L.A. Claims 27% Error Rate in Recall Signatures; < 1% Error Rate in Mail-in Ballots in 2020

L.A. Claims 27% Error Rate in Recall Signatures; < 1% Error Rate in Mail-in Ballots in 2020

Los Angeles County reported Monday that over 27% of the signatures submitted on petitions to recall District Attorney George Gascón were invalid — after reporting that less than 1% of mail-in ballots were invalid in the 2020 election.

The county reported that it rejected 195,783 of the 715,833 signatures submitted, roughly 27.3%. The reasons given included that some voters were found to be unregistered; incorrect addresses were given; or signatures did not match those on file.

However, in January 2021, the county reported that less than 1% of the 3,422,585 vote-by-mail ballots submitted were rejected. The test for the validity of ballots is similar to that of petitions, involving checking signatures and addresses.

Given that the State of California mailed ballots to every voter on the rolls, rather than just to those who had requested them as in years past, there was a high likelihood of error; some voters reported receiving multiple ballots, often for prior residents. (These problems persisted in the 2021 recall election for Gov. Gavin Newsom, as personally witness by this author.)

Yet the county reported that 99.38% of vote-by-mail ballots were accepted in 2020. The number of vote-by-mail ballots that were rejected due to inaccurate signatures (12,135) in the election was close to the number rejected for that reason in the recall petitions (9,490), though the number of signatures to be examined in the election was roughly five times greater.

In the primary phase of the 2020 election, when many states were using vote-by-mail for the first time, the rejection rate was roughly one in four, according to the Washington Post. That rate of rejection was less than one percent nationwide in the general election — and lower than the rejection rate in 2016 in many states, when there were far fewer people voting by mail.

One explanation, according to FiveThirtyEight.com, was that “states … proactively changed their election policies to prevent ballots from getting tossed due to lateness,” and that voters were given a chance to “cure” invalid ballots. A more cynical theory was that officials may have lowered standards for rejection given the emphasis on vote-by-mail during the pandemic.

Recall proponents complained that they were not allowed to watch the signature verification process, after county officials said they were not required to allow observers since the petition drive did not qualify as an “election” under state law.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Source

If Male Genitalia Are All Elizabeth Warren Needs To Take The White House, Why Hasn’t She Just Gotten Them?

If Male Genitalia Are All Elizabeth Warren Needs To Take The White House, Why Hasn’t She Just Gotten Them?

There’s a fun new Elizabeth Warren quote floating around, thanks to an excerpt of Ali Vitali’s forthcoming book “Electable: Why America Hasn’t Put a Woman in the White House … Yet” published in Politico on Friday.

The article, which centers mostly on events from the 2020 election cycle and intra-party snafus between Warren and Bernie Sanders about whether the latter thinks women can win presidential elections, ends on this absolute banger of a quote from the #persister: “Everyone comes up to me and says, ‘I would vote for you, if you had a penis.’”

Ignoring for a moment the absurdity of the whole thing (her use of the word “everyone” is almost as believable as her claims to American Indian heritage) and her vulgarity (she could have just said “if you were a man”), there’s a bigger point here. Though Warren claims she believes “women win,” deep down she appears to believe that the primary thing barring her from the White House is her biology and Democrat voters’ misogyny. But why should that stop her?

According to her party and Warren herself, biology is mutable. During the 2020 election cycle, the senator from Massachusetts became somewhat of an icon among transgender-identified folks, with her “focus on protecting black trans women in particular” hailed as “unprecedented” by fawning media. She leaned so hard into the idea that women can become men and vice versa, in fact, that during a town hall she pledged that whomever she would nominate to head her Department of Education would have to be vetted by a 9-year-old kid whose parents had confused her into believing she was a little boy.

Warren has made her position abundantly clear: She’s a firm believer in and will “fight” for so-called “gender-affirming health care” including “transition-related surgeries.” These are the types of procedures her party, the media, and corrupt medical professionals constantly insist are safe and simple. So if Warren really thinks her lack of a penis is the only reason “everyone” isn’t voting for her, why doesn’t she just get one? Phalloplasties-on-demand are right up Democrats’ alley.

Maybe Warren figures she’s already appropriated enough and doesn’t want to encroach on the territory of trans people — the way the white man encroached on the territory of her ancestors. But she wants the presidency badly, so a quick, easy surgery (which could soon be paid for by a taxpayer like you if Warren has anything to say about it) seems like an obvious solution.

I have a hunch Warren-with-a-penis would quickly learn there’s more keeping her from the Oval Office than what’s between her legs. But nevertheless, they/them will persist.


The Federalist logo eagle mark

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Subscribe

Source

Dick Cheney Ignores His Own Record While Indicting Trump As Worst Threat To American Democracy Ever

Dick Cheney Ignores His Own Record While Indicting Trump As Worst Threat To American Democracy Ever

Former Vice President Dick Cheney dismissed his own record launching an overseas war based on junk intelligence when he claimed Thursday that former President Donald Trump is the worst threat to the republic since the Declaration of Independence was signed.

On Thursday, endangered Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, whom the state GOP no longer recognizes as a Republican, published a video of her father’s endorsement.

“In our nation’s 246-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump,” said the former vice president under George W. Bush.

“He lost his election, and he lost big,” Dick Cheney added, despite Trump only losing the 2020 contest by less than 50,000 votes across three tipping-point states. Nevertheless, Cheney said, “I know it, he knows it, and deep down I think most Republicans know it.”

The 81-year-old longtime presidential adviser, whose Washington resume stretches from the Ford White House to both Bush administrations, appeared in the one-minute ad less than two weeks before Liz Cheney faces primary voters at the ballot box. The three-term incumbent is up against Trump-endorsed attorney Harriet Hageman, who, according to a July poll sponsored by the Casper-Star Tribune, is up by 22 points.

During the second Bush administration, Dick Cheney was a “chief architect” of the Iraq war, sending American troops into a conflict that would last decades without an exit strategy. The invasion was launched under the pretense that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) based on U.S. intelligence. The classified information cited by the White House to justify the war however, turned out to be one of the worst intelligence failures in modern American history, if not the worst failure.

The oldest living former vice president’s assertion that Trump is the greatest threat to the republic in its existence, meanwhile, glosses over the dozens of historical figures who surely did more harm. Was Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy who oversaw a four-year insurrection, less of a threat than Donald Trump? Was John Wilkes Booth, who shot President Abraham Lincoln, less of a threat? What about Benedict Arnold?

It’s unlikely that Dick Cheney’s video will save Liz’s House seat. According to an Axios poll in March, less than 2 in 5 GOP Wyoming voters reported a favorable opinion of former vice president. Nearly half, 48 percent, said they view Dick Cheney unfavorably.


Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

The Federalist logo eagle mark

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Subscribe

Source

Harvard Study: Only 8% of Capitol Rioters Wanted ‘Insurrection’

Harvard Study: Only 8% of Capitol Rioters Wanted ‘Insurrection’

A comprehensive study by Harvard University of the motivations of those who participated in the January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol found that only 8% wanted to start an insurrection or civil war — contrary to claims by the January 6 Committee.

The Harvard Crimson reported last week:

In the most comprehensive study to date of what motivated the Trump supporters to attack the Capitol, Shorenstein Center researchers found that 20.6 percent of the rioters, a plurality, were motivated to take part in the riot because they supported Trump. Another 20.6 percent of the rioters cited Trump’s fraudulent claims that the 2020 presidential election was rigged as their primary reason for participating in the Jan. 6 riot.

The third most common reason for attacking the Capitol: a desire to start a civil war or an armed revolution, according to the study. Almost 8 percent of defendants indicated it was their main motivation.

In an interview, Fagan said she was surprised by how frequently support for Trump and concerns about the election were cited as primary motivations for joining the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

As constitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley has pointed out, the study suggests that many of the participants in the riot believed — rightly or wrongly — that they were defending democracy, not trying to overthrow it:

The study found that a plurality of the 417 federally charged defendants were motivated by the “lies about election fraud and enthusiasm for his re-election.” It concluded that “[t]he documents show that Trump and his allies convinced an unquantifiable number of Americans that representative democracy in the United States was not only in decline, but in imminent, existential danger.”

The study also found that belief in QAnon “was one of the [defendants’] lesser motives.” The study was hardly pro-Trump and one author even expressed surprise with the results since conspiracy theories “were so prominently displayed in much of the [riot’s] visual imagery.”

Once again, none of this exonerates or excuses those who rioted on January 6th or those who fueled the riot. However, the use of “insurrection” by the politicians, pundits, and the press is not an accurate characterization of the motivation of most of the people who went to the Capitol on that day. It was clear that this was a protest that became a riot.

Several members of the January 6 Committee, including chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), have in the past objected to the certification of presidential elections when Republicans have won, claiming irregularities with voting machines or foreign interference.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Source

Political Hackery of Georgia Dem Harassing Sen. Graham Would Have Framers Spinning

Political Hackery of Georgia Dem Harassing Sen. Graham Would Have Framers Spinning

Even our Founding Fathers could not have foreseen the political hackery on display in Fulton County, a motion filed late Friday in a Georgia federal court by Sen. Lindsey Graham’s legal team makes clear.

Earlier this month, Fulton County’s Democrat District Attorney Fani Willis obtained permission to subpoena Graham with the goal of forcing the United States senator from South Carolina to testify before her fake grand jury. Graham had originally filed a motion to quash the subpoena in a federal court in South Carolina but later agreed with Willis to dismiss that motion and refile it in a Georgia federal court, which he did this afternoon. 

In his motion to quash, Graham opened by stressing that Willis had obtained permission in early 2022 from the Fulton County Superior Court to impanel a “special grand jury” to assist in her supposed investigation “into any coordinated attempts to unlawfully alter the outcome of the 2020 elections in this state,” but the term “grand jury” is a misnomer. Unlike a typical grand jury, Willis’ grand jury “cannot indict; all it does is investigate and issue non-binding recommendations.”

Yet Willis demands that Graham and a parade of other nationally known Republicans, such as Trump’s election lawyers Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Jenna Ellis, and Cleta Mitchell, march into Fulton County for questioning by county prosecutors. While Democrats may take glee in Willis’s politically motivated “investigation” and her targeting of big-name Republicans — she has reportedly already forced Georgia Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and Deputy Secretary of State Gabe Sterling to testify before the “special grand jury” — her attempt to haul Graham into a county courthouse in Georgia should raise concerns on both sides of the aisle. 

Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution provides that “for any Speech or Debate in either House, [members] shall not be questioned in any other Place.” This clause, known commonly as “the Speech or Debate Clause,” applies not just to “speech” and “debate” in the literal sense, but also “protects a member’s conduct if it is an integral part of the due functioning of the legislative process.” 

Graham seeks to quash Willis’s subpoena based on the Speech or Debate clause; he also argues that sovereign immunity and the “high-ranking official” doctrine prevent the county D.A. from subpoenaing him.

From a purely textual perspective, Graham’s Speech or Debate argument should succeed, as I detailed previously. In short, the Fulton County prosecutor seeks to “question” him in a place other than Congress. Further, in claiming Graham is “a necessary and material witness,” Willis focuses on two telephone conversations the senator had with Raffensperger and his staff about absentee ballots and allegations of widespread voter fraud, but as Graham stresses, his questioning of the secretary of state on reported irregularities in Georgia’s election were “integral” to the “functioning of the legislative process.” 

Specifically, as a senator, Graham had the authority to raise objections to a state’s certificates of electors under the Electoral Count Act, as well as to debate the objections raised by others, and then vote on the objections. Graham did precisely that. And as I previously explained, the Supreme Court has made “clear that obtaining information for the purpose of legislating ‘wisely or effectively’ constitutes an appropriate ‘legislative function.’” Under these circumstances, the Speech or Debate Clause, properly understood, should keep the county D.A. out of the Senate’s business.

But beyond the textual argument, which the federal court will likely consider in the next week or so on an expedited time frame, the underlying rationale for the Speech or Debate Clause should provide a stark warning to Democrats that what Willis is doing is destructive to our democratic republic and should be denounced. 

As Graham’s attorneys stressed in his motion, the framers believed the Speech or Debate Clause was “‘indispensably necessary’ for the independence of the legislature, and ultimately for the ‘rights of the people.’” Only by protecting members of Congress from being questioned about their legislative activity could the integrity of the legislative process be assured. “By ‘enabling these representatives to execute the functions of their office without fear’ of interference from prosecutors, grand juries, or courts, the Framers understood that the ‘rights of the people’ would, in turn, be protected.” 

But here, we don’t truly have a “prosecutor” or a “grand jury”; we have an inquisitor and her trial of Republicans by publicity. And the Fulton County court seems but a rubber stamp for the subpoenas Willis seeks.

And Willis is but one county D.A. Imagine the mischief if every prosecutor with political ambitions followed her lead.

If the federal court hearing Graham’s motion to quash does not put a stop to this Fulton County prosecutor’s ploy, “there would be nothing to stop any state or local official from investigating — or ‘intimidat[ing]’ under the veneer of investigating — Senators or Representatives with which they disagree.”

Democrats may not care now, and they may never care about the Constitution, but they would be wise to worry about payback.


Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

The Federalist logo eagle mark

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Subscribe

Source

Candidate Joe Biden Promised to ‘Pull This Country Out of a Recession’ in 2020

Candidate Joe Biden Promised to ‘Pull This Country Out of a Recession’ in 2020

Candidate Joe Biden promised to get the United States out of the recession caused by the coronavirus and the subsequent economic shutdowns when he ran for president.

“I helped pull this country out of a recession before — and, as president, I’ll do it again,” Biden wrote on social media in October 2020.

The president’s old promises were revisited Thursday on social media after the latest GDP numbers were released for the second quarter of 2022, showing two consecutive quarters of contracted growth.

That makes Biden responsible for a recession, despite White House efforts to redefine what it actually means.

In spite of spending trillions of dollars and fueling record-high inflation, Biden has struggled to explain why economic growth has slowed on his watch.

In a statement to reporters, Biden blamed the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy for the economy’s slowing.

“[I]t’s no surprise that the economy is slowing down as the Federal Reserve acts to bring down inflation,” he said.

The president spoke Thursday about his support for the latest Democrat attempt to raise taxes and spend $433 billion more as proof he is committed to fighting inflation.

Source

FBI Sabotaged Hunter Biden Probe To Derail Investigation

FBI Sabotaged Hunter Biden Probe To Derail Investigation


FBI Sabotaged Hunter Biden Probe To Derail Investigation

FBI Whistleblowers

ZH

Several FBI whistleblowers say that the agency’s probe into Hunter Biden was internally sabotaged during the 2020 election in order to derail the investigation, after agents wrongfully deemed verified evidence as “disinformation” to ignore.

According to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), agents investigating Hunter “opened an assessment which was used by an FBI headquarters team to improperly discredit negative Hunter Biden information as disinformation and caused investigative activity to cease,” adding that his office received “a significant number of protected communications from highly credible whistleblowers” regarding the investigation.

Grassley added that “verified and verifiable derogatory information on Hunter Biden was falsely labeled as disinformation,” according to the Washington Examiner.

FBI supervisory intelligence agent Brian Auten opened in August 2020 the assessment that was later used by the agency, according to the disclosures. One of the whistleblowers claimed the FBI assistant special agent in charge of the Washington field office, Timothy Thibault, shut down a line of inquiry into Hunter Biden in October 2020 despite some of the details being known to be true at the time.

A whistleblower also said Thibault “ordered closed” an “avenue of additional derogatory Hunter Biden reporting,” according to Grassley, even though “all of the reporting was either verified or verifiable via criminal search warrants.” The senator said Thibault “ordered the matter closed without providing a valid reason as required” and that FBI officials “subsequently attempted to improperly mark the matter in FBI systems so that it could not be opened in the future,” according to the disclosures.

The whistleblowers say investigators from FBI headquarters were “in communication with FBI agents responsible for the Hunter Biden information targeted by Mr. Auten’s assessment,” and that their findings on whether the claims were in fact disinformation were placed “in a restricted access sub-file” in September 2020, according to Grassley, who added that the disclosures “appear to indicate that there was a scheme in place among certain FBI officials to undermine derogatory information connected to Hunter Biden by falsely suggesting it was disinformation.

Grassley summarized the new allegations in a Monday letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray.

The Examiner notes that FBI agent Auten was involved in the Trump-Russia investigation, including interviewing Christopher Steele’s primary source, Igor Danchenko.

According to Grassley, the “volume and consistency” of the allegations regarding the handling of the Hunter Biden probe “substantiate their credibility.”

The assessment by Auten in August 2020 was opened the same month Grassley and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) received a briefing from the FBI “that purportedly related to our Biden investigation and a briefing for which the contents were later leaked in order to paint the investigation in a false light,” Grassley said. The senator said Senate Democrats asked for a briefing in July 2020 “from the very same FBI HQ team that discredited the derogatory Hunter Biden information.”

The FBI inquiry into Hunter Biden reportedly began as a tax investigation, then expanded into a scrutiny of potential money-laundering and foreign lobbying; the DOJ has declined to hand over investigative details. -Washington Examiner

Thibault, the FBI agent who allegedly quashed the Hunter probe, may have violated the Hatch act in 2020 after making posts on social media which were critical of then-president Donald Trump and former AG William Barr.

Joe Biden, top Democrats, and virtually the entire mainstream media dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop story as Russian dis-information when bombshell allegations from the New York Post emerged weeks before the 2020 election. In March 2021, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a report claiming that figures tied to Russian intelligence promoted “misleading or unsubstantiated allegations” about Joe Biden.

View Grassley to Garland and Wray Scribd Document here

*********

(TLB) published this article from ZeroHedge as written and compiled by Tyler Durden

Header featured image (edited) credit:  Hunter Biden/greatgameindia.com  /hunter-biden

Emphasis added by (TLB) editors

••••

••••

Stay tuned to …

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Source

Biden Defended Portland Anarchists as ‘Peaceful Protesters’ but Claims Trump Failed Cops on Jan. 6

Biden Defended Portland Anarchists as ‘Peaceful Protesters’ but Claims Trump Failed Cops on Jan. 6

President Joe Biden argued Monday that former President Donald Trump’s reluctance to condemn his supporters for storming Capitol Hill on Jan. 6 is proof the former president did not support police officers.

The president said Capitol Police officers faced “medieval hell for three hours, dripping in blood, surrounded by carnage” during the events of January 6.

“Face to face with a crazed mob that believed the lies of the defeated president, the police were heroes that day,” Biden continued. “Donald Trump lacked the courage to act. The brave women and men in blue all across this nation should never forget that.”

Biden spoke to the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives Conference virtually on Monday as he continues recovering from coronavirus.

Despite Trump’s repeated vocal support of law enforcement, Biden suggested that the president did not care about police officers because he did not demand his supporters back down from their protest of the 2020 election.

“You can’t be pro-insurrection and pro-cop,” Biden said. “You can’t be pro-insurrection and pro-democracy. You can’t be pro-insurrection and pro-America.”

During the 2020 presidential campaign, however, Biden sided with protesters over law enforcement after they attacked federal property in Portland in the name of protesting the death of George Floyd.

“They are brutally attacking peaceful protesters,” Biden said in a statement criticizing federal officers deployed by then-President Donald Trump in response to violent anarchists attacking federal buildings in Portland, Oregon.

Biden spent most of the 2020 presidential campaign criticizing police officers and even blamed law enforcement for fueling distrust in minority communities in a statement on Peace Officers Memorial Day in 2021.

“[W]e also recognize that in many of our communities, especially Black and brown communities, there is a deep sense of distrust towards law enforcement,” Biden said, describing it as “a distrust that has been exacerbated by the recent deaths of several Black and brown people at the hands of law enforcement.”

With a rise in violent crime in many of America’s major cities, Biden has tried to rebrand himself as a president who supports law enforcement even after he endorsed redirecting funding for the police.

“Folks, the answer is not to abandon the streets. It’s not to choose between safety and equal justice. And we should agree it’s not to defund the police, it’s to fund the police,” Biden said during his State of the Union speech in March. “Fund them. Fund them. Fund them.”

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)