House Democrats Make Pre-emptive Strike, Announce ‘Investigation’ of Arizona Election Audit

House Democrats on July 14 announced that they will be “investigating” the ongoing audit of the 2020 election centered around Arizona’s Maricopa County, which Joe Biden “won” by about 10,000 votes.

Dead voters (Marolis and Cox, Townhall Media 2021)

From Margolis and Cox, Townhall Media

“In a letter addressed to the CEO of Cyber Ninjas, the firm hired to conduct the audit, Democrats belittled the effort, attempted to discredit it, and pronounced that any questioning of the election results was a ‘big lie’ that’s already been debunked,” reports Townhall.com.

The letter, linked below, makes a number of largely baseless, obviously partisan charges against Cyber Ninja in a clear attempt to preemptively discredit whatever report they end up delivering. Toward the end of the letter, House Democrats demand a series of documents, including training materials given to those conducting the audit. It appears they want basically everything the company has ever recorded, which is likely an attempt to intimidate and inundate the company with information requests.

House Dems demand tons of info.

LINK to Complete Letter HERE.

The House Dems also want all communications with former President Donald J. Trump, his officials, and any campaign figures. The letter is signed by Carolyn Maloney and Jamie Raskin, the latter of which, ironically, objected to the certification of Trump’s presidential win in 2016.

“The real question is why now?” asks Townhall’s Bonchie. “This audit has been going on for a while. With a report nearing completion, the rush to try to preemptively tear it down before even seeing the first piece of evidence is too clever by half. It smacks of fear that something may actually have been found that would prove fraud occurred.”

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich Tells the Feds to Back Off the State’s Audit of the 2020 Election

In a June 14 letter Monday, Brnovich called U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland’s comments last week expressing concern about post-election audits “troubling.”

“Your statements displayed an alarming disdain for state sovereignty,” Brnovich wrote. “My office is not amused by the DOJ’s posturing and will not tolerate any effort to undermine or interfere with our State Senate’s audit to reassure Arizonans of the accuracy of our elections.”

The audit of the vote in Maricopa County, the state’s most populous county, ordered by state Senate Republicans, began in April.

“Arizona will not sit back and let the Biden administration abuse its authority, refuse to uphold laws, or attempt to commandeer our state’s sovereignty,” Brnovich wrote.

Former President Donald Trump has praised the audit and urged other states to launch their own election reviews. (NOTE: The Washington Times, a never-Trumper news source some consider “conservative,” claimed that Trump “continues to make baseless claims that Democrats stole the election from him through widespread voter fraud.”)

Senate Unveils Election Contempt Charge Against Maricopa County Supervisors

The Arizona State Senate is moving ahead with its threat to pass a contempt resolution finding Maricopa County has failed to comply with a subpoena demanding access to elections equipment and ballots cast in the November election.

The Senate introduced the resolution on Feb. 3. Timing on a full Senate vote is unclear, but all 16 Republican senators, a majority of the 30-member Senate, are listed as sponsors.

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (four of its five members are registered as Republican) on Feb. 2 again refused to comply with subpoenas GOP lawmakers issued to investigate ballots and voting machines as they try to ensure election integrity.

Courts have declined to accept lawsuits questioning election integrity. The Associated Press and other left-wing media claim the courts say there is no evidence Donald Trump lost; both the claim and the alleged “lack of evidence” are false.

Texas sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, charging ‘unconstitutional’ election actions

Stiglich editorial cartoon; Biden's gov't steal

The State of Texas is aiming to help Trump upend the election result. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (a Republican) filed suit at the U.S. Supreme Court against the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, calling changes those states made to election procedures amid the coronavirus pandemic unlawful and unconstitutional.

“You might be wondering, what does Texas care about Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin?” Rush Limbaugh said Dec. 8. “If those four states are allowed to violate election law and if they are able to render state legislators irrelevant in writing election law, then they are being affected in Texas by violation of law, and they don’t want that to happen. They’re trying to make sure that election law is kept sacrosanct and that the Constitution is not violated. It’s a big case.”

Texas filed a motion for leave to file a “Bill of Complaint” with the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin’s administration of the 2020 presidential election. The Supreme Court gave the states being sued a deadline of 3 p.m. Dec. 10 to file a response to Texas’ suit. Texas’ filing, which includes a request for expedited review and a preliminary injunction, runs more than 150 pages.

Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over certain types of cases, including those involving disputes between states. However, the court has to agree to hear the dispute, which is why Texas is asking for permission to file its suit.

“In its memorandum in support of its motion, Texas argues that the case ‘presents constitutional questions of immense national consequences,’ namely that the 2020 election suffered from serious constitutional irregularities, including violations by the defendant states of the Electors Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution,” Margot Cleveland writes in The Federalist. “The brief also argues that a ruling would help ‘preserve the Constitution and help prevent irregularities in future elections’.”

Along with its Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint, Texas also filed a Motion for Expedited Consideration of its motions, including its second motion, a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order, or Alternatively a Stay. In this latter motion, Texas asks the court to order Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania not to take any action to certify presidential electors, participate in the Electoral College, or vote for a presidential candidate until the Supreme Court resolves Texas’s lawsuit.

Noting that federal law establishes Dec. 8 as a safe harbor for certifying presidential electors, that the Electoral College votes on Dec. 14, and the House of Representatives counts votes on Jan. 6, Texas implores the court to expedite the proceeding, as “absent some form of relief, the defendants will appoint electors based on unconstitutional and deeply uncertain election results.”

Count 1 – States Violated the Electors Clause

Notwithstanding some (mostly liberal) pundits calling the Texas lawsuit a “Hail Mary” attempt to block the outcome of the 2020 election, the Lone Star State’s complaint presents serious constitutional issues. Those issues, as Texas puts it, far exceed the electoral irregularities of “the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 (Bush-Gore) election.”

In its Bill of Complaint, filed along with its Motion for Leave, Texas presents three constitutional challenges. Count 1 alleges the defendant states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution.

The Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides “[e]ach state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” As Texas notes, this clause “makes clear that only the legislatures of the States are permitted to determine the rules for appointing presidential electors.”

But, as Texas reveals in its detailed summary of the facts, each of the defendant states, through non-legislative actors, nullified legislatively established election laws in violation of the Electors Clause. For example, The Federalist reports and the lawsuit alleges, several large Wisconsin counties used drop boxes in direct violation of the Wisconsin Election Code that provides detailed procedures by which municipalities may designate sites for the acceptance of absentee ballots. Wisconsin election officials also ignored the statutory certification requirements for absentee ballots, counting votes that the state legislature defined as illegal because they did not include a witness signature and address.

Michigan election officials likewise violated the statutory mandates established by the state legislature, with the secretary of state mass mailing absentee ballots in contravention of state law. And in Wayne County, the home of Detroit’s Democratic stronghold, election officials ignored the state’s signature verification requirement. Georgia also violated the legislature’s requirement for signature verifications, according to Texas’s complaint.

The most egregious violations alleged came from Pennsylvania, where election officials ignored the statutory bar on inspecting ballots before election day, then illegally provided voter information to third parties and allowed illegal curing of the ballots. Significantly, in Pennsylvania these illegal practices only occurred in Democratic strongholds, with Republicans following the law.

These and other practices, Texas alleges, establish a clear violation of the Electors Clause, because that clause makes clear that it is the state legislature—and not administrative agencies, election officials, or even courts—charged under our constitutional system with selecting electors. (This argument finds support in the three-justice concurrence authored by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore.) From there, Texas’s Count 1 argues that “electors appointed to Electoral College in violation of the Electors Clause cannot cast constitutionally valid votes for the office of President.”

Count 2 – States Violated the Equal Protection Clause

In Count 2, Texas relied on the same facts, then asserted an Equal Protection claim, premised on the reasoning of the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore. In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution is violated when states apply differing standards for judging the legality of votes cast for president.

“The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise,” the Supreme Court wrote. “Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.”

Then, citing its detailed statement of the facts, which highlighted the defendant states’ disparate treatment of voters, Texas argues in Count 2 that “equal protection violations in one State can and do adversely affect and diminish the weight of votes cast in States that lawfully abide by the election structure set forth in the Constitution.”

Count 3 – States Violated the Due Process Clause

Finally, in Count 3, Texas asserts a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. This claim is premised on Texas’s allegation that the election practices of the defendant states in 2020 reached “the point of patent and fundamental unfairness,” thus violating substantive due process.

These three counts, and the detailed facts Texas alleges, make clear that Texas’s beef is not with the states’ election laws, but with the states’ violation of their own election laws, in contravention of the U.S. Constitution.

Seventeen other states have filed briefs supporting Texas’ suit.

Texas’ Standing to Sue

Merely alleging the defendant states violated the Constitution, however, is not enough. Texas must also establish that it has “standing” to sue, meaning it has been injured in a way entitling it to stand before the court and seek redress. In its Motion for Leave, Texas argues at great length that it has standing, and presents three separate bases for it.

First, Texas claims the right to present the constitutional claims of its citizens, who “have the right to demand that all other States abide by the constitutionally set rules in appointing presidential electors to the electoral college.”

Second, Texas “presses its own form of voting-rights injury as States” premised on the structure of the Constitution. “Whereas the House represents the People proportionally, the Senate represents the States,” Texas notes. Thus, “[w]hile Americans likely care more about who is elected President, the States have a distinct interest in who is elected Vice President and thus who can cast the tiebreaking vote in the Senate,” the Texas brief stresses. “Through that interest,” the brief continues:

States suffer an Article III injury when another State violates federal law to affect the outcome of a presidential election. This injury is particularly acute in 2020, where a Senate majority often will hang on the Vice President’s tie-breaking vote because of the nearly equal — and, depending on the outcome of Georgia run-off elections in January, possibly equal — balance between political parties. Quite simply, it is vitally important to the States who becomes Vice President.

Finally, Texas argues it has standing to sue as a representative of the state’s “electors.” These electors, Texas argues, suffer a “legislative injury whenever allegedly improper actions deny them a working majority.” Since “[t]he electoral college is a zero-sum game,” the unconstitutional appointment of electors in other states injures Texas’s electors, according to the briefing.

Texas is Not Seeking to Overturn the Election

These injuries, Texas asserts, demand a remedy. But the remedy sought is not what some may surmise is the goal—a second term for President Trump. No, what Texas seeks is for the Supreme Court to mandate that the defendant states comply with the Constitution, and that means that electors are selected by the states’ legislatures. Texas makes this point clear, stressing: “Plaintiff State does not ask this Court to decide who won the election; they only ask that the Court enjoin the clear violations of the Electors Clause of the Constitution.”

Texas’ filing includes the following:

Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient of our of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives. We ask the Court to choose the former.

Several ‘Republican’ Senators Cave-in to Media Demand That Trump Concede

At least six Republican Senators have thrown in the towel, rejecting legal battles to question the fraudulent presidential election and congratulating Democrat Joe Biden on his apparent victory.

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that it was “past time” to begin the transition to a Joe Biden administration. He joins Senators Mitt “Mittens” Romney (R-UT), Ben Sasse (R-NE), daddy’s girl Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) in congratulating Biden and Harris.

Cramer said, “I agree there has to be an end. I frankly do think it’s time —well, it was past time to start a transition or at least to cooperate with the transition. I would rather have a president that has more than one day to prepare should Joe Biden end up winning this. But in the meantime, again, he’s just exercising his legal options.”

As reported in Breitbart News, anchor Chuck Todd said, “I just want to confirm, you believe the head of GSA tomorrow morning at this point ought to say the transition needs to begin, it looks like Joe Biden will be the apparent winner. Yes, there’s more to go through. This is what the head of GSA said. Yes, there’s still more to go through, but it looks like Joe Biden is the apparent winner. Let’s allow the transition process to begin. Should that be what happens tomorrow morning?”

“Yeah, it should happen tomorrow morning because it didn’t happen last Monday morning,” Cramer said. “I think you have to begin that process, give the incoming administration all the time you need. I will also say this — I think Vice President Biden has been a bit overdramatic as it relates to Operation Warped Speed and distribution of the vaccines and things. None of those things are a secret. The military is in charge of Operation Warped Speed. The military still will be there after the election, but there are a lot of other things”

“I informed my staff well over a week ago they had to cooperate with any transition outreach because we want to be prepared. We have a government to run regardless of who the president is,” Cramer said.

In a statement on Saturday, Nov. 21, Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey said, “I congratulate President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris on their victory. They are both dedicated public servants and I will be praying for them and for our country. Unsurprisingly, I have significant policy disagreements with the President-elect. However, as I have done throughout my career, I will seek to work across the aisle with him and his administration, especially on those areas where we may agree, such as continuing our efforts to combat COVID-19, breaking down barriers to expanding trade, supporting the men and women of our armed forces, and keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals and the dangerously mentally ill.”

The statement concluded, “To ensure that he is remembered for these outstanding accomplishments, and to help unify our country, President Trump should accept the outcome of the election and facilitate the presidential transition process.”

Trump wins debate with Biden & Wallace

UPDATED 0CT. 1, 2020Trump vs. Biden & WallacePresident Donald J. Trump confronted two opponents on the debate stage Tuesday night, as “moderator” Chris Wallace joined 47-year career politician Joe Biden in telling lies about Trump. Wallace, a Fox News anchor, even repeated the debunked claim that Trump called white supremacists in Charlottesville “very fine people, ” as he teed-up an opportunity for Biden to allege Trump is a racist.

Trump picked up on the bias early on, responding to Wallace’s slanted question on healthcare, “I guess I’m debating you, not him, but that’s OK. I’m not surprised.”

Richard Grenell, the former Acting Director of the United States National Intelligence, highlighted Wallace’s inability to “interrupt’ Biden.

“Chris Wallace doesn’t interrupt Joe Biden,” Grenell stated in a tweet. Wallace did interrupt Trump — 35 times, by our count. He interrupted Biden once. Wallace lectured Trump about interrupting, but didn’t address Biden’s mean-spirited personal attacks, as Biden called Trump a racist, “a clown” and “a liar.” Biden also told Trump to “shut up” — and said Trump wasn’t “presidential.”

Wallace worked hard during the debate to aggressively shut down the discussion any time Biden seemed to be getting the worst of it.

As Revolver.news observed, “Whenever Trump began to get the better of Biden and force him into a corner, Wallace was prepared to step in, declare the topic over, and try pivoting to a new subject where the vice president might do better.”

“In short,” the news and opinion website said, “the Wallace strategy was to step-in and interrupt when Trump was delivering blows to Biden, and to step-aside when Biden was running his rehearsed talking points against Trump.”

Biden refused to say whether he agreed with Democrats who want to pack the Supreme Court (say by increasing the number of justices from the present nine to 11 to 15, adding liberal justices), abolish the filibuster, admit Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico as new states, and otherwise shift the balance of power to Democrats. Biden refused to answer, on the bonkers excuse that it could “become a campaign issue” — and Wallace let him slide. Perhaps fearing that by probing for an answer he would embarrass Biden, Wallace moved on.

On Thursday, Wallace whined to the New York Times about the criticism he received for what he characterized as his failure to “seize control of the debate.” He and the NYT took swipes Trump’s “bullying behavior” (NYT’s phrase), but failed to even acknowledge the many complaints over Wallace’s perceived bias toward Biden. UPDATE: Wallace recently referred to criticisms of his alleged bias as Republican “talking points.”

Locally, residents held six debate watch parties in the Kingman area — two at restaurants (Golden American Pizza in Golden Valley and Anchor Smokehouse in Meadview) and four at private residences in Kingman and Valle Vista.

Here are some takes on the debate from a couple of MohaveGOP’s favorite sites:

Chris Wallace, immoderate moderator of the first debate. (Photo Morry Gash/Pool, Getty Images)

The Worst Moments From the Debate Came From Moderator Chris Wallace

From Townhall.com: Leading up to the first presidential debate in Cleveland, Ohio, on Tuesday, Fox News host and moderator Chris Wallace was praised by colleagues like Brit Hume as the “best debate moderator ever” but that quickly changed over the course of the night as it became clear President Trump was taking on two opponents.

As the debate progressed, Wallace appeared to team up with Biden, shutting the president down, failing to fact check the former vice president over some of the most obvious and easily debunked lies, and moving the subject along when it became inconvenient for Joe.

Let’s take a look at some of Wallace’s worst moments from Tuesday’s debate.

1. Ben Shapiro quipped that Wallace turned into a debater as the night progressed—an assessment Trump agreed with, on and off stage. For example, here’s how Wallace framed a question about Trump’s healthcare plan:

“You, in the course of these four years, have never come up with a comprehensive plan to replace Obamacare, and just this last Thursday, you signed a largely symbolic executive order to protect people with preexisting conditions five days before this debate, so my question is what is the Trump healthcare plan?” Wallace asked.

Well, first of all, I guess I’m debating you, not him. But that’s okay,” Trump fired back. “Let me just tell you something, there’s nothing symbolic. I’m cutting drug prices, I’m going with favored nations, which no president has the courage to do cause you’re going against big pharma. Drug prices will be coming down 80 or 90 percent.”

MORE at Townhall.com

Additional Stories:

Chris Wallace Nuked His Credibility With White Supremacy Question to Trump and Here’s Why (Video) (Redstate.com)

Here’s how Biden wants Commission on Presidential Debates to change format (Justthenews.com)

Former Vice President Joe Biden and President Donald J. Trump. (AP Photo, File)

Debate Recap: Trump Wins, Biden Doesn’t Faint, Chris Wallace Goes Down Hard

From PJMedia.com: President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden went head-to-head on Tuesday night, and moderator Chris Wallace got knocked out. Wallace seemed to push left-wing talking points to help Biden and hurt Trump, but both candidates talked over him. Trump and Biden brought out the fisticuffs and both got in a few good hits. Biden stumbled, but he did not come across as a bumbling fool.

While Trump and Biden both went on the offensive, Trump got in more clear statements and Biden came across as shifty, especially on packing the Supreme Court.

Wallace asked Biden if he would support expanding the Supreme Court to more than nine justices, noting that Democrats brought up the issue first. Biden refused to answer the question, and Trump pressed him.

When Trump pressed him, “Why aren’t you going to answer that question?” Biden shot back, “Would you shut up, man?”

After Trump asked, “Who is on your list, Joe?” Biden responded by saying, “This is so unpresidential.”

Not only did Biden dodge the question, but he lost his cool about the issue, and then accused his opponent of being unpresidential right after he said, “Would you shut up, man?”

On the issue of nominating Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s replacement to the Supreme Court, Trump insisted, “I’m not elected for three years, I’m elected for four years.” He suggested that Biden’s call for delaying the nomination and confirmation until after the election would essentially deny Trump’s presidency — an effective counter.

MORE at PJMedia.com

Additional Stories:

Seriously? Moderator of Second Presidential Debate Served as an Intern for Joe Biden (PJMedia.com)

Kevin McCarthy advises Trump to get out of Biden’s way: ‘This is not the same man’ (Washington Times)

Kayleigh McEnany: Donald Trump has condemned white supremacy more than any modern president in history (Breitbart.com)

President Trump rallies in Yuma, Az

Aug. 18 — A bus-load and more of supporters from Mohave County greeted President Donald J. Trump on his campaign stop in Yuma, AZ on Aug. 18. The Mohave County Republican Party arranged for a bus to travel to Yuma from Lake Havasu City.

While in Yuma, he was briefed on border wall construction. At the same time, the Democrat National Convention (or the Blame-America party) was ongoing in Las Vegas, NV.

Arizona Representatives Paul Gosar and Debbie Lesko also joined the President during his trip to Yuma.

After visiting the border wall, Trump delivered remarks on Joe Biden’s failures on immigration and border security.

“The Biden plan would unleash a flood of illegal immigration like the world has never seen. It’s crazy,” the President said. “Biden’s plan is the most radical, extreme, reckless, dangerous and deadly immigration plan ever put forward by a major party candidate.”

During his speech, Trump also focused his attention on COVID-19, lowering taxes, and Biden’s new running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris, considered the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate in 2019, according to Govtrack.us.

“She is not the right pick, but she was my number one draft pick,” Trump said. “They asked me that. What do you think I said? I’m very happy. They thought I was happy. They thought I was happy for him. No, I was happy for me.”

Govtrack.us, which says it is “one of the oldest government transparency websites in the world,” publishes the status of federal legislation, information about representatives and senators in Congress including voting records, and original research on legislation.

Sen. Harris earned another distinction: She was the 3rd most absent compared to all Senators. Harris missed 61.9% of votes (265 of 428 votes) in 2019., Govtrack.us said.

Here are some photos from President Trump’s Aug. 18 visit to Yuma. See who you know!

Displaying their masks in Yuma
Checking his phone
Waiting for Trump
Waiting for Trump (2)
Intro remarks
Waiting for the President
President Trump arrives on Air Force One
Candid photo of the President speaking in Yuma

An Example of ‘Hard-hitting Journalism’?

It’s hard to keep up with “Slow Joe’s” antics. On Sept. 15, he confused Iraq and Iran while lecturing President Trump on foreign policy. Meanwhile, President Trump was signing an historic peace deal between Israel, United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Also meanwhile, the media are continuing to toss Biden softball questions.