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.”

Supreme Court upholds Arizona voting rules, including ballot harvesting ban

The U.S. Supreme Court on July 1 upheld two Republican-supported Arizona voting laws the legislators say are intended to ensure election integrity.

The decision, delivered by a 6-3 court split on ideological lines, found that neither law violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and that they were not enacted with racially discriminatory intent. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the court’s majority opinion. Justice Elena Kagan led the leftists on the court in dissent.

People with identification are not scarce

The Arizona Republican Party and the Democratic National Committee have been feuding over the laws since before the 2016 presidential election. The case received renewed attention in the aftermath of the 2020 election after many Americans said that coronavirus-era voting provisions, some later found to have been enacted illegally, had unfairly tilted the election to the Democrats.

The laws, approved long before the 2020 election, require that a ballot be thrown out if it was cast in a precinct other than the one matching the voter’s home address. The laws also ban “ballot harvesting,” in which third-party carriers such as unions and activist groups collect absentee ballots and deliver them for counting. Passed in 2016, Arizona H.B. 2023, makes it a felony for anyone other than a family member, caregiver or postal worker to collect and deliver ballots.

The second Arizona law in question requires ballots to be cast in the assigned precinct where a voter lives. If a voter casts a provisional ballot at the wrong polling place, election officials will reject it.

According to the Washington Examiner, “Democrats claimed that the laws are racist because they could disproportionately affect black, Latino, and Native American populations. The DNC, in its brief, called Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy one of the ‘most punishing in the nation’ and accused it of effectively disenfranchising more than 38,000 voters since 2008. It also alleged that the ballot harvesting ban took voting rights away from minorities who rely on third-party carriers to vote.”

In a 2005 bipartisan report, former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and former Secretary of State James Baker, a Republican, recommended prohibiting ballot collection. Critics of ballot harvesting can also point to a race in Patterson, New Jersey last year in which candidates were indicted on fraud charges after they mishandled collected ballots.  They were indicted on charges of election fraud, fraud in casting mail-in votes, unauthorized possession of ballots, tampering with public records and falsifying records. Patterson City Councilman Alex Mendez also was indicted for alleged false voter registration.

The Supreme Court’s decision overturns the San Francisco-based U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which found that Arizona’s regulations had a disproportionate impact on Native American, Latino and Black voters and that it was enacted in a broader context of voter discrimination.

Posted July 1, 2021

Arizona GOP Lawmakers Strip Powers from Controversial Secretary of State Katie Hobbs

The Republican-controlled state Legislature in Arizona voted June 29 to revoke the Democratic secretary of state’s legal authority in election-related lawsuits, handing that power instead to Republican attorney general Mark Brnovich until Jan. 2, 2023.

Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D) 300x180 Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (at left) has denounced the independent 2020 election audit in Arizona,  spearheaded by the state’s Republican senate, which is questioning voter fraud and irregularities surrounding Maricopa County’s ballot tally. The audit applied to 2.1 million ballots in the county’s jurisdiction, where Joe Biden allegedly defeated former President Trump by around 10,000 votes, and contracted the services of the small cybersecurity company and first-time election auditor Cyber Ninjas to conduct it.

The measure, sent to Gov. Doug Ducey, was part of a series of proposals inserted into major budget legislation, including several actions that address election integrity. Included is an appropriation of $500,000 for a study of whether social media sites interfered in state elections by promoting Democrats while suppressing Republicans.

Katie Hobbs has since set her sights on grander things, and on June 2 declared her candidacy for governor.

Posted June 30, 2021

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.”)

Trump endorses Stefanik’s bid to oust Cheney from GOP leadership

Former president Donald Trump on Wednesday endorsed Representative Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.) to replace Representative Liz Cheney (R-Wy.) as chair of the House Republican Conference as party leadership has reportedly sought to oust the Wyoming congresswoman from her leadership role in recent days.

Rep. Elise Stefanik R-NY portrait with flag

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R.-NY)

“Liz Cheney is a warmongering fool who has no business in Republican Party Leadership,” Trump said in a statement on his website. “We want leaders who believe in the Make America Great Again movement, and prioritize the values of America First. Elise Stefanik is a far superior choice, and she has my COMPLETE and TOTAL Endorsement for GOP Conference Chair. Elise is a tough and smart communicator!”

Stefanik thanked Trump for his support in a tweet on Wednesday, adding, “We are unified and focused on FIRING PELOSI & WINNING in 2022!”

National Review reports that Stefanik has also received support from the top two Republicans in the House for her bid to replace Cheney, a longtime critic of Trump and other conservatives. A spokeswoman for House GOP Whip Steve Scalise (R., La.) said Wednesday that the No. 2 Republican in the House “has pledged to support [Stefanik] for conference chair.”

“House Republicans need to be solely focused on taking back the House in 2022 and fighting against Speaker Pelosi and President Biden’s radical socialist agenda, and Elise Stefanik is strongly committed to doing that,” Scalise’s spokeswoman, Lauren Fine, said in a statement.

The renewed push to remove Cheney, the third-ranking GOP lawmaker in the House, from her leadership post comes after she told the New York Post last week that while she believes Republicans could take back the presidency in 2024, she thinks lawmakers who supported Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results should be disqualified from running.

Cheney has drawn the ire of her Republican colleagues repeatedly since she voted in favor of Trump’s second impeachment but previously survived a secret ballot the House GOP conference conducted in February over whether to keep her in her post.  The conference voted 145–61 to keep Cheney in her leadership role at that time.

“This is about whether the Republican Party is going to perpetuate lies about the 2020 election and attempt to whitewash what happened on January 6,” Cheney spokesman Jeremy Adler said May 4. “Liz will not do that. That is the issue.”

(No, Jeremy, the issue is Liz Cheney’s leftist worldview and lack of veracity.)

Cheney, a daughter of Dick Cheney, who was George W. Bush’s vice president and before that a Wyoming congressman, seemed to have almost unlimited potential until this year. Her career began listing after she was among just 10 House Republicans to back Trump’s impeachment for inciting supporters to storm the Capitol on Jan. 6. The House GOP could hold a second vote to oust Cheney in the near future.

Posted May 5, 2021

Donald Trump Launches His Own Communication Platform, Bypassing the Tech Dictocracy

Donald Trump launches a new website

After months of being banned from social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook, former President Donald Trump this week launched a new communications platform where he will be able to communicate directly with his followers.

The new platform, called “From the Desk of Donald J. Trump,” can be found at www.DonaldJTrump.com/desk. Users can see posts, images, and videos from Trump and share them to social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. (We don’t know if the media dictocracy will ban such posts or the posters.) The site currently does not yet have a way for users to comment or interact with the posts on the platform.

Trump has already added a few posts to the site, including a video introducing users to the new platform that promises to be “straight from the desk of Donald J. Trump.”

The technology appears to be powered by Campaign Nucleus— the “digital ecosystem made for efficiently managing political campaigns and organizations,” created by his former campaign manager, Brad Parscale, according to Fox News.

“President Trump’s website is a great resource to find his latest statements and highlights from his first term in office, but this is not a new social media platform,” senior advisor Jason Miller told Fox News. “We’ll have additional information coming on that front in the very near future.”

President Trump’s website was launched May 4, the day before Facebook’s “oversight board” decided to continue suspending Trump from Facebook and Instagram for at least another six months.

Facebook moved to block Trump “indefinitely” after the Jan. 6 riot in the U.S. Capitol, with CEO Mark Zuckerberg saying that they “believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great.”

Trump is permanently banned from Twitter for daring to attempt to counter the Democratic Party narrative.

The President of Syrian President Bashar Hafez al-Assad and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei still are allowed to post on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.

Posted May 5, 2021

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.

RNC Chair Says Trump ‘Is Not Done Fighting’

RNC chair says Trump's still fighting, Townhall saysStiglich cartoon borrowed from Townhall.com

After a series of legal setbacks this week, the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee say the President is nowhere near to throwing in the towel.

RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel said the president still has not conceded. Before explaining voter inconsistencies that they are still pursuing, McDaniel said Nov. 24 on Fox News, “He (Trump) is not by any means giving up this fight,”

“We still have a recount going on in Wisconsin,” she said, “with major issues in how their election laws were applied with over 200,000 people saying they were indefinitely confined, that is four times more than happened in 2016. It just doesn’t seem correct.”

And that, she explained, “helps them to evade voter ID laws.”

Townhall.com reports that McDaniel pointed out other suspicious activity in Georgia. In 2018, 280,000 absentee ballots came in with a 3 percent rejection rate. In this election, 1.2 million ballots came in, with a rejection rate equal to one-tenth of that — three-tenths of a percent. The governor announced a recount to take a closer look at the signatures. In Michigan, the Board of Canvassers voted that there should be legislative review of the election process.

In other words, McDaniel said, “There’s a lot still going on.”

In their Nov. 20 press conference, then-campaign lawyers Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani claimed to have proof of vast voter fraud. Powell even went so far as to say that Trump won re-election in a landslide. Since those bombshell statements, the Trump campaign has parted ways with her. But Powell insists she’s still going to prove her allegations.

Arizona Gov. Ducey Won’t Accept Election Results Until All Lawsuits Are Settled

PHOENIX, AZ. – Gov. Doug Ducey announced the state’s election isn’t over until all court cases have been settled, as the Trump campaign and state GOP filed lawsuits in Maricopa County in a bid to block officials from certifying the election results due to alleged voter irregularities and improprieties.

“There are legal claims that are being challenged in court and everybody on the ballot has certain access rights and remedies and if they want to push that they are able. Once those are adjudicated and the process plays out, I will accept the results of the election,” the Republican governor said in a news conference on Wednesday. It was the first time he held one since the Nov. 3 election.

Gov. Doug Ducey, R-AZ

Ducey has not called Democratic challenger Joe Biden the winner of the election. The governor noted that he heard about voting issues in the state but hasn’t personally seen any evidence.

Arizona state law gives all Arizona counties until Nov. 23 to certify the results of the election. Then, the counties are to send in their results to the Secretary of State’s office, which then has another 10 days to certify the statewide results. The Secretary of State, Katie Hobbs, has called Trump’s “base” of supporters “neo-Nazis.”

Biden and Trump

While several news outlets have described Biden as the president-elect and declared him the winner, outlets such as The Epoch Times has not, pending the outcome of lawsuits and other processes needed to complete the election and finally declare a winner.

The Electoral College votes next month, and Congress will hold its Joint Session to formally count electoral votes and declare official election results in early January. According to the unofficial vote count, as of Nov. 18, Biden is ahead of Trump by about 11,000 votes in Arizona. Earlier this week, the Arizona GOP moved to halt county officials in the state to delay certifying their results.

“The party is pushing for not only the county supervisors but everyone responsible for certifying and canvassing the election to make sure that all questions are answered so that voters will have confidence in the results of the election,” said Zach Henry, a spokesman for the Arizona Republican Party, reported The Associated Press.

The party also filed a lawsuit to request a hand-count in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, of a sampling of ballots. They also are seeking a court order prohibiting the county from certifying results until that case is decided.

“This case is about delay—not the adjudication of good faith claims,” lawyers for Secretary of State Hobbs said in response, AP reported. Hobbs, a Democrat, also claimed Nov. 18 she is receiving threats of violence following the election, alleging that Trump and other GOP members are spreading misinformation. Hobbs did not provide any evidence for her claims of violence.

-Updated Nov. 19, 2020