Court Reinstates Louisiana AG’s Lawsuit Against Zuckerberg’s Election-Meddling Group

Court Reinstates Louisiana AG’s Lawsuit Against Zuckerberg’s Election-Meddling Group

Last week, a Louisiana appellate court reinstated Attorney General Jeff Landry’s lawsuit challenging Mark Zuckerberg’s infiltration of the state election system with private “Zuck Bucks” that flooded the country during the 2020 election.

The lawsuit, State of Louisiana v. Center for Tech and Civic Life, originated in October 2020. That’s when Louisiana, through Landry, sought a court order declaring that “private contributions to local election officials and the election system in general are unlawful and contrary to Louisiana law.” Landry’s lawsuit followed attempts by the Zuckenberg-funded Center for Tech and Civic Life to dole out millions in targeted grants to election officials throughout the state.

By the time Landry sued, more than 20 officials throughout the state had applied for grants of nearly $8 million, but after the attorney general warned them the funds were illegal, most abandoned their efforts. Orleans and Calcasieu parishes, however, went on to accept more than $810,000 in funds for the 2020 election.

While Landry succeeded in limiting the impact of the Zuckbucks in Louisiana to two parishes, his efforts to prevent what he called “the corrosive influence of outside money on Louisiana election officials” initially failed when a state trial court dismissed his lawsuit against the Center for Tech and Civic Life and its partner organizations.

In tossing the case, the trial judge held there was no legal basis to prevent “registrars of voters, clerks of court, or other local election officials from seeking and obtaining grant dollars to assist with the funding the necessary staff and equipment for the upcoming November 3, 2020 election.” In reaching this conclusion, the trial court relied on Louisiana’s constitution, specifically article 6, § 23.

That provision authorizes “political subdivisions” to “acquire property for any public purpose,” by among other things, “donation.” The trial court then reasoned that because “registrar of voters and clerks of court are ‘political subdivisions,’” “they are allowed to accept private donations,” including to run elections. Accordingly, the trial court tossed the state’s lawsuit and allowed the private funds to flow into the parish coffers.

Landry appealed the dismissal of the state’s challenge to the Zuckbuck scheme and last Wednesday the Louisiana appellate court reversed the lower court decision. In reversing the trial court and reinstating Landry’s lawsuit against the Center for Tech and Civic Life and the other defendant organizations that assisted in distributing the Zuckbucks, the Louisiana appellate court analyzed controlling precedent to determine whether the clerks of court and the registrar of voters are “political subdivisions” within the meaning of art. 6 § 23 of the Louisiana constitution.

They are not, the appellate court concluded. “Rather it is clear that they are constitutional officers created by the State pursuant to our constitution,” the appellate court continued, “and both officers have only the powers, duties, and responsibilities as granted to them by law.”

Because the clerks of court and registrar of voters to whom the Zuckbucks were to be distributed “are not creatures of local government,” they may not “acquire property” by “donation” under art. 6, § 23 of the state constitution, the court held. The Louisiana appellate court then reversed the dismissal of the case and returned it to the lower court for further proceedings on the state’s challenge to the private funding of elections.

In reversing the trial court decision, the appellate court did not declare the Zuckbuck funding of elections illegal but left that to the court below to decide. However, the appellate court’s decision highlighted that “the Louisiana Constitution provides that the secretary of state is the ‘chief election officer of the state,’” and that “he shall prepare and certify the ballots for all elections, promulgate all election returns, and administer the election laws, except those relating to voter registration and custody of voting machines.” The appellate court further stressed that “the secretary of state is also responsible for paying all election costs and expenses.”

This analysis supports Landry’s argument in the underlying lawsuit that because Louisiana’s election laws are “comprehensive and exclusive” and provide for the state “funding of elections and election costs” “the use of private money to fund elections in the State of Louisiana” is illegal. But that will be a question for the lower court to determine on remand.

First, though, there will be the discovery process, including depositions of the relevant players. Landry told The Federalist in a Monday interview that with the case reinstated he “looks forward now to proceeding with the normal process of discovery.”

Landry added that the situation today is much different than the one the state confronted when the lawsuit was originally filed. Since the election, there have been extremely troubling revelations about the approximately $350 million pumped into the election system by Zuckerberg’s organization, Landry noted.

While the attorney general spoke only generally about the problems, he noted two fundamental problems underlying the private funding of elections. First, money is flowing into the system “in the darkness of night,” Landry stressed. Second, the Zuckbucks were used to achieve a targeted disenfranchisement, with rural Louisianans treated less favorably than their fellow citizens living in populated areas.

Details from other states confirm Landry’s concerns. In Wisconsin, a retired election clerk in a large Wisconsin county explained how, behind closed doors, “political activists working for a group funded by Mark Zuckerberg money seized control of the November elections in Green Bay and other cities, sidelining career experts and making last-minute changes that may have violated state law.”

Similarly, in other states, Zuckbucks created “a ‘shadow’ election system with a built-in structural bias,” according to analyses conducted after the election. Post-election analyses of the data likewise reveal the $350 million in funding disproportionately favored Democrat-heavy areas — so much so that it could have changed the outcome of the election.

Backlash against buying the election for Biden with Zuckbucks has prompted several states to pass laws expressly prohibiting the use of private funds for election purposes. As of March 2022, private funds are either restricted or banned in the running of elections in more than a dozen states. State legislatures in five additional states passed similar restrictions on outside funds, but those bills were vetoed by the governors — all of whom were Democrats.

Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards is one of the five Democrats to veto a legislative ban on the private funding of elections. But with last week’s appellate court decision reinstating Landry’s challenge to the use of private funds in elections, the state may nonetheless prevail in its attempt to keep outside money from interfering in future elections.

Before the case returns to the trial court, however, the Center for Tech and Civic Life may attempt to appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court. The Federalist contacted an attorney for the group, asking if an appeal would be forthcoming, but our request for comment went unanswered.


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.

Source

How Much Did Mark Zuckerberg’s Money Shift Wisconsin Votes For Biden?

How Much Did Mark Zuckerberg’s Money Shift Wisconsin Votes For Biden?

We believe—and hope—that conservatives can rally in support of greater election integrity measures that can address legitimate concerns about how the 2020 election was conducted. But to do that, we must focus on arguments that withstand scrutiny.

Recently, Dr. William Doyle wrote a response to a Wall Street Journal editorial that cited our organization’s work investigating the 2020 election in Wisconsin. The author seems chiefly concerned about our analysis of private election funding from the Mark Zuckerberg-funded Center for Tech and Civic Life, and argues that it was “deeply flawed.”

He points to his own analysis of CTCL, and its claims, as the better study. Not only do we disagree with his analysis, we fear studies like this could damage efforts to improve election security.

The article characterized the WSJ and WILL’s position as “[t]here were some slight ‘problems’ with the election.” That’s not true. We thought private funding of election administration was biased, significant, objectionable, and should end moving forward.

Indeed, WILL supported legislation that would have required any private funds to be distributed based on population to all municipalities in the state. Unfortunately, that bill was vetoed by Gov. Tony Evers, even though an equal distribution of private funding for mail-in voting could still be expected to benefit Democrats.

We reached this conclusion because we found the distribution of CTCL funds was skewed toward heavily Democratic areas and materially increased turnout in these areas. The author seems to believe we assume all counties were equally affected by CTCL funds. This is not correct.

What we did do is examine all municipalities that received CTCL funds, not just those that received the most. That is what one should do in attempting to assess the statewide impact of this funding. That statistical analysis led us to conclude that skewed CTCL funding may have increased Biden’s turnout by 8,000 votes. Since the race in Wisconsin was decided by a bit more than 20,000 votes, that’s a very significant finding. 

Doyle says he found a larger impact, but we think his methodology was fundamentally flawed. He compares the 2016 and 2020 election results only in counties that increased their votes for Biden. The problem is that, apart from a minor adjustment for population growth and the statewide turnout increase, his model considers only that factor.

Put differently, his study assumes its conclusion and attributes almost all increases in turnout for Biden to CTCL grants. Indeed, any counties that got substantial amounts of funding but showed a net gain for Trump were completely left out of his count of the effect. Ignoring data that runs counter to your hypothesis is a fundamental flaw in research. It may stoke partisan rage, but it will convince no one who is not already part of the choir.

This failure to consider other factors is fatal to conservative arguments like those we and other readers of The Federalist want to see made. Across the nation, voter turnout increased by more than 17 million over 2016, including in areas without a CTCL presence.

In Wisconsin, Trump received 200,000 more votes in 2020 than he did in his previous election, yet our study found that CTCL funding did not benefit Trump. This was a national election that generated a lot of attention, and CTCL grants in states like Wisconsin were one of many factors that may have contributed to increased voter turnout.

Indeed, our election report points to a number of other areas that warrant further discussion such as the excessive use of indefinitely confined status to obtain absentee ballots, the illegal use of ballot drop boxes (something we have challenged in court), and subjectivity in absentee ballot rejection rates. Yet, in Doyle’s analysis, there is no attempt to account for any of these factors. 

There are other problems with the author’s study. For example, he uses county-level election returns to measure the effects of grants that almost exclusively occurred at the municipal level in Wisconsin. This winds up masking the fact that Biden only gained about 6,000 more votes in the city of Milwaukee than Hillary Clinton did in 2016, underperforming increased turnout in the rest of the state.

Even under our more thorough and careful approach, the CTCL funding made a big difference. Why exaggerate it? Nor should we go beyond what the evidence shows. Finding that CTCL raised Biden turnout by 8,000 (or even 65,000) doesn’t mean these new voters weren’t real people and eligible to vote.

Based on what we know, CTCL did not result in fraud such as made-up votes and ineligible voters. But it did put a fairly large thumb on the scale for Democrat turnout efforts. Unfortunately, such funding is probably legal. If someone would uncover illegal acts funded by CTCL, it’d be a different matter. So far, no one has.

CTCL’s closeness with supposedly neutral election officials was somewhere between unsavory and putrid. It injected a private and partisan actor into the administration of our elections. Even if that’s not illegal currently, it is definitely unfair and unseemly. To reiterate, we believe that dynamic should change moving forward.

WILL is committed to the conservative cause and our litigation and policy work speaks for itself. And we don’t think the movement is served well by studies like this even if they might provide “more” support for our position.

Serious work to improve election integrity requires a willingness to call “balls and strikes.” We have found that this leads to court victories and policy reforms. There is no inconsistency between commitment and rigor. 


Rick Esenberg is the president and general counsel of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. Will Flanders, PhD is the research director of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty.

Source

New Videos Capture Pennsylvania Officials Hiding Evidence Of Alleged Election Fraud

New Videos Capture Pennsylvania Officials Hiding Evidence Of Alleged Election Fraud

New whistleblower videos capture Delaware County, Pennsylvania officials plotting to recreate missing election data from the November 2020 contest, with one official later bragging that the local Democrat district attorney “owes him.” These recordings represent the latest evidence of the alleged fraud officials in the Pennsylvania county undertook to hide widespread violations of the state’s election laws, according to a source familiar with the recordings.

Whistleblower Regina Miller, who worked as a contract employee for Delaware County, secretly recorded the behind-the-scenes videos of election officials after witnessing concerning conduct, according to sources with knowledge of a fraud lawsuit filed last month against county election officials, based in part on the recordings. That lawsuit alleged county election officials destroyed election data in response to a May 21, 2021 Right to Know Request filed with Delaware County that requested the final certified return sheets from the Nov. 3, 2020 general election for all Delaware County precincts, as well as the tapes from the voting machines. 

While earlier videos captured Delaware County officials destroying election material or blocking out “derogatory” information in the copies made in response to the Right to Know Request, the latest video captures two election officials discussing putting in “blank” V-drives, which are the thumb drives that record the results from election machines, to recreate the election results reported by the county.

In one video, James Savage, who served as the chief custodian and voting machine warehouse supervisor for the Delaware County Voting Machine Department during the November 2020 election, is seen talking with another election official who is blocked from the camera’s view.

The duo are discussing the Right to Know Request, according to a source with knowledge on the matter, with Savage inquiring on “recreating data.” The individual off-camera chimes in with his suggested approach that would entail recreating results for “these jokers,” and “then create another set for the next set of jokers” — an apparent reference to the individuals who filed the Right-to-Know request — “but we cut it up and then we create a permanent record,” he explains.

“Here you go, here you go,” the election official is heard saying, mimicking what they could say as they provide the “jokers” the supposedly official election-data documentation. The unseen individual then continues, “We scan those cut, copied sheets in.”

“The first part has a lot of work, but it might save us work in the long run, if it’s gonna be a drip, drip, drip,” Savage is seen saying. The two then talk more about the process with Savage asking about whether they are talking about going to every machine and putting in a clean V-drive. The off-camera election worker appears to concur with that approach.

[embedded content]

I sought comment from the attorney who represents Savage in a defamation action the Delaware County official filed against two local poll watchers, as well as Trump and his legal team. Savage, who had filed his lawsuit before news broke that a whistleblower had recorded closed-door conversations, did not answer whether he intended to continue with that defamation claim nor why was there a need to recreate election data.

Savage’s attorney did not respond to requests for comment.

Savage was previously seen on tape talking with an individual identified by people familiar with the litigation as James Allen, the director of election operations for Delaware County. In that video, Allen is heard telling Savage, “Then get rid of the pads and the second scanners.”

“We can’t talk about it anymore,” Savage replies, with Allen questioning, “Why?”

“It’s a felony,” Savage states.

The fraud complaint filed against the Delaware County officials added that, after declaring “it’s a felony,” Savage then allegedly “encouraged a private conversation to continue the conversation of the removal of the pads and scanners due to other Delaware County employees and [contract employee] Regina Miller,” who was present.

Savage stars in two additional short video clips I obtained, in which he brags that the local district attorney “owes” him because he had previously run elections from the other side.

“I was the vice-chair of the Democratic Party,” Savage is heard saying. “I was like Jack’s progressive shield, he held me up” — an apparent reference to Delaware County D.A. Jack Stollsteimer. Savage also explains he served as Jack’s “buffer.”

[embedded content]

The videos featuring Savage are particularly concerning because the Delaware County Return Board, in transmitting its report to the Delaware County Board of Election, singled out Savage and his staff for “his guidance and help,” in the Return Board’s November 2020 reconciliation project. Also troubling was the Return Board’s inability to reconcile the election results for 79 precincts within Delaware County, including issues with some precincts that involved inconsistencies between the list of voters and the county return sheets, with the Return Board referring those precincts to Delaware County D.A. Stollsteimer.

Stollsteimer did not return a request for comment on Savage’s claim that Stollsteimer “owed” him. Also unanswered were The Federalist’s questions concerning whether the D.A.’s office has opened any investigation into the evidence seen on the whistleblower’s tapes.


Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. 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.

Source

Former Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch Sues Wisconsin Elections Commission For Flagrantly Breaking The Law

Former Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch Sues Wisconsin Elections Commission For Flagrantly Breaking The Law

Wisconsin’s former Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch filed a lawsuit with the state Supreme Court on Monday against the Wisconsin Elections Commission for breaking state laws in the 2020 cycle.

In her lawsuit, Kleefisch, a Republican running for governor next year, asked the court to declare that the elections commission’s guidance is against state law and enjoin the commission to carry out a lawful election in 2022. She requested that the Supreme Court take up jurisdiction so the lawsuit doesn’t get tangled up in the lower courts and stalled during next year’s election.

“We need to make sure that the law-breaking we saw happen in 2020 never happens again in Wisconsin,” Kleefisch told The Federalist. “This is about forcing the Wisconsin Elections Commission to clean up their act and provide clear, law-abiding plans for how to implement the 2022 elections.”

The lawsuit follows the Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau finding numerous times when the elections commission clearly broke state law, including with unattended ballot drop boxes, closed polling locations, and special voting deputies being banned from nursing homes.

One Racine law enforcement investigation revealed how the Wisconsin Elections Commission instructed the staff of a nursing home to break the law by helping residents to vote, a task that nobody is permitted to do except the residents’ families or special voting deputies, which are people appointed by municipal clerks or elections boards to conduct absentee voting at care facilities.

An “election statute was in fact not just broken, but shattered by members of the Wisconsin Elections Commission,” Racine County Sheriff Christopher Schmaling said during an October press conference.

The sergeant who led the investigation found an unusual spike in voting at the Ridgewood Care Facility: 42 people had voted in the 2020 presidential election. That number is usually 10. Additionally, in 2020, 38 people had requested absentee ballots, up from the usual 0-3 in normal years. When the sergeant attempted to contact the families of these voters to check whether their loved ones had the cognitive capacity to cast a vote, seven replied no, and almost all of them hadn’t voted since 2012.

“We’re just one of 72 counties, Racine County,” Schmaling added. “Ridgeland is one of 11 facilities within our county. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of these facilities throughout the entire state of Wisconsin. We would be foolish, we would be foolish to think for a moment that this integrity issue, this violation of the statute, occurred to just this small group of people at one care facility in one county in the entire state.”

The problems outlined in Kleefisch’s lawsuit are just a few of many 2020 election integrity issues in the Dairy State. As The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway outlines in her new book “Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections,” the elections commission also wrongly kept third-party candidates off the ballot, including Kanye West and the Green Party’s Howie Hawkins. Third parties can significantly affect elections in Wisconsin.

The commission “was downright derelict in its duty to fairly and impartially oversee an election,” according to Wisconsin radio host and lawyer Dan O’Donnell, who documented how the commission unlawfully allowed clerks to “cure” ballots, illegally permitted clerks to go home on election night and return in the morning to finish counting, and illegally told clerks they could relocate polling locations in the weeks before the election.

The commission also failed to issue relevant laws and rules for training municipal election workers, special voting deputies, and election inspections. Worse, it failed to investigate voter rolls for the hundreds of thousands there incorrectly, including more than 45,000 first-time voters whose names didn’t match Department of Transportation records, among other issues.

“Our freedom, our way of life, and the future of our great nation all depend on free and fair elections — elections where every voter can trust the process and the result,” Kleefisch said. “Wisconsinites are sick and tired of unelected bureaucrats intentionally ignoring the law.”

Source

Wisconsin Elections Commission ‘Shattered’ Laws By Telling Nursing Home Staffers To Illegally Cast Ballots For Residents

Wisconsin Elections Commission ‘Shattered’ Laws By Telling Nursing Home Staffers To Illegally Cast Ballots For Residents

Racine County, Wisconsin law enforcement blew the 2020 election integrity question wide open on Thursday after an investigation into one nursing home. It revealed not only that state election officials flagrantly broke the law and ordered health-care employees to help them, but that the problem likely runs much deeper throughout the swing state’s other 71 counties.

An “election statute was in fact not just broken, but shattered by members of the Wisconsin Elections Commission,” Sheriff Christopher Schmaling said during a Thursday press conference in which he and Sgt. Michael Luell detailed the findings of an investigation into Ridgewood Care Facility.

What Happened in Racine County?

The investigation came about when a woman named Judy signed a sworn affidavit with the Wisconsin Elections Commission after she discovered that her mother, who had died on Oct. 9, 2020 after a period of severe cognitive decline, had voted in the 2020 presidential election. The affidavit was later passed along as a complaint to the county district attorney.

Judy alleged that her mother Shirley’s mental state had deteriorated so far that she was having hallucinations and wasn’t able to recall what she had eaten during a day or even what day it was. According to Judy, her mother couldn’t see — her glasses were broken, and she couldn’t even recognize her own daughter — so even if she were of a sound mind, she wouldn’t have known whether someone assisting her with a ballot had voted according to her wishes.

Luell, who led the investigation at the request of the district attorney, found an unusual spike in voting at this care facility: 42 people had voted in the 2020 presidential election. That number is usually 10. Furthermore, in 2020, 38 people had requested absentee ballots, up from the usual 0-3 in normal years.

When Luell attempted to contact the families of these voters to check whether their loved ones had the cognitive capacity to cast a vote, seven replied no, and almost all of them hadn’t voted since 2012. One of the family members said his mother would ask him who he was, meaning she didn’t recognize her own son. She hadn’t voted since 2012 — yet MyVote Wisconsin revealed she voted twice in 2020.

Wisconsin Election Commission Broke the Law

This surge in voting was the result of Wisconsin Elections Commission officials breaking state law. The commission — which is made up of six commissioners, including three Democrats and three Republicans, who are appointed by legislative leaders or the governor and serve as an agency in the executive branch under the governor — authorized nursing home employees to help residents vote, which Luell noted “is a direct violation of law.”

According to Luell, employees would ask residents how they voted in the past and then vote according to that party. In other words, if Judy’s mother “could only recall JFK,” staff would vote Democrat for her.

According to state law, however, nursing home staff can’t assist residents with voting. In fact, nobody can help the voter other than a relative or “special voting deputies,” which are people appointed by municipal clerks or elections boards to conduct absentee voting at care facilities.

In March, however, the Wisconsin Elections Commission sent out a letter mandating that municipalities should not use the “special voting deputy process.”

“Ladies and gentleman, it’s not a process. It’s the law,” Luell said, citing state Statute 6.875.

The original letter was issued under the guise of COVID guidelines. Nevertheless, in September, after the governors’ lockdown orders had expired and the initial shock of the pandemic had passed, the Wisconsin Elections Commission sent a letter to all residential care facilities telling the workers how to help residents vote, including even marking the ballot for them, in direct violation of state law.

Racine law enforcement looked at 2020 visitor logs and found that other visitors were let into the nursing home throughout the pandemic, about 900 times between the decision in March not to use special voting deputies and November 2020. Those visitors included someone to clean the fish tanks and birdcages and even DoorDash delivery people.

“Those people were allowed into the Ridgewood Care Facility, but heaven forbid we make an exception for special voting deputies,” Luell said.

Under Wisconsin state statute 12.13, breaking these laws about special voting deputies constitutes “election fraud,” which is a felony.

“We’re just one of 72 counties, Racine County,” Schmaling noted. “Ridgeland is one of 11 facilities within our county. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of these facilities throughout the entire state of Wisconsin. We would be foolish, we would be foolish to think for a moment that this integrity issue, this violation of the statute, occurred to just this small group of people at one care facility in one county in the entire state. I would submit to you that this needs the attorney general’s investigation,” the sheriff said, calling for the AG to launch an immediate probe into the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

Add It to the List

This bombshell investigation is only the latest in the long list of malfeasant actions by the Wisconsin Elections Commission, especially regarding the 2020 election. As Wisconsin radio host and lawyer Dan O’Donnell put it, the commission “was downright derelict in its duty to fairly and impartially oversee an election.”

As O’Donnell documented, the commission unlawfully allowed clerks to “cure” ballots, illegally permitted clerks to go home on election night and return to finish counting in the morning, and illegally told clerks they could relocate polling locations in the weeks before the election.

Furthermore, the commission failed to issue relevant laws and rules for training municipal election workers, special voting deputies, and election inspections. Worse, it failed to investigate voter rolls for the hundreds of thousands there incorrectly, including more than 45,000 first-time voters whose names didn’t match Department of Transportation records, among other issues.

As The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway outlines in her new book “Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections,” the Wisconsin Elections Commission also wrongly kept third-party candidates off the ballot, including Kanye West and the Green Party’s Howie Hawkins. Third parties can significantly affect elections in the Dairy State.

“Following the [Legislative Audit Bureau] report, what Sheriff Schmaling has uncovered + disclosed might only be tip of the iceberg of fraud in the 2020 election. The Legislature must be given the time, resources, and cooperation of election officials to conduct a complete investigation of allegations,” tweeted Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin following the Racine press conference. “Using elderly residents with cognitive decline to commit election fraud is reprehensible, and should concern every Wisconsinite and American.”

Johnson continued: “If Democrats will stoop this low to impact elections, one can only imagine what else they’re willing to do.”

Source

Zuckerbucks 101: How A Media Mogul Took Over The 2020 Election And Why GOP Leaders Must Never Let It Happen Again

Zuckerbucks 101: How A Media Mogul Took Over The 2020 Election And Why GOP Leaders Must Never Let It Happen Again

MADISON, Wis. — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis reaffirmed his state’s commitment to election integrity on Tuesday, especially keeping tech giants and their partisan CEOs from corrupting local elections. Given what we know now about how Mark Zuckerberg and other left-wing actors commandeered election operations in blue hubs of swing states in 2020, other states would do well to follow DeSantis’s lead — and Wisconsin is a good case study in why.

No conversation about 2020 election integrity — or about the integrity of future elections, for that matter — is complete without understanding the full picture of how Facebook CEO Zuckerberg strategically bankrolled and staffed local government election offices, which are in charge of voter registration, voting, and vote counting. He did this through two primary front groups, a process Federalist Senior Editor Mollie Hemingway painstakingly outlines in her new book out this week, “Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections.”

The Zuckerberg Infiltration

Here’s how it worked. Zuckerberg gifted nearly half a billion dollars to two left-wing groups that then gave the money to government election offices. One of these two groups was the Center for Technology and Civic Life. By the September before the election, Zuckerberg and his wife had given it $350 million, meaning the small organization’s prior revenues of $1.8 million exploded by roughly 20,000 percent.

The cash, or “Zuckerbucks,” wasn’t an unconditional donation, however. There were strings attached, which amounted to Democrat get-out-the-vote efforts, mass mail-in voting, and ballot “curing,” whereby election workers “fix” mail-in ballot problems after the ballot has been submitted.

These dollars also didn’t flow indiscriminately to needy areas of the country but largely to government election offices in the biggest cities of swing states, where the majority of Democrat voters are concentrated. Those funds were used for Democrat voter outreach, designing and translating ballots, and staffing ballot harvesting, curing, and counting operations.

Make no mistake, CTCL is no apolitical actor. All three of its founders previously worked for the New Organizing Institute, a now-defunct organization that was run by ex-Obama staffer Ethan Roeder and funded heavily by left-wing behemoths such as George Soros to train leftist activists in digital campaign strategy and with war games for election success.

The Washington Post championed the New Organizing Institute as “the left’s think tank for campaign know-how” and “the Democratic Party’s Hogwarts for digital wizardry.” These descriptors aren’t surprising given that its board was also composed of leftist leaders.

Although the New Organizing Institute went belly-up in 2015, its ghost still lives in the partisan CTCL where Zuckerberg dumped his hundreds of millions of dollars. The Capital Research Center traced many of these Zuckerbucks and found that through the Facebook CEO’s funding, CTCL gave $6.7 million to Wisconsin, with half of those funds going to blue Madison and Milwaukee.

This trend of the majority of Zuckerbucks funding blue areas was consistent across the swing states. For instance, according to InfluenceWatch’s analysis in Pennsylvania, CTCL grants to counties Donald Trump carried averaged about 57 cents per capita as opposed to $3.11 per capita in the counties Joe Biden carried. In Texas, it was 55 cents per capita versus $3.22, respectively.

For Example…

One investigation by Wisconsin Spotlight exposed how Zuckerberg’s grant conditions corrupted local elections. Emails revealed that CTCL connected city election administrators to Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein, a former Democrat operative and the head of the National Vote at Home Institute’s efforts in the Dairy State. Spitzer-Rubenstein became the “de facto elections chief,” according to Wisconsin Spotlight, especially in Green Bay.

Emails show Spitzer-Rubenstein asking city clerk Kris Teske if he could help “cure” ballots and enlisting pressure from the Democrat mayor when Teske declined over legal concerns. Multiple times, Teske brought these concerns to her superiors, saying the “grant mentors” weren’t familiar with state law and that their “help” was probably illegal.

“I don’t understand how people who don’t have knowledge of the process can tell us how to manage the election,” Teske wrote to the Green Bay finance director in late August. Frustrated, Teske took a leave of absence in October and by the end of the year had resigned.

With Teske out, however, that meant Spitzer-Rubenstein got outsized control. Emails revealed how the former Democratic operative helped make decisions about how to handle and transport ballots. Two days before the election, he had access to the convention center where votes were counted. Also days before the election, Spitzer-Rubenstein received four of the five keys to the room where ballots were being kept.

“The city of Green Bay literally gave the keys to the election to a Democratic Party operative from New York,” Wisconsin Spotlight described it.

Sandy Juno, the former clerk of Brown County where Green Bay is the county seat, said that in the months prior to the election, Green Bay had cut off communication with the county clerk’s office and “went rogue.” Furthermore, she said, the counting process at the convention center “was tainted by the influence of a person working for an outside organization affecting the election.”

But Wait, There’s More

A closer look at Wisconsin reveals a host of other issues on top of Zuckerberg’s election takeover.

As Hemingway outlines in the book, “The state kept 234,000 invalid voter registrations on its voter rolls, even when ordered to remove them by a court. The clerks of the two biggest Democratic counties got tens of thousands of people to claim they were ‘indefinitely confined,’ enabling them to vote by mail without showing any identification. But one of the most important things Wisconsin Democrats did was disenfranchise the Green Party presidential ticket and otherwise work to keep third-party candidates off the ballot.”

In a particularly brazen act, the Wisconsin Elections Commission denied Kanye West a spot on the ballot because he was allegedly 14 seconds late in filing his paperwork. After arriving at the correct building before the 5 p.m. deadline to turn in the papers, struggling to gain entry to the locked facility, and then having the papers initially accepted as “not later than 5 p.m.,” West’s team was later denied and ultimately declared “late” because the commission said they had received them at 5:00:14 — seriously. (Hemingway lays out the whole incident in her chapter “Fourteen Seconds Too Late.”)

And let’s not forget about how Democrats had already exercised voter suppression in Wisconsin in 2020 — during the spring election to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.

This is all just the goings-on of one Midwest state. Multiply that by all the key swing states, and you can begin to see how large-scale the Big Tech takeover of the 2020 election actually was altogether.

“Elections should be administered by these offices, not by private tech moguls coming in and basically commandeering the machinery of the elections,” DeSantis said on Tuesday, calling the partisanship “totally unacceptable.”

It is unacceptable. And before the next election, more governors and Republican leaders must wake up to the mess that was created in 2020 and refuse to ever accept another sloppy round.

Source

Deranged 2016 Election Conspiracy Theorist Hillary Clinton Whines About Trump’s 2020 Criticisms

Deranged 2016 Election Conspiracy Theorist Hillary Clinton Whines About Trump’s 2020 Criticisms

Failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton overlooked years of her own doubts that former President Donald Trump was legitimately elected to accuse him of leading “a very dangerous continuing high-level attack on the legitimacy of our government and the election of our president” on Monday.

“Our former president is not only behind it, he incited it, he encouraged it, and he continues to do so,” Clinton told the hosts on ABC’s “The View.” “And you have leaders of the Republican Party who have willingly gone along as though they’re members of a cult, not a political party but a cult, and they’re continuing attacks on the election.”

Clinton also complained about “the disinformation network known as Facebook” and said the nation is in a “full constitutional crisis” as a result of Trump.

“We are still in the midst of a concerted, well-funded effort to undermine American democracy,” she said.

As noted by Federalist Senior Editor Mollie Hemingway in her new book “Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections,” Democrats such as Clinton have labeled decades of presidential victories for their opponents as illegitimate.

If questioning the results of a presidential election were a crime, as many have asserted in the wake of the controversial 2020 election and its aftermath, nearly the entire Democratic Party and media establishment would have been incarcerated for their rhetoric following the 2016 election. In fact, the last time they accepted the legitimacy of a presidential election they lost was in 1988.

For months leading up to the 2016 election, Clinton worked with the corrupt corporate media and Democrats’ to create and amplify false narratives about Trump colluding with the Russians. This conspiracy theory was not only used to spy on the Trump campaign but fed into lies post-Clinton’s election loss that there were “hacked voting totals” and “illegal voter suppression.”

Clinton especially sowed doubts about the legitimacy of Trump’s presidency and questioned whether she actually lost the 2016 election.

“You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you,” Clinton said in 2019.

“I know he’s an illegitimate president,” Clinton later said.

Just last October, Clinton claimed that “there was a widespread understanding that this election [in 2016] was not on the level,” and “We still don’t know what really happened.”

“There’s just a lot that I think will be revealed. History will discover,” she said on The Atlantic’s politics podcast. “But you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, ‘Whoa, something’s not right here.’ That was a deep sense of unease.”

Source

Arizona 2020 Vote Audit Finds Potentially Election-Shifting Numbers Of Illegal Ballots

Arizona 2020 Vote Audit Finds Potentially Election-Shifting Numbers Of Illegal Ballots

On Friday, the Arizona State Senate released the final reports on the results of the Maricopa County Forensic Election Audit. While the reports made several significant findings supporting former President Trump’s complaints about the 2020 election, the corporate media ignored those aspects of the audit to focus instead only on the results of the hand recount.

As broadly reported, the audit established “there were no substantial differences between the hand count of the ballots provided and the official canvass results for the County.” Maricopa County, which represents Arizona’s most populous county thanks to its county seat of Phoenix, had provided Biden a 45,000-vote advantage in the state, propelling Biden to a victory by 10,457 votes. So the media presented the recount as confirming Biden’s victory in the state.

Left unmentioned, however, were the numerous findings of problems with the election and, most significantly, evidence indicating tens of thousands of ballots were illegally cast or counted. A report entitled “Compliance with Election Laws and Procedures,” issued by Senate Audit Liaison Ken Bennett, highlighted several issues, of which two were particularly significant because of the number of votes involved.

First, Bennett excerpted the Arizona statutory provisions governing early ballots. Those provisions require early ballots to be accompanied by a signed affidavit in which the voter declares he is registered in the appropriate county and has not already voted. The statute further mandates that a voter “make and sign the affidavit,” and directs the early election board to check the voter’s affidavit.

Significantly, “if the affidavit is insufficient, the vote shall not be allowed.” The secretary of state’s Election Procedures Manual reinforces this point, stating: “If the early ballot affidavit is not signed, the County Recorder shall not count the ballot.”

In his report, Bennett noted that “while the Audit scope of work did not include comparing signatures with voter registration records for each voter, it did identify a number of missing signatures on ballot envelop affidavits, which to the extent the ballots in such envelopes were tallied, would violate the above statutes and procedures.”

Although Bennett did not elaborate on the issues related to affidavit signatures or the numbers of affected ballots, in a 99-page report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology engineer Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai detailed numerous anomalies.

First, Ayyadurai analyzed the early voting ballot return envelopes, on which voters were required to sign an affidavit within a signature block. That review revealed more than 17,000 duplicate images of the return envelopes. When the duplicates were eliminated from the review, Ayyadurai’s company, EchoMail, concluded that Maricopa County had recorded more than 6,545 early voting return envelopes than EchoMail determined existed. EchoMail also concluded that another approximately 500 of the envelopes’ affidavits were left blank.

Ayyadurai also highlighted several implausible statistics, such as that while there was a 52.6 percent increase from 2016 to 2020 in the number of early voting ballots, Maricopa County reported a decrease in signature mismatches of 59.7 percent. “This inverse relationship requires explanation,” the report noted, and then recommended a full audit of the signatures.

Bennett’s report on election law compliance highlighted several additional issues, but of particular note, in light of the audit report, was his reference to Arizona’s statutory requirements for individuals to be considered eligible voters, as delineated in Articles 1, 1.1, and 2 of the Arizona election code.

“The Audit identified numerous questions regarding possible ineligible voters,” Bennett noted, while adding that because “these determinations were made from comparisons between the County’s final voted information and private data sources,” the cooperation of Maricopa County and further investigation would be necessary to “determine whether ineligible persons actually were allowed to vote in the 2020 election.”

The referenced articles of the election code discuss voter registration requirements and the requirement for individuals to be registered to vote at their address of residence, although individuals moving within 29 days of the election remain properly registered to vote in the county in which they previously resided. However, students, members of the military, and others temporarily living at another address remain properly registered at their permanent home address.

Also of significance is the Arizona secretary of state’s Election Procedures Manual, which according to the audit provides that “ballot-by-mail must be mailed to voters by first-class, nonforwardable mail.”

These statutory provisions and procedures prove significant because the audit revealed that 15,035 mail-in votes in Maricopa County were from voters who had moved prior to the registration deadline, another 6,591 mail-in-votes came from voters who had moved out of Arizona prior to the registration deadline, and 1,718 mail-in votes came from voters who moved within Arizona but out of Maricopa prior to the registration deadline.

One of three scenarios seems possible here: First, the mail-in ballot was delivered to the old address and then provided to the named voter, who had only temporarily relocated. Such votes would be legal and entirely proper.

Second, the mail-in ballot was delivered to the old address and then provided to the named voter, who had permanently moved, but failed to timely update his registration record yet signed an affidavit attesting to a false address of residence. Such votes would be illegal.

Or third, the mail-in ballot was delivered to the old address, and then someone other than the named voter cast the vote. Such votes would be both illegal and fraudulent.

Neither Maricopa County nor the state of Arizona knows how many of these 23,000-plus votes fall within each of these three scenarios. And that’s a problem.

As I wrote when similar problems, albeit with more conclusive evidence, were unearthed in Georgia, “Elections are too tight and the populace too divided for ‘close enough for government work’ to cut it anymore. The American voting system must be reformed to ensure security, transparency, replicability, and election officials’ uniform compliance with state election law.”

Sixteen years ago, both Democrats and Republicans would have agreed on these goals, as the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform’s report “Building Confidence in U.S. Elections” confirms. That commission, co-chaired by Democrat Jimmy Carter and Republican James Baker III, spoke of “the administration of elections as a continuing challenge, which requires the highest priority of our citizens and our government.”

Unfortunately, rather than acknowledge the problems the Maricopa County audit revealed and rise to the challenge of ensuring they are not repeated, while also investigating areas of potential fraud and illegal voting, Democrats and some Republicans pretend the hand recount’s confirmation of the official vote tally ends the matter.

The corrupt press likewise pushes this narrative: The audit confirms Trump lost, and that is all there is to the matter.

But this isn’t about Trump, just as the 2005 report on building confidence in American elections wasn’t about Al Gore. This is about election integrity and our democracy because, as the commission wrote not even 20 years ago:

The vigor of American democracy rests on the vote of each citizen. Only when citizens can freely and privately exercise their right to vote and have their vote recorded correctly can they hold their leaders accountable. Democracy is endangered when people believe that their votes do not matter or are not counted correctly.

The Arizona audit ended nothing including, sadly, the view held by half of our country that their votes do not matter and are not counted correctly—and that many politicians and members of the press don’t care.

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)