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:
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.