy weight on whatever judge(s) gets this case. I don't envy them.
This is the type of work I'd expect out of someone like Powell, blunt, dry unforgiving, with a lot of extra ammo still left in the clip and a touch of snark. 👍
Bear in mind that this is only the complaint. In civil cases you don't hafta include all your evidence--just general allegations and then you go for discovery. Because of the time involved here, Powell included a lot of particular evidentiary detail, but--as another commenter pointed out--that doesn't mean that she may not be holding back some or even a fair amount. Particularly re the Kraken stuff.Delete
But...to what extent are the extensive factual allegations in the Complaint necessary to support the temporary, emergency and injunctive relief requested?Delete
We're hampered because there are many exhibits that are under seal. Presumably, Powell--a highly experienced appellate advocate--included enough that she believes it will satisfy the standard for the relief requested.Delete
What would be nice, and I have not seen anywhere, is a comparison between the 3-5 states that stopped their counting versus all other states.ReplyDelete
That would be very convincing either way.
That said, Happy Thanksgiving, thanking God for our country per our first president...
“ Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be—That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks—for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation—for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war—for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed—for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted—for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.”
Part of my job is to prevent my employer's Internet-connected networks & servers from being hacked.ReplyDelete
I'm always interested in reports of malicious Internet activity.
So I looked at the declaration of (redacted) in the Michigan filing.
Somebody please tell Sidney Powell to hire competent computer experts to edit her court documents before they're filed.
The declaration is the work of a "script kid" who knows how to run publicly available Internet scanning tools.
It claims to show dominionvoting and/or edisonresearch have "connections" to China and/or Iran, etc.
But the "connections" are simply DNS names registered under those organizations' DNS zones.
In other words, very publicly advertised DNS names of servers located in Iran, Serbia, etc.
No secrets. No evidence of anything unusual or wrong.
Also, some of the DNS names have administrators located in China.
Also no secrets. No evidence of anything unusual or wrong.
P.S. Tor nodes connecting to servers is NOT evidence of anything other than somebody (like me) who knows how to install Tor software on their PC then surf the Internet.
Yes, Tor is used by criminals to do criminal things. It's also used by me and millions of others to do normal things. Even a "script kid" should know that.
Are you referring only to sec. 150, in which it is said thatDelete
"the system and software have been accessible and were certainly compromised by rogue actors, such as Iran and China. By using servers and employees *connected* with rogue actors...."?
Or, are you also referring to sec. 17, in which it is said that
"the Dominion software was accessed by agents *acting on behalf of* China and Iran...."?
(This latter reference also appears in the GA filing, sec. 14, and is being touted on the web as being a very big deal.)
What's particularly discouraging about that is it appears increasingly likely that there plenty enough discoverable traditional voter fraud to give Trump the win. Misrepresentations on what seems--for immediate purposes--to be somewhat of a peripheral issue is ... regrettable, avoidable.Delete
Implying that foreign actors "accessed" servers by showing DNS records displays profound ignorance of the way the Internet works and what DNS is. It's embarrassing, that's all. Should be cleaned up by removing those accusations. Mistakes happen.Delete
(I'm dwelling on this because I'm a computer geek. Maybe actual judges don't care about this stuff)
Thanx for clarification.Delete
If actual judges don't care about this stuff, they sure as hell should.
I think you are misreading the allegations here.Delete
There are two claims:
1. Foreign actors connected over internet and observed / manipulated data. Via vulnerabilites deliberately set in the system.
2. Dominion and related companies are "connected" / in partnership / owned by foreign entities such as China. The fact that DNS records for the dominion's domain name are pointed to a physical address in Hunan / China is potentially supportive of this second claim. Not the first one above.
So all sounds good. BTW I'm a computer geek too.
I gather, then, that claim #1 is much more germane to the worst of this election mess, than is claim #2?Delete
I'm starting to think that SP's reference to the witness protection program was geared toward Matt Braynard. Hope he's getting some law enforcement support or similar.ReplyDelete