J6 Committee Ignores Witness’s Ties To Zuckerberg-Funded Group That Manipulated 2020 Election

J6 Committee Ignores Witness’s Ties To Zuckerberg-Funded Group That Manipulated 2020 Election

Ben Ginsberg, a January 6th committee witness, works under one of the organizations whose “Zuck Bucks” funding may have compromised the 2020 election — a fact committee representatives did not disclose during the televised hearing on June 13.

Ginsberg is the co-chair of the Election Official Legal Defense Network (EOLDN), which “connects licensed, qualified, pro bono attorneys with election administrators who need advice or assistance.” EOLDN is a project of the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR). As The Federalist previously reported, CEIR’s grants to states for “nonpartisan voter education” ahead of the 2020 election may have given Democrats an advantage in key states.

Through the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Priscilla Chan and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg donated $69.5 million to CEIR as well as $350 million to the Center for Tech and Civic Life.

Mollie Hemingway, Editor in Chief of The Federalist, writes in her book “Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections” that CEIR and CTCL did not merely attempt to influence the election from the outside but to infiltrate them from within.

“What made 2020 different was that for the first time ever, the groups that supported Democrats were allowed, on a widespread basis, to cross that bright red line that separates government officials who administer an election from political operatives,” Hemingway writes. “Unelected liberal activists were allowed to embed in government offices and actually take over election administration duties in crucial battleground states.”

While CEIR claims to be nonpartisan, The Star News Network reported that in 2020 the group gave a $12 million grant to the Michigan Center for Election Law and Administration, which used $11.8 million of this grant to pay two Democratic political consulting firms.

Earlier this year, the State of Wisconsin Office of the Special Counsel published an investigative report stating that for Wisconsin election officials accepting EOLDN’s services might be a violation of state law.

“Since EOLDN’s free legal services will have foremost in mind protecting the interests of CTCL, CEIR, Zuckerberg, and Chan, it will influence the election officials’ official actions and judgment,” the report said, continuing: “CTCL, Zuckerberg, and Chan financed the illegal drop boxes and election bribery, so EOLDN’s free legal services to the election officials could be reasonably seen as a ‘reward’ for their participation in unlawful actions related to the election.”

Neither Ginsburg, Rep. Bennie Thompson, who introduced him, nor Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who questioned him, mentioned his work under CEIR as the co-chair of EOLDN. None of them brought up CEIR or CTCL at all. The discussion of fraud focused narrowly on legal challenges from the Trump campaign and post-election reviews in battleground states, both of which Ginsberg said lacked credible evidence.


Olivia Hajicek is an intern at The Federalist and a junior at Hillsdale College studying history and journalism. She has covered campus and city news as a reporter for The Hillsdale Collegian. You can reach her at olivia.hajicek@gmail.com.

Source

J6 Committee Ignores Witness’s Ties To Zuckerberg-Funded Group That Manipulated 2020 Election

J6 Committee Ignores Witness’s Ties To Zuckerberg-Funded Group That Manipulated 2020 Election

Ben Ginsberg, a January 6th committee witness, works under one of the organizations whose “Zuck Bucks” funding may have compromised the 2020 election — a fact committee representatives did not disclose during the televised hearing on June 13.

Ginsberg is the co-chair of the Election Official Legal Defense Network (EOLDN), which “connects licensed, qualified, pro bono attorneys with election administrators who need advice or assistance.” EOLDN is a project of the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR). As The Federalist previously reported, CEIR’s grants to states for “nonpartisan voter education” ahead of the 2020 election may have given Democrats an advantage in key states.

Through the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Priscilla Chan and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg donated $69.5 million to CEIR as well as $350 million to the Center for Tech and Civic Life.

Mollie Hemingway, Editor in Chief of The Federalist, writes in her book “Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections” that CEIR and CTCL did not merely attempt to influence the election from the outside but to infiltrate them from within.

“What made 2020 different was that for the first time ever, the groups that supported Democrats were allowed, on a widespread basis, to cross that bright red line that separates government officials who administer an election from political operatives,” Hemingway writes. “Unelected liberal activists were allowed to embed in government offices and actually take over election administration duties in crucial battleground states.”

While CEIR claims to be nonpartisan, The Star News Network reported that in 2020 the group gave a $12 million grant to the Michigan Center for Election Law and Administration, which used $11.8 million of this grant to pay two Democratic political consulting firms.

Earlier this year, the State of Wisconsin Office of the Special Counsel published an investigative report stating that for Wisconsin election officials accepting EOLDN’s services might be a violation of state law.

“Since EOLDN’s free legal services will have foremost in mind protecting the interests of CTCL, CEIR, Zuckerberg, and Chan, it will influence the election officials’ official actions and judgment,” the report said, continuing: “CTCL, Zuckerberg, and Chan financed the illegal drop boxes and election bribery, so EOLDN’s free legal services to the election officials could be reasonably seen as a ‘reward’ for their participation in unlawful actions related to the election.”

Neither Ginsburg, Rep. Bennie Thompson, who introduced him, nor Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who questioned him, mentioned his work under CEIR as the co-chair of EOLDN. None of them brought up CEIR or CTCL at all. The discussion of fraud focused narrowly on legal challenges from the Trump campaign and post-election reviews in battleground states, both of which Ginsberg said lacked credible evidence.


Olivia Hajicek is an intern at The Federalist and a junior at Hillsdale College studying history and journalism. She has covered campus and city news as a reporter for The Hillsdale Collegian. You can reach her at olivia.hajicek@gmail.com.

Source

Yes, Biden Is Hiding His Plan To Rig The 2022 Midterm Elections

Yes, Biden Is Hiding His Plan To Rig The 2022 Midterm Elections

President Biden really does not want the public to know about his federal takeover of election administration. Dozens of members of Congress have repeatedly asked for details, to no avail. Good government groups, members of the media, and private citizens have filed requests under the Freedom of Information Act. Not a single one has been responded to. All signs indicate a concerted effort to keep the public in the dark until at least after the November midterm elections. The lack of transparency and responsiveness is so bad that the Department of Justice and some of its agencies have been repeatedly sued for the information.

When President Biden ordered all 600 federal agencies to “expand citizens’ opportunities to register to vote and to obtain information about, and participate in, the electoral process” on March 7, 2021, Republican politicians, Constitutional scholars, and election integrity specialists began to worry exactly what was up his sleeve.

They had good reason. The 2020 election had suffered from widespread and coordinated efforts by Democrat activists and donors to run “Get Out The Vote” operations from inside state and local government election offices, predominantly in the Democrat-leaning areas of swing states. Independent researchers have shown the effect of this takeover of government election offices was extremely partisan and favored Democrats overwhelmingly.

At the time the order was issues, Democrats were also hoping to pass H.R. 1, a continuation of the effort to destabilize elections throughout the country via a federalized takeover of state election administrations.

Biden gave each agency 200 days to file their plans for approval by none other than Susan Rice, his hyperpartisan domestic policy advisor. Yet fully nine months after those plans were due, they are all being hidden from the public, even as evidence is emerging that the election operation is in full swing.

Mobilizing Voters Is Always A Political Act

There are several major problems with Biden’s secret plan, critics say. It’s unethical to tie federal benefits to election activity. It’s unconstitutional to have the federal government take authority that belongs to the states and which Congress has not granted. And, given that all 50 states have different laws and processes governing election administration, it’s a recipe for chaos, confusion, and fraud at a time when election security concerns are particularly fraught.

Mobilizing voters is always a political act. Choosing which groups to target for Get Out The Vote efforts is one of the most important activities done by political campaigns. Federal agencies that interact with the public by doling out benefits can easily pressure recipients to vote for particular candidates and positions. Congress passed the Hatch Act in 1939, which bans bureaucrats and bureaucracies from being involved in election activities after Democrats used Works Progress Administration programs and personnel for partisan political advantage.

Executive Order 14019 ignores that the Constitution does not give the executive branch authority over elections. That power is reserved for the states, with a smaller role for Congress. With H.R. 1 and other Democrat Party efforts to grab more control over elections have thus far failed, Congress hasn’t authorized such an expansion.

As with previous efforts to destabilize elections, the chaos and confusion that would occur are part of the plan. The Executive Order copied much of a white paper put out by left-wing dark money group Demos, which advocates for left-wing changes to the country and which brags on its website that it moves “bold progressive ideas from cutting-edge concept to practical reality.” Not coincidentally, Biden put former Demos President K. Sabeel Rahman and former Demos Legal Strategies Director Chiraag Bains in key White House posts to oversee election-related initiatives.

Rahman serves as senior counsel at the White House office that oversees regulatory changes, meaning he approves every federal agency’s regulations and provides legal review of executive orders before they’re released. If you were looking to rush out constitutionally and ethically questionable orders, this post would be key to fill. Bains had been Demos’ director of legal strategies, helping write the paper that was turned into an executive order. He reports directly to Susan Rice, the hyperpartisan head of the Domestic Policy Council.

Rice has served in political positions in Democrat White Houses and the scandal-ridden Brookings Institution. She played a role in the spying-on-Trump scandal, blatantly lying about same, lying about the Benghazi terrorist attack, and lying about Bowe Bergdahl’s military record.

Rice is described as President Obama’s “right-hand woman,” and it’s been said she was “like a sister” to the former president. She was his National Security Advisor at the same time Hunter Biden was hitching rides on official White House aircraft to other countries for meetings with oligarchs and corrupt government officials. She spread conspiracy theories about the law enforcement officers in Portland during the violent BLM riots that besieged the city. Most worrisome, she was briefed on the Clinton campaign’s Russia collusion hoax, which was used to destabilize the 2020 election and question its illegitimacy.

Leftist Groups Know Exactly What’s Going On

Conservatives may be in the dark, but left-wing activist groups are fully involved in the plot. The left-wing dark money group Demos put out press releases immediately after the executive order was issued, saying it would be happy to work with federal agencies on the project.

And then the group admitted publicly that it “organized agency-based working groups and met with the staff in these agencies to provide technical expertise as they developed their initial voter registration plans, to ensure those plans reflect the knowledge and priorities of various agency stakeholders.” It also admits it “developed research and resources to assist and advance agency efforts to implement robust voter registration opportunities, including a slide deck explainer of the agencies’ potential for impact, best practices for conducting voter registration at federal agencies, and recommendations for modernizing and improving the accessibility of Vote.gov.”

All of that information should be available to oversight authorities in Congress and the American taxpayers paying for its implementation, not just the left-wing groups that produced it. Yet as of this publication date, none of it has been shared.

Biden’s plan “raises serious ethical, legal, and constitutional concerns,” wrote Rep. Ted Budd, R-N.C., along with three dozen Republican members of Congress on January 19, in a letter to the head of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), demanding more information by February 28 about the secret plot. It went unanswered.

The top Republican members of nine House committees and subcommittees likewise demanded information from Rice and the head of OMB in a letter they sent on March 29. They noted that election activity goes well beyond “the scope of each agency’s authorizing statute and mission.”

One of the concerns shared by the members was that Biden was directing agencies to work with third-party organizations. Nobody knows which third-party organizations have been approved by Rice for her political efforts, nor which are being used. They also asked how much money is being spent on the effort, which statutory authorities justify the election activities, and what steps are being taken to avoid Hatch Act violations. They received no response.

The Foundation for Government Accountability filed a lawsuit on April 20th to compel the Department of Justice to respond to the FOIA request for information. And the American Accountability Foundation (AAF) filed suit on June 16 to compel Justice to comply. Those suits are ongoing.

What We Know

While the White House and agencies are steadfastly refusing to share details about how they’re complying with the executive order, who they met with to develop their plans, or how they’re justifying their involvement in something Congress has not authorized them to participate in, some details are trickling out. Here are a few examples of the widespread and coordinated effort by Biden’s political appointees to meddle in the state administration of elections.

  • In the midst of a labor crisis, the Department of Labor boasted that it was turning 2,300 American Job Centers previously focused on helping displaced workers find jobs into hubs of political activism. These new federally funded voter registration agencies were given guidance about how to bring in organizations to conduct “voter outreach.”
  • The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services likewise announced plans to turn community health centers into voter registration agencies, using thousands of health care facilities to focus on voter registration and turnout.
  • The Housing and Urban Development Department sent notice to public housing authorities that they should begin voter registration drives and participation activities. Previously, officials had been barred from electoral activities because they receive federal funding.
  • “It is presumed residents of public housing might disproportionately vote Democrat. … The executive order targets people receiving government benefits who might think their benefits depend on one party in power,” Stewart Whitson, legal director for the Foundation for Government Accountability, told the Daily Signal.
  • The Department of Education sent “dear colleague” letters to universities, telling them that Federal Work Study funds could now be used to support voter registration activities, contrary to previous guidance. The change was made without having gone through any rulemaking process to allow the change.
  • The U.S. Department of Agriculture said it’s using its child nutrition programs to push voter registration and enlisting state, local, and federally funded employees to implement voter registration drives in local schools.
  • The Commerce Department produced a massive, 113-page report which likely took four agency officials many hours to generate. It directs local voting board members about polling stations and poll worker training.

The tactics being used by these agencies were almost certainly contained in the plans submitted to Rice that have been withheld from investigators and overseers who had hoped to have some transparency about what the plans were. Frequently, the agencies claim the tactics are in response to the executive order, yet information about how they were developed has been withheld from the public for much of the year.

It is unclear why Biden and his political appointees are being so secretive about the work that went into their plan to engage in a federal takeover of election administration.

Whatever the case, Americans have a right to know whether these bureaucracies that are meddling in elections have experts in for each state’s election laws, what type of training is going on to ensure that state laws are being followed, whether they are allowing inspections and oversight to ensure no illegal activity, how they are determining whether a third-party group is genuinely non-partisan, whether they are allowing state investigators to approve money, and how much is being spent on this federal takeover of elections.


Source

Why Both Republicans And Democrats Are Wrong About Bill Barr

Why Both Republicans And Democrats Are Wrong About Bill Barr

Last week, the Jan. 6“Committee” featured video clips from former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr during its hearing on the violence that erupted at the capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. For the few Americans following the show trial, Barr’s testimony seemed a denial by former President Donald Trump’s top law enforcement officer of any legitimate basis to challenge the outcome of the November 2020 election.

To Democrats, this proved Trump sought to steal the White House from Biden via a coup. To Republicans, Barr revealed himself as a traitor uninterested in investigating voter fraud. Neither view is correct.

In his deposition, Barr testified about his disagreements with the then-president about claims of election fraud. Barr resigned as attorney general on December 14, 2020, in the aftermath of the November general election as Trump continued to dispute the outcome. The day he resigned, Barr explained, when he walked in to speak with the president,

[Trump] went off on a monologue saying that there was now definitive evidence involving fraud through the Dominion machines and a report had been prepared by a very reputable cybersecurity firm, which he identified as Allied Security Operations Group. And he held up the report and he had — and then he asked that a copy of it be made for me. And while a copy was being made, he said, you know, ‘This is absolute proof that the Dominion machines were rigged.’

Barr testified to the committee that he had told the president “they’ve wasted a whole month on these claims — on the Dominion voting machines and they were idiotic claims.” There was “absolutely zero basis for the allegations,” Barr explained, yet people believed there was “this systemic corruption in the system and that their votes didn’t count and that these machines controlled by somebody else were actually determining it, which was complete nonsense.”

Then-President Trump also raised what he called “the big vote dump” in Detroit, Barr explained, where “people saw boxes coming into the counting station at all hours of the morning and so forth.” Barr told the committee that he had explained to Trump that there were approximately 630 precincts in Detroit, “and unlike elsewhere in the state, they centralize the counting process. So they’re not counted in each precinct, they’re moved to counting stations. And so a normal process would involve boxes coming in at all different hours.” Barr said point blank, “There’s no indication of fraud in Detroit.”

The committee also heard testimony that Barr had directed B.J. Pak, the then-U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, to investigate a security tape from the State Farm Arena in Atlanta that Trump believed showed a suitcase of illegal ballots secreted beneath a table being pulled out after election workers had been sent home for the night. Pak explained they investigated the claims and that the longer segment on the video established the alleged black suitcase was actually an official lockbox where ballots were kept safe.

The bottom line, according to Barr’s testimony, was that he “had not seen any widespread election fraud that would question the outcome of the election,” and that “the stuff” Trump’s people “were shoveling out to the public were bullsh-t. . . the claims of fraud were bullsh-t.”

Detroit and Atlanta Weren’t the Only Concerns

Claims of election fraud, however, represented but a portion of Trump’s challenges to the November 2020 results. Also, that the above claims were “bullsh-t” says nothing about whether there were systemic violations of election law and illegal voting. Nor were those questions ones for the attorney general or the U.S. attorneys investigating allegations of fraud.

Barr made this point in his testimony when he explained that he had told Trump “the department doesn’t take sides in elections, and the department is not an extension of — of [Trump’s] legal team. And our role is to investigate fraud.” Barr’s testimony also made clear that the U.S. Department of Justice investigated claims of fraud, such as the supposed “suitcase” of ballots in Atlanta.

But what Barr didn’t investigate—and indeed shouldn’t have investigated—were the many violations of state election law highlighted by Trump’s legal team in their lawsuits challenging the election results. For instance, in Georgia, the state election code requires residents to “vote in the county in which they reside, unless they changed their residence within 30 days of the election” and “outside of the 30-day grace period, if people vote in a county in which they no longer reside, ‘their vote in that county would be illegal.’”

Trump’s legal team obtained solid evidence that as many as 30,000 Georgia residents voted illegally in their prior county in 2020. Trump never had his day in court on this challenge, though, which theoretically could have resulted in Georgia’s election results tossed.

That’s not the business of the attorney general, however, so those Republicans seeing Barr as derelict misunderstand his role. Likewise, those Democrats championing Barr’s words, believing it establishes a coup attempt by Trump, ignore that his testimony focused solely on election fraud.

Dust-Up About Alleged Vote Trafficking

The former attorney general’s testimony concerning vote harvesting perfectly illustrates the misplaced role both the right and the left sought to ascribe to Barr. During last week’s Jan. 6 Committee hearing, Barr testified it was his “opinion then” and his “opinion now” “that the election was not stolen by fraud.” He added that he hadn’t seen anything since the election that changed his “mind on that, including the ‘2,000 Mules’movie.”

The “2,000 Mules” movie, produced by Dinesh D’Souza, “includes information about an investigation by election integrity group True The Vote and features its founder Catherine Engelbrecht and its election intelligence analyst Gregg Phillips.” D’Souza’s film explains True The Vote’s use of “GPS surveillance geolocation data emitted by cellphones to help identify phones in key battleground states that made numerous trips to multiple election drop boxes and, in Georgia, to non-profits which the film does not identify.” The movie also includes videos “of persons placing multiple ballots into drop boxes—which is illegal in some states, including Georgia, unless those ballots are for family members.”

Barr told the committee that both he and the Georgia Bureau of Investigations were unimpressed with the use of cellphone geolocation data because, “if you take 2 million cell phones and — and figure out where they are physically in a big city like Atlanta or wherever, just by definition you’re going to find many hundreds of them have passed by and spent time in the vicinity of these boxes.”

The former attorney general added, though, that he held “his fire” on “the photographic evidence…because I thought, well, h-ll, if they have a lot of photographs of the same person dumping a lot of ballots in different boxes, you know, that’s hard to explain.” There “was a little bit of” photographic evidence from “2,000 Mules,” Barr said, but he found “it was lacking,” and that it “didn’t establish widespread illegal harvesting.”

In response to Barr’s deposition testimony, the “2,000 Mules” producer took to Twitter, challenging the former attorney general to a public debate. “What do you say, Barr?” D’Souza tweeted. “Do you dare back up your belly laughs with arguments that can withstand rebuttal and cross-examination?” D’Souza added in comments to The Epoch Times, “The hearings are one-sided propaganda, not an attempt to get to the truth.” The producer then invited people to view the evidence in “2,000 Mules” and judge for themselves.

Vote Trafficking Isn’t the AG’s Purview

Some Republicans saw Barr’s dig at D’Souza’s movie as proof the former attorney general was “totally disinterested” in election fraud, while Democrats framed Barr’s comments as establishing Trump’s attempt at a coup. Ignored by both sides, however, was what Barr said next:

The other thing is people don’t understand is that it’s not clear that even if you can show harvesting that that changes the — or the results of the election. The courts are not going to throw out votes and then figure out what votes were harvested and throw them out. You’d still — the burden on the challenging party to show that illegal votes were cast, votes were the result of undue influence or bribes or there was really, you know, the person was non compos mentis. But absent that evidence, I just didn’t see courts throwing out votes anyway.

With these few sentences Barr capsulized the disconnect between what many Trump voters believed the attorney general and federal prosecutors’ roles to be following the November 2020 election, and the reality that the Department of Justice’s focus rests on provable federal crimes. Barr tasked federal prosecutors with investigating allegations of widespread fraud, such as the manipulation of the Dominion voting machines and the supposed secreted suitcases of hidden ballots. U.S. attorney offices found the charges unfounded. And while ballot harvesting may be illegal under some states’ election codes, for the Department of Justice to get involved, more than that would be needed.

But even then, as Barr noted, that doesn’t undo the election, or rendered Georgia, Michigan, or Pennsylvania’s results void. Rather, courts hear and decide election challenges, and such challenges extend far beyond issues of election fraud. Therein is the reason Democrats’ parading of Barr’s testimony is also misplaced.

While Barr could testify concerning the cases of voter fraud the Department of Justice investigated, in the aftermath of the November 2020 election the former attorney general did not scrutinize, nor should he have, violations of state election law or potential violations of the Equal Protection Clause caused by the states’ disparate standards applied during the election.

Evidence of Widespread Illegal Votes

And Trump’s legal team had solid evidence of systemic violations of the election code and the widespread counting of illegal votes, as well as potential Equal Protection violations. Further, in the case of Georgia, there were enough illegal votes cast to likely render the state’s election results void.

Attorney General Barr, however, lacked both the authority (and the tools) to render judgment on matters of state election law. His deposition testimony to the committee also suggests that matters of election law remain outside his wheelhouse, as a court need not identify the ballots illegally harvested or cast to rule the election results invalid, as Barr seemed to suggest. Rather, under Georgia election law, if the “evidence established that there are more illegal or irregular votes than the margin of victory, the remedy is a new election.”

In other words, for Georgia’s results to be undone, Trump only needed to establish there were 11,780 illegal votes; he did not need to identify the illegally cast ballots and establish they represented votes for Biden in sufficient numbers to render him the winner.

That’s why, in his widely misrepresented telephone call with the Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffenperger, Trump said, “All I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes.” Trump’s legal team had found the votes, but the Georgia courts refused to timely consider Trump’s challenges.

Why Unconstitutional Voting Was Allowed

Likewise, many of the issues Trump’s legal team raised after the general election and before the results were certified, remained unanswered until a year or more later, when state courts declared the procedures used in November 2020 illegal or unconstitutional.

Nothing Barr did or could have done could have altered the reality that there is insufficient time between the November election and the certification of the vote for states to do much more than a recount and audit, and the Department of Justice to conduct a high-level investigation of what would need to be widespread and obvious fraud to be caught in time to change the outcome of an election.

Yet evidence accumulated since Biden was certified the winner of the 2020 election makes clear that in every swing state, systemic violations of the election code occurred. While moving to the widespread use of mail-in voting in the name of Covid-19 exacerbated the problems, post-election scrutiny of the last general election reveals that every defect in our electoral system identified in 2005 by the bipartisan Commission on Election Reform, co-chaired by Democrat Jimmy Carter and Republican Jim Baker, remains a problem today.

At the time, Carter and Baker warned in the commission’s 100-plus page report that “elections are the heart of democracy” and “if elections are defective, the entire democratic system is at risk.” The commission added as a corollary to that first principle that “confidence in elections matters equally, and in fact “is central to our nation’s democracy.”

So, when the Jan. 6 Committee show trial finally ends, Americans need to remember election integrity is not about Trump or Barr, nor Democrats or Republicans: It is about our country and her future. That future depends on a serious revamping of the American electoral system—and soon.


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

Wisconsin Voters Sue Democrat Cities Over Illegal Drop Boxes In 2020 Election

Wisconsin Voters Sue Democrat Cities Over Illegal Drop Boxes In 2020 Election

Wisconsin voters took legal action against their state’s five largest cities on Wednesday over the illegal use of unmanned drop boxes during the 2020 election.

Filed by the Thomas More Society on behalf of voters against Green Bay, Kenosha, Madison, Milwaukee, and Racine, the legal complaints allege that city officials ignored state law by implementing unmanned drop boxes over the course of the 2020 cycle.

“In 2020, the cities of Milwaukee, Madison, Racine, Kenosha, and Green Bay made an agreement with the nonprofit Center for Tech and Civic Life [CTCL] to use the drop boxes to get these cities’ residents to vote,” said Thomas More Society Special Counsel Erick Kaardal in a press release. “This so-called ‘Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan,’ involved $8.8 million of private grants to these five cities, to target specific populations to vote. It had little, if anything at all to do with keeping voters safe from Covid-19, as it purported to do.”

During the 2020 election, CTCL received $400 million from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to finance “the infiltration of election offices at the city and county level by left-wing activists” and use them “as a platform to implement preferred administrative practices, voting methods, and data-sharing agreements, as well as to launch intensive outreach campaigns in areas heavy with Democratic voters,” in the words of William Doyle in The Federalist.

According to a report from the Capital Research Center, CTCL “distributed a total of 31 grants above the $5,000 minimum to Wisconsin cities and townships,” with 28 going “directly to specific cities” rather than counties.

“Out of those 28 grants just 8 of the recipient localities were won by Trump, while 20 were won by Biden,” the report reads. “Together, these 20 cities received $9 million or 90 percent of all CTCL funds in Wisconsin.”

The Capital Research Center findings also reveal that “[f]or grants over $5,000, 9 of CTCL’s 10 largest per capita grants went to cities which Biden won,” with Racine ($21.83), Green Bay ($11.60), Kenosha ($8.63), Milwaukee ($5.91), and Madison ($4.71) receiving the most out of all localities in the state.

The lawsuits from Wisconsin voters come after the Wisconsin Elections Commission refused last month to launch investigations into the five cities for their use of unmanned drop boxes, despite a January ruling from a Waukesha County Circuit Court judge saying that such drop boxes and ballot harvesting “violate state law and cannot be used in the upcoming midterm elections.”

“It’s all good and nice, but there’s no authority to do it,” Judge Michael Bohren said with respect to the use of drop boxes.


Shawn Fleetwood is an intern at The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Source

Missouri Legislature Takes An Axe To Zuckbucks In State Elections

The Missouri General Assembly successfully passed legislation on Wednesday that restricts state and local election officials from receiving and using private funds to conduct elections. The bill now heads to Gov. Mike Parson’s desk for signature.

Passed by the state House (97-47) and Senate (23-11), the measure (HB 1878) mandates that “neither the state of Missouri nor any political subdivision thereof that conducts elections shall receive or expend private moneys, excluding in-kind donations, for preparing, administering, or conducting an election, including registering voters.”

The bill later goes on to define in-kind donations as “Personal protective equipment,” “Water,” “Locations at which an election may be conducted,” and “Food for an election authority, staff of an election authority, election judges, watchers, and challengers.”

As noted in the bill, however, “[I]n any even-numbered year in which the amount of state funds appropriated to proportionally compensate counties pursuant to sections 115.063 and 115.065 is less than the amount of such funds that were appropriated in the previous even-numbered year,” the Missouri secretary of state may receive private funds “to disburse to counties based on the amount of registered voters in each county.”

“The amount of private moneys that may be received by the secretary of state shall not exceed the difference between the amount of state funds appropriated in the previous even-numbered year and the amount appropriated in the pending even-numbered year, plus ten percent of the total amount that was appropriated in the previous even-numbered year,” the measure reads.

In addition to limiting nongovernmental entities’ ability to influence election operations, the legislation also prohibits ballot drop-boxes, the authorization of mail-in ballots “by any executive or administrative order,” and the changing of state election laws at least 26 weeks (or closer) before a presidential election, among other dictates.

While speaking with The Federalist, the bill’s primary sponsor and state GOP Rep. John Simmons said, “HB 1878 is the most comprehensive election integrity bill to come out of the [Missouri] General Assembly,” saying the legislation “can and will serve as a template for other states to improve their election systems.”

“The integrity of our election process before, during, and after the vote is a structural cornerstone by which we have faith in our republic[an] form of [government],” he said. “All elections in the U.S. are only as good as the moral character, and trustworthiness of the people carrying out those elections.”

When pressed by The Federalist on whether Parson would sign the bill, a spokeswoman for his office declined to commit the governor to the measure, instead saying that Parson would “thoroughly review” any and all legislation that reaches his desk.

If signed into law, the bill would officially bar left-wing advocacy groups such as the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) from interfering in election processes. During the 2020 election cycle, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg gave upwards of $400 million to CTCL to quietly alter state and local election operations, with the organization spending more than $6.8 million “Zuckbucks” in Missouri alone. Analyses found CTCL’s spending was heavily slanted towards Democratic regions, making it effectively a partisan get-out-the-vote operation.

Most recently, CTCL announced it will be expanding its operations into future elections with the launching of U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence, “a five-year, $80 million strategy to envision, support, and celebrate excellence in U.S. election administration.”

“Every American voter, no matter their zip code, should have access to a process that is fair and trustworthy,” said Tiana Epps-Johnson, executive director of CTCL. “Unfortunately, years of under-investment means many local election departments often have limited capacity and training. The U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence will bring together world-class partners so that local election officials no longer have to go it alone.”

Additional groups involved with the initiative include the Center for Civic Design, U.S. Digital Response, and the Center for Secure and Modern Elections, among others.


Shawn Fleetwood is an intern at The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Source

Elon Musk: Democrat Hate Drives Me To Vote Republican

Elon Musk: Democrat Hate Drives Me To Vote Republican

Mega-billionaire Elon Musk confessed on Wednesday that the Democrat party’s penchant for “division & hate” is pushing him to vote for Republicans.

“In the past I voted Democrat, because they were (mostly) the kindness party,” the world’s richest man tweeted. “But they have become the party of division & hate, so I can no longer support them and will vote Republican. Now, watch their dirty tricks campaign against me unfold … 🍿.”

“Political attacks on me will escalate dramatically in coming months,” he noted hours before disclosing his new party affiliation.

Musk’s admission comes just two days after he told the All-In podcast that despite “overwhelmingly” and “historically” voting for Democrats, which he said are “overly controlled by the unions and by the trial lawyers, particularly class-action lawyers,” he will be voting red in the next election.

 “I might never have voted for a Republican, just to be clear,” Musk said. “Now this election I will.”

The Tesla CEO also took several jabs at President Joe Biden for failing to get anything done compared to the Trump administration.

“The real president is whoever controls the teleprompter,” Musk said. “The path to power is the path to the teleprompter.”

Musk is in the process of purchasing Twitter, “owning the libs,” and correcting Big Tech’s “very far-left bias” after making a $44 billion offer.

The Tesla CEO revealed this week that he will not go through with the deal unless Twitter can “show proof of <5%” spam accounts.

“My offer was based on Twitter’s SEC filings being accurate. Yesterday, Twitter’s CEO publicly refused to show proof of <5% [spam accounts]. This deal cannot move forward until he does,” Musk wrote on Tuesday morning.

When Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal claimed the company has a system designed to curb online bots, Musk replied with a poop emoji.


Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

Source

Pennsylvania’s GOP Senate Primary Too Close To Call As Counting Snafus Mount

Pennsylvania’s GOP Senate Primary Too Close To Call As Counting Snafus Mount

As problems mount with ballot counting and other election glitches, a recount in the Pennsylvania U.S. Senate primary appears imminent for Republican candidates Mehmet Oz and David McCormick, who both received at least 31 percent of the state’s votes on Tuesday.

As of Wednesday morning, the race between former President Donald Trump’s pick, Oz, and former George W. Bush administration official, McCormick, was too close to call. Both candidates, who beat out a long list of contenders including underdog candidate Kathy Barnette, indicated disappointment on Tuesday night that election results were not yet finalized but also expressed optimism that a victory is near.

“So, we’re not going to have a result tonight. When all the votes are tallied, I’m confident we’ll win,” Oz said. “We are making a ferocious charge, but when it’s this close, what else do you expect?”

“Unfortunately, we’re not going to have resolution tonight, but we can see the path ahead, we can see victory ahead, and it’s all because of you,” McCormick said in an address to his supporters.

One day after voters cast their in-person ballots, results in the state have been muddled and delayed by slow counting and technological failures.

In Lancaster County, one of the state’s largest population centers, a printing error resulted in ID codes being mislabeled on 22,000 mail-in ballots. Thanks to the mishap, a manual redo is required for more than two-thirds of the affected ballots, meaning full results for that county could be delayed a few days.

“About 22,000 mail ballots were printed by the print vendor with the incorrect code and could not be read by the county’s scanners. County election officials will re-mark the ballots by hand and then scan them. This is allowed under PA law. It is likely to take county officials a few days,” the Pennsylvania secretary of state’s office said in a statement.

Voters in Berks County, home to Reading, were allowed to cast provisional ballots during extended poll hours late Tuesday night after the county reported issues with its new electronic poll books.

“The County of Berks is aware of an issue impacting the new electronic pollbooks and is distributing backup paper pollbooks to polls throughout the county. The details behind the issue will be reviewed after Election Day and a full and detailed explanation will be provided at that time,” Stephanie Weaver, public relations officer for the county, said in a statement.

As of Wednesday, tens of thousands of mail-in ballots, which amounts to 5 percent of the vote tally, were still waiting to be counted.

Whichever candidate eventually wins the GOP Senate primary will face off in November with Pennsylvania’s Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, who suffered a stroke four days before election day and received a pacemaker on Tuesday. He also once wrongly chased down an unarmed black jogger and held him up with a shotgun after hearing nearby gunshots.


Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)