SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PoliticsA Hard Look At Donald Trump


Previous 10 Next 10 
From: Glenn Petersen10/27/2021 4:53:49 AM
3 Recommendations   of 30297
 
Opinion: This is how the anti-democratic right wins

By Greg Sargent
Columnist
The Washington Post
Yesterday at 5:00 p.m. EDT

CNN has an appalling new report documenting the threats that elections officials around the country are receiving, in part because Donald Trump and his movement continue feeding his lies about the 2020 election. To take one vile example, Arizona secretary of state Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, got a voicemail saying: "I am a hunter — and I think you should be hunted.”

There are many other similarly disgusting threats, which you can peruse in the CNN piece.

But as horrifying as the threats themselves are, the consequences of these threats are also alarming when it comes to the future of U.S. democracy. In particular, the head of the group that oversees the Democratic secretaries of state fears that elections workers may be cowed into refraining from returning to work in future elections.

This is how the anti-democratic right wins: Every time a public spirited elections worker decides that helping to administer democracy in good faith is too personally dangerous to carry out, the threats are achieving precisely their desired end.

It’s often noted that many Republicans loyal to Trump’s 2020 lies are running for positions of influence over the machinery of democracy. This is generally described as some sort of half-baked plot to put in place the building blocks of a future election theft effort by Trump.

But the more worrisome thing here is that some of these candidates appear to be unshackling themselves from any sense of obligation to implement elections in good faith or even to abide by their legitimate outcomes. Never mind Trump’s future intentions; this trend is worrying as a separate matter, independent of Trump.

Now add into the mix the prospect of elections officials and workers feeling too intimidated to make the system work properly.

Colorado secretary of state Jena Griswold — who is also head of the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State — raised this prospect in the CNN piece.

I contacted Griswold to ask her view of how serious a problem this has become. She pointed to a Reuters report documenting more than 100 threats of violence or death to elections workers and officials in key swing states, largely inspired by the Trump movement’s lies. Griswold noted that she had personally fielded reports of such threats to elections officials and elected county clerks in her home state.

“One county clerk works behind bulletproof glass,” Griswold told me. This was the subject of an account by a local Colorado news outlet, which reported that this had been installed in the Chaffee County Clerk and Recorder’s office.

Griswold also said some Colorado elections officials have been threatened for refusing to carry out fake third-party election “audits” of the sort we’ve seen in Arizona. Griswold said these threats are a topic of conversation among other secretaries of state, and noted that it’s “incredibly concerning” that officials are getting threatened for “doing their jobs and upholding the will of the voters."

To be fair, we really don’t know how widespread this all is. The CNN report does note that federal law enforcement officials are taking this increasingly seriously and exploring ways to take over some responsibilities in investigating these threats, which have historically been handled by local law enforcement. That’s a pretty bad sign.

But however widespread it is, let’s think of it this way: Any time a single individual fears for her personal safety in carrying out the work of democracy, it’s a victory for the anti-democratic right.

They will stop at nothing. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) just unleashed a disgusting diatribe filled with lurid lies about how the left, antifa, Black Lives Matter protesters and assorted “Marxist-communist” operatives allied with Democrats were far worse than the Jan. 6 rioters, who, she said, were carrying out the spirit of the Declaration of Independence’s directive to “overthrow tyrants.”

And Trump has now gone all the way into declaring the Jan. 6 rioters the heroes and the implementers of the 2020 election as the insurrectionists.

The 2020 election isn’t often thought of this way, but it was a civic triumph. Countless elections officials and workers implemented the election under extraordinarily difficult conditions — a pandemic, upended procedures to deal with it, a president relentlessly casting the whole process as irredeemably corrupt and egging on angry mobs to terrorize them — yet it came off relatively smoothly, with the horrible exception of the violence on Jan. 6.

This is exactly what the anti-democratic right hates about what happened. And they’ll do all they can to ensure that people who heroically implemented a legitimate election last time will refrain from doing so next time.

Opinion | This is how the anti-democratic right wins - The Washington Post

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Brumar8910/27/2021 7:44:04 AM
   of 30297
 
GOP Demands Justice Department Back Off Threat To Protect School Board Members From Violent MobsWe wish it were a joke.

By LIZ DYE
onOctober 26, 2021 at 3:15 PM

59SHARES

What are we mad about this week? The wingnut rage machine has spoken, and it seems America’s number one threat is school boards. Obviously the officials who give their time to guide children’s education are a dangerous scourge which must be stopped.

Whipped into a frenzy by social and rightwing media (Thanks, Zuck! Thanks, Rupert!), “concerned” parents have engaged in a sustained campaign of harassment, disrupting school board meetings to scream inanities about “critical race theory” and insist on their children’s sacred right to sneeze droplets on other people’s kids.

We’ve all seen the videos, like this one of medical personnel leaving a school board meeting in Tennessee while an angry crowd menaces them, shouting “We know who you are, you can leave freely, but we will find you,” and “You will never be allowed in public again.”




Last week, Jennifer Jenkins, a school board member in Florida, wrote in the Washington Post about enduring months of harassment that included protestors outside her home threatening “to make you beg for mercy,” a state rep posting her cellphone number on Facebook and urging citizens to call her (they did), having her lawn vandalized, and a false child abuse report against her.





Be careful, your mommy hurts little kids!” one shouted at my daughter. “You’re going to jail!” they chanted. As I read my daughter a bedtime story inside, they walked outside her bedroom window toward their parked cars. I went out to ensure that they were leaving. One coughed in my face while another shouted, “Give her covid!” A third swung a “Don’t Tread on Me” flag near my face. My neighbors told me they had seen protesters brandishing weapons in the church parking lot behind my house.

The next day, a large “FU” was burned into my lawn with weed killer. The bushes in front of my house were hacked down. That was the day the Department of Children and Families investigator showed up.



Clearly things have gotten out of hand, hence the September 29 letter from the National School Board Association to the president requesting “federal law enforcement and other assistance to deal with the growing number of threats of violence and acts of intimidation occurring across the nation.”

On October 4, the Justice Department responded with a memo directing the FBI to convene meetings with local law enforcement officials to address “threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.” At which point, it was off to the races, with bad faith actors in the GOP pretending that Biden’s Justice Department was targeting parents for exercising their First Amendment right to speak in defense of their precious children.

“Joe Biden’s attorney general wants the FBI to go after parents for speaking out at school board meetings to protect kids from radical curriculum like critical race theory,” tweeted Florida Sen. Rick Scott.

“For those of us who missed the McCarthy era, I guess this president is intent on bringing it to us,” Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley vamped at a Judiciary Committee hearing with Deputy AG Lisa Monaco.

The hearing was on the Violence Against Women Act, but no matter.

“I think parents across this country are going to be stunned to learn — stunned! — that if they show up at a local school board meeting, by the way where they have the right to appear and be heard, where they have the right to say something about their children’s education, where they have the right to vote, and you are attempting to intimidate them,” he howled. “You are attempting to silence them. You are attempting to interfere with their rights as parents, and yes, with their rights as voters.”

Literally none of that is happening. But in the face of unrelenting pressure, the NSBA apologized for the tone of its letter to the Biden administration and promised many days of self flagellation and reflection on its sin of daring to protect its members.

Sensing an advantage in the forever culture war, House Judiciary Committee members pounced, demanding that Garland withdraw the October 4 memo and refrain from any use of federal law enforcement to protect educators and school board members.

“Because the NSBA letter was the basis for your memorandum and given that your memorandum has been and will continue to be read as threatening parents and chilling their protected First Amendment rights, the only responsible course of action is for you to fully and unequivocally withdraw your memorandum immediately,” they huffed indignantly, before racing to screech in one million news hits that “Parents who voice their opinion should never be labeled as domestic terrorists.”




They also appear to blame him for a sexual assault that happened in a Virginia High School, because if you’re going to throw a sucker punch, you might as well go for the knee to the groin while you’re at it. And so the astroturf campaign to harass teachers and school officials goes on, with the perpetrators conveniently recast as victims of evil government storm troopers intent on suppressing their free speech.

If it weren’t for bad faith, these people would have no faith at all.

https://abovethelaw.com/2021/10/gop-demands-justice-department-back-off-threat-to-protect-school-board-members-from-violent-mobs/?fbclid=IwAR2HdUKHYANYpZTCKrx5_GILfFr0IElKu5a8ncgDPEgMMoJg1ixAskQvKds

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Brumar89 who wrote (27571)10/27/2021 8:29:23 AM
From: Brumar89
2 Recommendations   of 30297
 
Charlie Kirk Gets Asked at TPUSA Event: ‘How Many Elections Are They Gonna Steal Before We Kill These People?’
By Leia IdlibyOct 26th, 2021

While speaking at a Turing Point USA event, Charlie Kirk was asked when “we get to use the guns” to “kill these people” over baseless election fraud claims.

Kirk spoke at Boise State University on Monday night as part of his Exposing Critical Racism tour, during which he condemned critical race theory and pushed false claims of voter fraud.

Roughly one hour and 12 minutes into the event, Kirk was asked something the audience member himself deemed “a bit out of the ordinary.”

“At this point, we’re living under corporate and medical fascism. This is tyranny. When do we get to use the guns? No, and I’m not — that’s not a joke,” asked the audience member. “I’m not saying it like that. I mean, literally, where’s the line? How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people?”

Kirk immediately denounced the question and claimed that those on the left are “trying to provoke you and everyone here,” adding, “They are trying to make you do something that will be violent that will justify a takeover of your freedoms and liberties, the likes of which we have never seen.”

The audience member replied by saying that Democrats are already provoking him enough to get violent, prompting Kirk to push for the use of “peaceful means.”

“A mistake would all of a sudden be getting into physical, violent confrontation,” Kirk continued. “You think that this regime has all of a sudden sprung into action? Wait until they get what they want. They want that. Why would we give that to them? Follow up point.”

Seemingly unsatisfied with the response, the audience member went on to ask Kirk where Republicans draw the line regarding those on the left.

“The line is when we exhaust every single one of our state ability to push back against what’s happening,” Kirk replied, later claiming again that Democrats want Republicans to get violent.

“And so what is the line? Look, man, I think, I think we’re – I think we’re at the teetering edge of a regime that knows that good and decent Americans are going to get to the place in the movie Network, I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore, right? Well, guess what? Know that there’s a deeper game at play,” he said. “Understand the psychological warfare that’s being played here. They’re trying to animate you. They’re trying to get you to do something that then justifies what they actually want to do.”

mediaite.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Brumar8910/27/2021 12:06:51 PM
2 Recommendations   of 30297
 
An Open Letter in Defense of Democracy
The future of democracy in the United States is in danger.

by TODD GITLIN, JEFFREY C. ISAAC, AND WILLIAM KRISTOL
OCTOBER 27, 2021 9:00 AM


(Design by Hannah Yoest / Photos: GettyImages / Shutterstock)

[This open letter is being published simultaneously by The Bulwark and the New Republic.]

We are writers, academics, and political activists who have long disagreed about many things.

Some of us are Democrats and others Republicans. Some identify with the left, some with the right, and some with neither. We have disagreed in the past, and we hope to be able to disagree, productively, for years to come. Because we believe in the pluralism that is at the heart of democracy.

But right now we agree on a fundamental point: We need to join together to defend liberal democracy.

Because liberal democracy itself is in serious danger. Liberal democracy depends on free and fair elections, respect for the rights of others, the rule of law, a commitment to truth and tolerance in our public discourse. All of these are now in serious danger.

The primary source of this danger is one of our two major national parties, the Republican Party, which remains under the sway of Donald Trump and Trumpist authoritarianism. Unimpeded by Trump’s defeat in 2020 and unfazed by the January 6 insurrection, Trump and his supporters actively work to exploit anxieties and prejudices, to promote reckless hostility to the truth and to Americans who disagree with them, and to discredit the very practice of free and fair elections in which winners and losers respect the peaceful transfer of power.

So we, who have differed on so much in the past—and who continue to differ on much today—have come together to say:

We vigorously oppose ongoing Republican efforts to change state election laws to limit voter participation.

We vigorously oppose ongoing Republican efforts to empower state legislatures to override duly appointed election officials and interfere with the proper certification of election results, thereby substituting their own political preferences for those expressed by citizens at the polls.

We vigorously oppose the relentless and unending promotion of unprofessional and phony “election audits” that waste public money, jeopardize public electoral data and voting machines, and generate paranoia about the legitimacy of elections.

We urge the Democratic-controlled Congress to pass effective, national legislation to protect the vote and our elections, and if necessary to override the Senate filibuster rule.

And we urge all responsible citizens who care about democracy—public officials, journalists, educators, activists, ordinary citizens—to make the defense of democracy an urgent priority now.

Now is the time for leaders in all walks of life—for citizens of all political backgrounds and persuasions—to come to the aid of the Republic.

Todd Gitlin
Professor of Journalism, Sociology and Communications
Columbia University

Jeffrey C. Isaac
James H. Rudy Professor of Political Science
Indiana University, Bloomington

William Kristol
Editor at Large, The Bulwark
Director, Defending Democracy Together

CosignersAffiliations listed for identification purposes only.

Sheri Berman
Professor of Political Science
Barnard College

Max Boot
Senior Fellow
Council on Foreign Relations

James Carroll
Writer

Leo Casey
Assistant to the President
American Federation of Teachers

Mona Charen
Policy Editor
The Bulwark

Noam Chomsky
Institute Professor and Professor of Linguistics Emeritus
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Jelani Cobb
Professor of Journalism
Columbia University

Eliot A. Cohen
Robert E. Osgood Professor
Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies

David Cole
National Legal Director
American Civil Liberties Union

Laura K. Field
Senior Fellow
Niskanen Center

Carolyn Forché
University Professor
Georgetown University

Francis Fukuyama
Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow
Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Stanford University

William A. Galston
Senior Fellow
Brookings Institution

Jeffrey C. Goldfarb
Michael E. Gellert Professor Emeritus
New School for Social Research

Hahrie Hahn
Stavros Niarchos Foundation Professor of Political Science
Director, SNF Agora Institute
Johns Hopkins University

Roya Hakakian
Writer

John Judis
Writer

Ira Katznelson
Ruggles Professor of Political Science and History
Columbia University

Michael Kazin
Professor of History
Georgetown University

Randall Kennedy
Michael R. Klein Professor of Law
Harvard University

Steven R. Levitsky
Professor of Government
Harvard University

Robert Jay Lifton, M.D.
Psychiatrist and author

Susie Linfield
Professor of Journalism
New York University

Damon Linker
Senior Correspondent
The Week

Dahlia Lithwick
Senior Editor
Slate

Jane Mansbridge
Charles F. Adams Professor, Emerita
Harvard Kennedy School

Win McCormack
Editor in Chief
The New Republic

John McWhorter
Professor of Linguistics
Columbia University

Deborah Meier
Educator

James Miller
Professor of Politics and Liberal Studies
New School for Social Research

Nell Irvin Painter
Edwards Professor of American History Emerita
Princeton University

Rick Perlstein
Writer

Katha Pollitt
Writer

Claire Potter
Professor of History
New School for Social Research

Jedediah Purdy
William S. Beinecke Professor of Law
Columbia University

Jonathan Rauch
Senior Fellow
Brookings Institution

Adolph Reed
Emeritus Professor of Political Science
University of Pennsylvania

Kim Lane Scheppele
Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Sociology and International Affairs
Princeton University

Charles Sykes
Founder and Editor at Large
The Bulwark

George Thomas
Burnet C. Wohlford Professor of American Political Institutions
Claremont McKenna College

Michael Tomasky
Editor, The New Republic
Editor, Democracy: A Journal of Ideas

Jeffrey K. Tulis
Professor of Government and Law
University of Texas

Joan Walsh
Writer
The Nation

Michael Walzer
Professor Emeritus of Social Science
Institute for Advanced Study

Dorian T. Warren
President
Community Change

Sean Wilentz
George Henry Davis 1886 Professor of American History
Princeton University

Benjamin Wittes
Senior Fellow
Brookings Institution

thebulwark.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Brumar89 who wrote (27573)10/27/2021 12:08:02 PM
From: Brumar89
2 Recommendations   of 30297
 
A Capitol riot defendant volunteered to go into solitary confinement, saying he didn't want to stay in 'cult-like' DC jail wing for Jan. 6 suspects

Sophia Ankel


Pro-Trump protesters clashing with the Washington, DC, police officer Michael Fanone at the US Capitol. Shannon Stapleton/Reuters

Thomas Sibick's lawyer argued that a DC jail wing for Jan. 6 defendants was "cult-like" and "toxic."Sibick requested solitary confinement to avoid dealing with those inmates, his lawyer said.A judge later released him to home confinement with his parents in New York.A Capitol riot defendant volunteered to go to solitary confinement because he didn't want to stay in the "cult-like" Washington, DC, jail wing specifically for January 6 suspects, his lawyer said.

Thomas Sibick of Buffalo, New York, has made multiple requests for release from custody since he was arrested in March, arguing that the atmosphere in the wing of the DC Correctional Treatment Facility was "toxic," his lawyer Stephen Brennwald told a court on Tuesday, Law and Crime reported.

"Every night at 9 p.m., the folks there stand up and sing the Star-Spangled Banner," Brennwald said, according to Law and Crime. "I was on the phone with [Sibick] a month ago and we talked, and in the middle of our talk, he said 'I have to put the phone down, I'll be right back. They'll be angry if I don't go over there.'"

"It was literally this herd mentality," Brennwald added. "They're literally singing ... almost cult-like. It was pretty scary actually."

Brennwald also said that Sibick, who was seen to be one of the more higher-profile defendants in the jail, requested to be put in solitary confinement — known as "the hole"— in order to avoid dealing with the other inmates, Law and Crime reported.

"He shouldn't have to be in a hole because he's trying to avoid a radical unit," Brennwald said, according to Law and Crime.

Sibick has been charged with several counts, including assaulting a police officer and robbery, according to court documents seen by Insider.

He was accused of stealing the radio and badge of the DC police officer Michael Fanone during the riot. Fanone was knocked unconscious and suffered a heart attack during the riot.

'Patriot wing'US District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson agreed on Tuesday to release Sibick to home confinement with his parents in New York, under the condition he stays out of Washington, doesn't attend any political rallies or use social media, and refrains from watching any cable news, according to court documents seen by Insider.

Jackson also said that Sibick's actions "certainly raise serious questions" about how January 6 defendants are housed together.

There are 44 Capitol riot defendants who are serving time pre-trial in the separate wing of the DC Correctional Treatment Facility, which inmates call the "patriot wing," NBC's Scott MacFarlane reported.

One detainee told NBC 4 that inmates in the wing have their own manifesto and also started their own handwritten newsletter, which they pass from cell to cell.

https://www.businessinsider.com/capitol-riot-defendant-request-solitary-confinement-avoid-jan6-jail-wing-2021-10






Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Brumar8910/27/2021 5:08:03 PM
2 Recommendations   of 30297
 
The part everyone is missing about the Paul Gosar January 6th bombshell
Bill Palmer | 7:00 pm EDT October 26, 2021 Palmer Report

This past weekend’s Rolling Stone expose identified seven House Republicans who allegedly coordinated in advance with January 6th Capitol attackers, either directly or through their staffs. If the reporting is accurate, then all seven are in trouble – but Paul Gosar is in the most trouble of all. Plenty of people picked up on why, but most people missed the true seriousness of the matter.

Numerous social media posts are asserting that Paul Gosar offered the Capitol attackers pardons if they got into legal trouble for the attack. But the Rolling Stone article actually says that Gosar “dangled the possibility of a ‘blanket pardon’ in an unrelated ongoing investigation to encourage them to plan the protests.” This is much worse.

It’s one thing to encourage someone to do something reckless or illegal, and promise to get them off the hook if they get into trouble for it. That’s tantamount to bribery; it gives the other person the option of not doing it.

But this reporting says that Gosar offered them pardons for their prior crimes that they were being criminally investigated for at the time. In other words, he essentially told them they had to carry out January 6th or else they’d go to prison for their prior crimes. This means he didn’t really give them the option of not participating, which makes it something closer to blackmail.

Instead of taking illegal steps to encourage these henchmen to carry out the January 6th plot, Paul Gosar took illegal steps to force these henchmen to carry out a January 6th plot that they might not have even been inclined to otherwise carry out. This significantly shifts the criminal culpability for the Capitol attack from the January 6th organizers, to Gosar himself. And of course if Gosar hatched this pardon blackmail plot with Trump or anyone from the Trump White House, that culpability applies to them as well.

So now we wait for what we always have to wait for in any criminal investigation of this type: whether the cooperating witnesses have enough evidence to 1) convince the general public that Gosar took criminal steps to incite the Capitol attack, and 2) convince a trial jury to convict Gosar for his role in the Capitol attack. The former will determine how this plays out in the court of public opinion and thus impacts the midterms. The latter will determine whether the DOJ is able to ultimately indict Gosar.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Brumar8910/28/2021 8:11:11 AM
4 Recommendations   of 30297
 
Trump accuses Bill Barr and Mark Zuckerberg of stealing Pennsylvania election in angry letter to WSJ

Brad Reed
October 27, 2021


Former President Donald Trump accused Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his own former Attorney General William Barr of helping to steal Pennsylvania's election in 2020 in an angry letter written to the Wall Street Journal.


Specifically, Trump took issue with a WSJ editorial published on Monday that accurately claimed Biden defeated Trump by more than 80,000 votes in Pennsylvania.

"Well actually, the election was rigged, which you, unfortunately, still haven't figured out," Trump claimed. "Here are just a few examples of how determinative the voter fraud in Pennsylvania was."

The former president then went through a series of previously debunked claims about "fraud" in Pennsylvania's election, which also included two claims about Barr and Zuckerberg.

Specifically, Trump took issue with a WSJ editorial published on Monday that accurately claimed Biden defeated Trump by more than 80,000 votes in Pennsylvania.

rawstory.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)


To: Brumar89 who wrote (27576)10/28/2021 8:13:09 AM
From: Brumar89
1 Recommendation   of 30297
 
@keithboykin

In 2008, Herschel Walker’s ex-wife said he pointed a gun at her and said: “I’m going to blow your f---ing brains out.” In 2012, Walker’s ex-girlfriend told police he threatened to “blow her head off.” In 2021, Mitch McConnell endorsed him for Senate.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Brumar8910/28/2021 8:19:47 AM
1 Recommendation   of 30297
 
@GYoungTheOldOne

Nor will he We are really living in a time when politicians won’t commit to saying they will follow the law Bear in mind Politicians lie all the time, he could just say yes and not mean it, just straight up LIE AND HE STILL WONT SAY IT TFG has them all by the short hairs

@TheValuesVoter

Trump calls @GlennYoungkin and demands that the counting be stopped. Or that the election not be certified. Or that the results are ignored altogether and he just be given the state's 13 Electoral Votes. What would Youngkin do? Unless I missed it, he hasn't said.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Brumar89 who wrote (27576)10/28/2021 9:00:10 AM
From: scion
   of 30297
 
President Trump Responds on Pennsylvania’s 2020 Election

Donald Trump writes a letter to the editor.


Oct. 27, 2021 2:15 pm ET
wsj.com

In your editorial “The Election for Pennsylvania’s High Court” (Oct. 25), you state the fact that a court wrongly said mail-in ballots could be counted after Election Day. “This didn’t matter,” you add, “because Mr. Biden won the state by 80,555, but the country is lucky the election wasn’t closer. If the election had hung on a few thousand Pennsylvanians, the next President might have been picked by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Well actually, the election was rigged, which you, unfortunately, still haven’t figured out. Here are just a few examples of how determinative the voter fraud in Pennsylvania was:

• 71,893 mail-in ballots were returned after Nov. 3, 2020, at 8 p.m., according to Audit the Vote PA. None of these should have been counted according to the U.S. Constitution and the state Legislature, which didn’t approve this change.

• 10,515 mail-in votes from people who do not exist on the Pennsylvania voter rolls at all.

• 120,000 excess voters are not yet accounted for by the Pennsylvania Department of State—far more votes than voters!

• From 2016 to 2020, during my term as president, Republicans out-registered Democrats 21 to 1. This translated to a 659,145-vote lead at 12:38 a.m. on election night, with “Trump” up a full 15 points.

• Hundreds of thousands of votes were unlawfully counted in secret, in defiance of a court order, while Republican poll watchers were thrown out of buildings where voting took place.

• 39,771 people who registered to vote after the Oct. 19, 2020, deadline, still voted in the 2020 election—simply not allowed.

Highly respected Audit the Vote PA found numerous data integrity problems the Pennsylvania Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors (SURE) system, including:

• 305,874 voters were removed from the rolls after the election on Nov. 3rd.

• 51,792 voters with inactive voter registrations at the end of October 2020 nevertheless voted.

• 57,000 duplicate registrations.

• 55,823 voters who were backfilled into the SURE system.

• 58,261 first-time voters 70 years and older.

• 39,911 people who were added to voter rolls while under 17 years of age.

• 17,000 mail-in ballots sent to addresses outside of Pennsylvania.

• Another analysis of Montgomery County, Pa., found 98% of the eligible voting population in the county was already registered to vote—not possible.

• A canvass of Montgomery County has identified 78,000 phantom voters, with roughly 30% of respondents unaware that there are people registered and voting from their address.

• One nursing home in Lancaster County had 690 registrations and an extremely high turnout rate of 85% in 2020, while nursing homes were closed due to Covid. One of these residents said she had not voted in the past 3 years, but had a mail-in ballot cast in her name.

• 25,000 ballots were requested from nursing homes at the exact same time.

• Numerous reports and sworn affidavits attested to poll watcher intimidation and harassment, many by brute force.

• Attorney General Bill Barr ordered U.S. Attorney Bill McSwain to stand down and not investigate election irregularities.

• Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook poured over $17 million to interfere in the Pennsylvania election, including $5.5 million on “ballot processing equipment” in Philadelphia and $552,000 for drop boxes where the voting pattern was not possible.

And so much more! This is why Democrats and the Fake News Media do not want a full forensic audit in Pennsylvania. In reality, 80,555 ballots are nothing when there is this much corruption or voter irregularities.

Donald J. Trump

Palm Beach, Fla.

Copyright ©2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
Appeared in the October 28, 2021, print edition as 'President Trump Responds on Pennsylvania.'

wsj.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10