XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, alt.politics.liberalism
XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.usa.republican
Gronk wrote:
AlleyCaCa wrote:
1. bamboo ballots
Nobody ever seriously proposed that, faggot shill.
2. magic thermostats
Nobody ever seriously proposed that, faggot shill.
3. ballots from NoKo coming into a port in Maine
Nobody ever seriously proposed that, faggot shill.
4. HUGO CHAVEZ
Nobody ever seriously proposed that, faggot shill.
5. satellites controlled from Italy switch votes
Nobody ever seriously proposed that, faggot shill.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20588/most-secure-election
'The Most Secure Election in American History'
by John Eastman
April 21, 2024 at 5:00 am
* What did the founders do? They committed an act of treason by signing the Declaration of Independence. They recognized at some point you have to take
on the established regime when it is not only unjust, but when there is no lawful way to get it back on track. These matters frame our own nation.
* Texas had just filed its original action in the Supreme Court against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan -- four swing states whose election officers had clearly violated election law in those states and with
an impact that put Biden over the top in all four.
* In Georgia, the Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, signed a
settlement agreement in March of 2020 in a suit that was filed by the Democratic Committee that essentially obliterated the signature verification process in Georgia. It made it virtually impossible to disqualify any
ballots no matter how unlike the signature on the ballot was to the
signature in the registration file. The most troubling aspect of it, to me,
was that the law required that the signature match the registration
signature. When Brad Raffensperger, who is not part of the legislature, unilaterally changed the rule from what the legislature had adopted by
statute, that change was unconstitutional, not just illegal.
* Unilaterally, [the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Kathy Boockvar] got rid of a statute that election officials in Pennsylvania had
been applying for 100 years to require signature verification. She then
asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to approve what she had done....In
other words, all of the statutory provisions that were designed to protect against fraud were obliterated in Pennsylvania. We ought not to be surprised
if fraud walked through the door left open by the unconstitutional
elimination of these statutes.
* To this day, there are 120,000 more votes that were cast in Pennsylvania
than their records show voters who have cast votes. Think about that:
120,000 more votes than voters who cast votes. The margin in Pennsylvania
was 80,000.
* Election officials in heavily Democrat counties [in Wisconsin] also set up drop boxes. They even set up what they called "human drop boxes" in Madison, which is the home of the University of Wisconsin. For two or three
consecutive Saturdays before the election, they basically ran a ballot harvesting scheme at taxpayer expense with volunteers - whom I suspect were actually supporters of the Biden campaign -- working as "deputized" county clerks to go collect all these ballots, in violation of state law.
* A lot of these came in with the witness signatures, but the address not filled in. The county clerks were directed by the Secretary of State to fill the information in on their own. In other words, they were doctoring the evidence.
* They were doing Google searches to get the name, to fill in an address to validate ballots that were clearly illegal under Wisconsin law. All told,
those couple of things combined, more than 200,000 ballots were affected in
a state where the margin victory was just over 20,000.
* Then in Michigan, we had similar things going on. We probably all saw the video of election officials boarding up the canvassing center at TCF Center
in Detroit so that people could not observe what was going on. There were hundreds of sworn affidavits about illegality in the conduct of that process
in Detroit.
* The judge, without holding a hearing on a motion to dismiss, at which the allegations of the complaint are supposed to be taken as true, rejected all
the sworn affidavits from all the witnesses who actually observed the illegality, and instead credited the government affidavit - without the government witness evening being subject to questioning on
cross-examination.
* In those four states, and in Arizona and Nevada as well, there is no
question that the illegality that occurred affected way more ballots than
the certified margin of Joe Biden's victory in all of those states. It only took three of those six states -- any combination of three -- for Trump to
have won the election.
* Well, first of all, that mantra....: "All the cases, all the courts ruled against Trump." First of all, that is not true. Most of the cases were
rejected on very technical jurisdictional grounds, like a case brought by a voter, rather than the candidate himself.
* Individual voters do not have standing because they lack a particularized injury. Those were dismissed. There is no basis for claiming that there was anything wrong with the claims on the merits. It is just that the cases were not brought by the right people.
* There was one case where one of these illegal guidances from the Secretary
of State was challenged before the election. The judge ruled that it was
just a guidance, and that until we get to election day to find out if the
law was actually violated, the case was not ripe -- and it got dismissed.
Then the day after the election, when election officials actually violated
the law, the case gets filed again, and the court says, "You can't wait
until your guy loses and then bring the election challenge. It's barred by a doctrine called laches. This is the kind of stuff that the Trump legal team
was dealing with in those 65 cases.
* Of the cases that actually reached the merits --there were fewer than a
dozen of them, if I recall correctly -- Trump won three-fourths of them. You have never heard that in the "New York Times."
* The 65 Project was formed -- I think I've seen reported that they received
a grant from a couple of George Soros-related organizations of $100 million
-- to bring disbarment actions against all of the lawyers who were involved
in any of those cases.
* The head of the organization gave an interview to Axios... and he said in
his interview to Axios that the group's goal with respect to the Trump
election lawyers is to "not only bring the grievances in the bar complaints, but shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms"
"in order to deter right-wing legal talent from signing on to any future GOP efforts" to challenge elections.
* Our system works, in part, because we have an adversarial system of
justice that supports it. If groups like the 65 Project succeed in scaring
off one side of these intense policy disputes or legal disputes, then we
will not have an adversarial system of justice.
* We will not have elections that we can have any faith in, because if you
do not have that kind of judicial check on illegality in the election, then
bad actors will just do the illegality whenever they want, and we won't be
able to do anything about
* Ultimately, we are the sovereign authority that tells the government which direction we want it to go, not the other way around.
* The issue of whether non-legislative actors in the state can alter
election law consistent with the Constitution remains an open issue. It
should not be an open issue. The Constitution is quite clear, but there was
a news account at one point reporting that John Roberts had yelled at Alito
and Thomas, who had insisted they needed to take these cases. They were just like Bush versus Gore. Roberts was reported to have said, "They're not like Bush versus Gore. If we do anything, they will burn down our cities." Which means the impact of what had gone on in the summer of 2020 in Portland and Kenosha and all these other places, had an impact on the Supreme Court declining to take these cases.
* What I have seen, and it pains me to say this, is that the level of corruption in our institutions, including our judicial institutions, is so pervasive now that it is troubling. Because many of these cases end up in
the DC courts, I cannot imagine a stronger case for change of venue than
those January 6th criminal defendants. It will cost a million, a million and
a half to defend against those charges. The poor guy who entered a plea agreement and pleaded guilty..., one of the 19 defendants in Georgia, he is
a bail bondsman for a living. If he gets a felony, he is not only in jail
for a while, but he cannot do his trade, so they offer him a misdemeanor conviction and no jail time. He took it in a heartbeat. Otherwise, he is looking at a million to two million dollars in legal fees tied up in this internationally televised drama for nothing, and he was not in the position
to undertake that.
* About electronic voting machines? There have been three audits. Antrim County, Michigan, and one of the leading critics of voting machines and
their software is a guy named J. Alex Halderman, a professor of computer science and engineering at the University of Michigan. He testified as the expert in litigation down in Georgia in 2018 saying these machines are not secure. They sealed his testimony and it was only released in June. It just says, "These things are susceptible to fraud by all sorts of bad actors."
* One of the things we discover in that Antrim audits is that in fact, the
vote logs that are supposed to be there had been deleted for 2020, not 2016, not 2012, they are still there, but 2020 had been deleted.
* They had a convention in Las Vegas, hired a bunch of geeks, computer geeks from around the country, to come to this convention and see who could hack
into the machines and alter the vote codes quickest. It took people about 15 minutes. The notion that these things cannot be hacked is laughable. They
have to be able to be opened if they need to be repaired. [I heard that from
an MIT graduate at the time.] The question is, how to prove that they were hacked in this particular instance when they are destroying the evidence,
and that is where we are.
* [W]e subsequently learned that despite [Former Attorney General William] Barr's public statement that US attorneys could investigate election illegality, anytime somebody did, he called him on the phone and order them
not to.
* One of the FBI investigators who was actually getting to the bottom of
this got a call that said, "Stand down."
* You have people out there saying, "Oh, we're investigating. Everything's fine," while behind the scenes ordering people not to do the investigation
that would actually get to the bottom of it.
* I call it the uniparty. You can call it the deep state. You can call it
the administrative state. You can call it the corrupt state, but it sees the MAGA movement as the biggest threat to its syndicators. It is going to do everything it can to destroy the people who are going to try and publicize
what is going on.
* That is what we are dealing with, and we are $2 million in. One of the lawsuits that was filed against me by this guy down in North Carolina, I
don't know why he picked me as the lead defendant, but other defendants are
all billionaire oligarchs who are using their own wealth. That is the kind
of nonsense I'm dealing with.
I would like to discuss some of the illegalities that occurred in the 2020 election and the proposed constitutional remedies that we thought we could advance.
I would also like to discuss the lawfare that is sweeping across the country and destroying not just the people that were involved in those efforts, but
the very notion of our adversarial system of justice.
This fight and the dangers from it are much bigger than what I am dealing
with personally, or what the hundred or so Trump lawyers who have been
targeted in this new lawfare effort are dealing with. It seems that there is something similar going on here, albeit to a much less lethal degree, than
what we are seeing with the October 7th attack on Israel, as that, too, was
an attack on the rule of law.
The international community that will condemn Israel's just response to
these unjust attacks demonstrates a bias in the application of the rule of
law that is very similar to what we are dealing with here.
These are not isolated instances. They go to the root of the rejection of
the rule of law. One of our greatest presidents, Abraham Lincoln, gave a speech, the Lyceum Address, in 1838 talking about the importance of the rule
of law.
When there are unjust laws, you have to be careful about refusing to comply with them because what you may lose in the process - the rule of law itself
-- is of greater consequence. He was not categorical about that, however, because the example he gave was of our nation's founders and their
commitment to the rule of law.
But think about that for a minute. What did our founders do? They committed
an act of treason by signing the Declaration of Independence. They
recognized at some point you have to take on the established regime when it
is not only unjust, but when there is no lawful way to get it back on track. These matters frame our own nation in our own time.
Let us start with the 2020 election. What do we see and how did I get
involved in this?
When President Trump, then candidate Trump, walked down that famous
escalator at Trump Tower, one of the planks in his campaign platform was
that we need to fix this problem of birthright citizenship. People who are
just visiting here or are here illegally ought not to be able to provide automatic citizenship to their children. People laughed at him for not understanding the Constitution.
In his next press conference, he waved a law review article, and said there
is a very serious argument that our Constitution does not mandate birthright citizenship for people who are only here temporarily or who are here
illegally. That happened to be my law review article on birthright
citizenship.
Then, during the Mueller investigation, I appeared for an hour on Mark
Levin's television show and said the whole Russia collusion story (which
Trump rightly called the Russia "hoax") was illegitimate - completely made
up. President Trump thought that my analysis was pretty good, and invited me
to the White House for a visit.
When the major law firms were backing out of taking on any of the election challenges, President Trump called me and asked if I would be interested.
Texas had just filed its original action in the Supreme Court against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan -- four swing states whose election officers had clearly violated election law in those states and with
an impact that put Biden over the top in all four.
Two days later, I filed the motion to intervene in the Supreme Court in that action. The Supreme Court rules require the lawyer on the brief to have
their name, address, email address and phone number.
Nobody in the country at that point really knew who Trump's legal team was,
but all of a sudden people had a lawyer and an email address. I became the recipient of every claim, every allegation, crazy or not, that existed
anywhere in the world about what had happened in the election. It was like drinking from a fire hose.
I received communications from some of the best statisticians in the world
who were working with election data and who told me there was something very wrong with the reported election results, according to multiple statistical analyses.
One group decided to do a counter-statistical analysis. They said the statisticians had misapplied Stan Young's path-breaking work. Unbeknownst to them, one of the statisticians I was relying on was Stan Young himself.
Did you ever see the movie Rodney Dangerfield's "Back to School"? He has to write an essay for English class, the essay has to be on Kurt Vonnegut's thinking, so he hires Kurt Vonnegut to write the essay for him.
The professor fails him. Not because it was not his own work - the professor hadn't figured that out -- but because, in the professor's view, the work
that Dangerfield turned in was not what Kurt Vonnegut would ever say. That
is what I felt like with this supposed critique of the statistical work my experts were conducting.
Those were the kinds of things we were dealing with. I became something of a focal point for all this information. The allegations of illegality were particularly significant. I'll just go through a couple of states and a
couple of examples:
In Georgia, the Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, signed a settlement agreement in March of 2020 in a suit that was filed by the Democratic
Committee that essentially obliterated the signature verification process in Georgia. It made it virtually impossible to disqualify any ballots no matter how unlike the signature on the ballot was to the signature in the
registration file.
The most troubling aspect of it, to me, was that the law required that the signature match the registration signature. Secretary Raffensperger's settlement agreement required three people to unanimously agree that the signature did not match, and it had to be a Democrat, a Republican and
somebody else, so you were never going to get the unanimous agreement. That means no signature was ever going to get disqualified - and in Fulton
County, election officials did not even bother conducting signature verification
Even more important than the difficulty of disqualifying obviously falsified signatures was that, under the settlement agreement, the signature would be deemed valid if it matched either the registration signature or the
signature on the ballot application itself. That means that if someone fraudulently signed and submitted an application for an absentee ballot and then voted that ballot after fraudulently directing it to a different
address than the real voter's address, the signature on the ballot would
match the signature on the absentee ballot application and, voila, the fraudulent ballot would be deemed legal..
How do we know that went on? Well, we had anecdotal stories. A co-ed at
Georgia Tech University, if I recall correctly, testified before Senator Ligon's Committee in the Georgia Senate. She said she went to vote in person with her 18-year-old sister. They were going to make a big deal about going
to vote in person because the 18-year-old sister was voting for the first
time. They did not want to vote by mail. They wanted to make an event out of it, get a sticker, "I voted," and all that stuff. They get down to the
precinct and the 22-year-old is told that she has already voted. They said
she had applied for an absentee ballot.
"No, I didn't," she said. "Oh, Deary," they said, "you must have forgotten." Very patronizing. "No, I didn't forget.," she said. "We have been looking forward to this for months. I know I did not apply for an absentee ballot."
They subsequently found out that somebody had applied for an absentee ballot
in her name, had it mailed to a third-party address, not an address she
knew. She never recognized it, didn't understand it, and then she testified that she later learned that the fraudulent ballot was voted.
We had that kind of anecdotal evidence to prove that this change in the signature rules that Secretary Brad Raffensperger signed on to had actually resulted in fraud. The disqualification rates statewide, because of this
change in the law, went down by about 46%.
Why is the change in the rules through a settlement agreement a problem? Article II of our Constitution, the Federal Constitution, quite clearly
gives the sole power to direct the manner for choosing presidential electors
to the legislature of the State.
When Brad Raffensperger, who is not part of the legislature, unilaterally changed the rule from what the legislature had adopted by statute, that
change was unconstitutional, not just illegal.
Another alteration of the rules set out by the legislature occurred in
Fulton County. Election officials there ran portable voting machines in
heavily Democrat areas of Atlanta, which was contrary to state law.
Pennsylvania. One of my favorite cases comes out of Pennsylvania. The League
of Women Voters, which claims to be non-partisan but is clearly anything
but, filed what I believe was a collusive lawsuit against the Democrat Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Kathy Boockvar, in August of 2020.
The premise of the suit was that the signature verification requirement that election officials had been applying in Pennsylvania for a century violated
the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment because voters whose ballots
were disqualified were not given notice of the disqualification and an opportunity to cure the problem.
The premise of the lawsuit was that there was a signature verification
process but that it violated federal Due Process rights. The remedy the
League of Women Voters sought was to have the court mandate a notice and opportunity to cure requirement.
The Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania decided to resolve the lawsuit by providing something the League had not even requested. She
decided, on her own, that Pennsylvania did not really have a signature verification requirement at all, so the request relief - notice and
opportunity to cure - would not be necessary.
Unilaterally, she got rid of a statute that election officials in
Pennsylvania had been applying for 100 years to require signature
verification. She then asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to approve what
she had done.
She filed what was called a Petition for a King's Bench Warrant to ratify
what she had done. If I ever bump into her, I'm going to say, "You know, you have not had a king in Pennsylvania since 1776, maybe you ought to change
the name of that."
The partisan elected Pennsylvania Supreme Court obliged. Not only is there
no signature verification requirement in Pennsylvania, the Court held, but
all those statutes that describe how election officials are supposed to do signature verification are just relics; they really do not have any meaning.
So the Democrat majority on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, at the urging of the Democrat Secretary of the Commonwealth, just got rid of the whole
signature verification process.
Then the court went on to say: And since there is no signature verification requirement, there is no basis on which anybody would be able to challenge ballots, so we are going to get rid of the challenge parts of the election statutes as well, and since there is no basis to challenge, the statute that requires people to be in the room while things are being counted, that
really does not matter. It does not have to be meaningful observation. Being
at the front door of the football field-sized Philadelphia Convention Center was sufficient even though it was impossible to actually observe the
counting of ballots.
The statute actually requires that observers be "in the room," but it was written at a time when canvassing of ballots would occur in small settings, like the common room of the local library, where being "in the room" meant meaningful observation of the ballot counting process. Obliterating the very purpose of the statute, the court held that being "in the room" at the
entrance of the Philadelphia Convention Center was sufficient.
In other words, all of the statutory provisions that were designed to
protect against fraud were obliterated in Pennsylvania. We ought not to be surprised if fraud walked through the door left open by the unconstitutional elimination of these statutes.
To this day, there are 120,000 more votes that were cast in Pennsylvania
than their records show voters who have cast votes. Think about that:
120,000 more votes than voters who cast votes. The margin in Pennsylvania
was 80,000.
Wisconsin. One of the people who has testified for me in my California bar proceedings was Justice Mike Gableman, former Justice of the Wisconsin
Supreme Court. He was hired by the Wisconsin legislature to conduct an investigation.
His investigation efforts were thwarted at every turn, with the Secretary of State and others refusing to comply with subpoenas, etc. Nevertheless, he uncovered an amazing amount of illegality and fraud in the election. For example, the county clerks in Milwaukee and Madison had directed people that they could claim "indefinitely confined" status if they were merely afraid
of COVID.
That is clearly not permitted under the statute, but voters who followed the county clerks' directive and falsely claimed they were "indefinitely
confined" did not have to submit an ID with their absentee ballot as the law required -- again, opening the door for fraud.
Although the Wisconsin courts held that the advice was illegal and ordered
it to be withdrawn, the number of people claiming they were indefinitely confined went from about 50,000 in 2016 to more than a quarter of million in 2020. The illegal advice provided by those two county clerks in heavily Democrat counties clearly had impact.
Election officials in heavily Democrat counties also set up drop boxes. They even set up what they called "human drop boxes" in Madison, which is the
home of the University of Wisconsin. For two or three consecutive Saturdays before the election, they basically ran a ballot harvesting scheme at
taxpayer expense with volunteers - whom I suspect were actually supporters
of the Biden campaign -- working as "deputized" county clerks to go collect
all these ballots, in violation of state law.
How do I know it is a violation of the state law? The Wisconsin Supreme
Court after the fact agreed with us that it was a violation of state law.
One last piece. Wisconsin law is very clear. If you're going to vote
absentee, you have to have a witness sign a separate under-oath
certification that the person who is voting that ballot is who they say they are.
The witness has to fill out their name and address and sign it, under
penalty of perjury. A lot of these came in with the witness signatures, but
the address not filled in. The county clerks were directed by the Secretary
of State to fill the information in on their own. In other words, they were doctoring the evidence.
They were doing Google searches to get the name, to fill in an address to validate ballots that were clearly illegal under Wisconsin law. All told,
those couple of things combined, more than 200,000 ballots were affected in
a state where the margin victory was just over 20,000.
Then in Michigan, we had similar things going on. We probably all saw the
video of election officials boarding up the canvassing center at TCF Center
in Detroit so that people could not observe what was going on. There were hundreds of sworn affidavits about illegality in the conduct of that process
in Detroit.
Then there was one affidavit on the other side submitted by an election official who was responsible for legally managing the election. He said, basically, that everything was fine, it was all perfect.
The judge, without holding a hearing on a motion to dismiss, at which the allegations of the complaint are supposed to be taken as true, rejected all
the sworn affidavits from all the witnesses who actually observed the illegality, and instead credited the government affidavit - without the government witness evening being subject to questioning on
cross-examination.
This is a manifestation of what I have described as the increasingly
Orwellian tendency of our government. "We're the government and when we've spoken, you're just supposed to bend the knee and listen."
That was just some of the evidence we had. In those four states, and in
Arizona and Nevada as well, there is no question that the illegality that occurred affected way more ballots than the certified margin of Joe Biden's victory in all of those states.
It only took three of those six states -- any combination of three -- for
Trump to have won the election.
When I was coming out of the Georgia jailhouse after surrendering myself for the indictment down in Georgia, one of the reporters threw a question at me.
He said, "Do you still believe the election was stolen?"
I said, "Absolutely. I have no doubt in my mind," because of things like
this and because of the Gableman report, because of Dinesh D'Souza's book on 2000 Mules -- that stuff is true.
People say, "Well, it's not true. It's been debunked." No, it has not been debunked. In fact, there have been criminal convictions down in Pima County, Arizona, from the 2018 election, where people finally got caught doing the
same thing that Dinesh D'Souza said they were doing.
Dinesh's documentary was based on the investigative work conducted by
Catherine Engelbrecht of True the Vote. Her team obtained, at great expense, commercially-available cell phone location data and identified hundreds of people who visited multiple ballot drop boxes, oftentimes in the wee hours
of the morning, 10 or more different drop boxes. Then they got the video surveillance from those drop boxes (those that were actually working, that
is), confirming that the people were dropping in 8, 10, 12 ballots at a
time.
In Georgia, you are allowed to drop off ballots for immediate family
members, but I think it is fairly clear that these folks - "mules" is what
the documentary called them - were not family members. They were taking
selfies of themselves in front of the ballot boxes because, as the whistleblower noted to Engelbrecht, they were getting paid for each ballot
they delivered. In other words, this certainly looks like an illegal ballot harvesting scheme.
What has happened since then? Well, there is a group in DC, largely
hard-liner partisan Democrats, Hillary and Bill Clinton crowd, but joined by
a couple of hard-line never-Trump Republicans, or one, so they can claim
they are bipartisan. The group is called The 65 Project, and it is named
after the 65 cases brought by Trump's team that supposedly all ruled against Trump.
Well, first of all, that mantra, how many have heard it?: "All the cases,
all the courts ruled against Trump." First of all, that is not true. Most of the cases were rejected on very technical jurisdictional grounds, like a
case brought by a voter, rather than the candidate himself.
Individual voters do not have standing because they lack a particularized injury. Those were dismissed. There is no basis for claiming that there was anything wrong with the claims on the merits. It is just that the cases were not brought by the right people.
There was one case where one of these illegal guidances from the Secretary
of State was challenged before the election. The judge ruled that it was
just a guidance, and that until we get to election day to find out if the
law was actually violated, the case was not ripe -- and it got dismissed.
Then the day after the election, when election officials actually violated
the law, the case gets filed again, and the court says, "You can't wait
until your guy loses and then bring the election challenge. It's barred by a doctrine called laches. This is the kind of stuff that the Trump legal team
was dealing with in those 65 cases.
Of the cases that actually reached the merits --there were fewer than a
dozen of them, if I recall correctly -- Trump won three-fourths of them. You have never heard that in the "New York Times." And the Courts simply refused
to hear some clearly meritorious cases, such as one filed in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The majority in that case simply noted that it did not see
any need to hear the case, over a vigorous dissent that basically said, "Are you nuts? This was illegal, and we have a duty to hear the challenge."
Two years later, that same Court took up the issues that had been presented
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)