Here is yet another example of the sorts of uncovering of US 2020 electoral fraud that are now unfolding. “An election integrity group says an autopsy of the November 2020 election identified over 157,000 illegally cast ballots in Wisconsin, a number that exceeds Joe Biden’s margin of victory by eight times.” That is starting to rattle the system, and they are beginning to fight back by using legal means to ban investigations. Hopefully though, the truth will out.
“An election integrity group says an autopsy of the November 2020 election identified over 157,000 illegally cast ballots in Wisconsin, a number that exceeds Joe Biden’s margin of victory by eight times.
A team of researchers from the Looking Ahead America Research Group (“LAA”) led by Matt Braynard says they’ve located more than enough illegally cast ballots to establish “beyond a reasonable doubt that the deserved winner of Wisconsin is unknowable.”
A report produced by the group in late July identified “seven tranches of illegal ballots.” The categories of illegal ballots range from voters who improperly claimed to be indefinitely confined to those who cast votes while living in a different state or illegally registered to vote.
What is indefinitely confined?
Under Wisconsin law, a voter may receive a ballot by mail and bypass Wisconsin’s strict voter ID law, if the voter, by his or her own determination, concludes he or she is “confined” based on age, physical illness, or infirmity.
Last fall, roughly 240,000 voters in Wisconsin said they were indefinitely confined, nearly a four-fold increase from the 2016 election. Of that number, over 169,000 claimed the indefinitely confined status for the first time.
In a victory for the Trump campaign last December, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled election officials were wrong to suggest voters could claim the status of “indefinitely confined” based on the Covid pandemic.
The court said that if voters falsely claimed they were indefinitely confined “their ballots would not count.” But the justices stopped short of overturning the election. Instead, they noted that a determination should be made on a case-by-case basis before tossing a ballot.
Researchers Take Up Court’s Challenge
Following the November election, LAA took up the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s challenge. Researchers used a randomized sample of voters who claimed the confinement status for the first time in 2020.
Doing a deep dive, LAA investigated 309 voters who claimed to be indefinitely confined. The researchers could not determine the status of roughly 40 percent of those voters, but the analysts were able to determine the status of 182 people (“determinable voters’).
Of the determinable voters, researchers found 165 voters illegally claimed the indefinitely confined status. In other words, LAA found in the subsample that 90.7% of persons illegally claimed the indefinitely confined status with only 9.3% legally claiming it.
Projecting those numbers out, the analysts conclude that no less than 24,037 ballots were cast illegally. However, LAA says based on their analysis, they believe the likely number is much higher. “[W]e can assume that around 153,539 people likely illegally claimed the indefinitely confined status,” the report states.
In one case, researchers found a voter who not only illegally claimed indefinite confinement but happened to be the wife of a state representative who famously claimed in the aftermath of the 2020 General Election that there was no widespread voter fraud in Wisconsin.
The group also reported finding over 3,000 people who filed a permanent, out-of-state change of address with postal services more than one month before the November 2020 election.
Matt Braynard joins Inside The Numbers to Speak About Wisconsin Report
LAA could not draw firm conclusions for each of the “seven tranches of illegal ballots” because in some cases, elections officials refused to comply with requests for data. Nevertheless, researchers hope their report will help launch a full audit of the Wisconsin election.
One Step Closer to a Wisconsin Audit
Yesterday, the leader of the Wiscocnsin Assembly’s elections committee, Rep. Janel Brandtjen, issued subpoenas demanding extensive election materials, including all ballots and voting machines from two counties in what she called a “top-to-bottom” investigation of the state’s 2020 presidential results.
It’s unclear, however, whether the Wisconsin review will happen. Two other investigations of the election results are already underway and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos signaled that he doesn’t support a third probe.
State election officials certified Joe Biden as the winner of Wisconsin after a partial recount, which showed Biden with a 26,600-vote margin over Donald Trump.”
https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-08-07-corrupt-doj-threatening-prison-time-auditing-elections.html
“[It is] clear that the Biden regime has no regard for the rule of law, doesn’t care what federal courts say, and has no tendency to follow precedent, as a series of recent actions prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Most readers are well aware of what occurred at the U.S. Capitol Building on Jan. 6. We all know that was a deep state false flag operation; people going to hear a president give a speech don’t show up in military gear and body armor. And supporters of President Donald Trump do not attack police officers.
But for trespassing on the Capitol grounds that day, dozens of ‘suspects’ are still in custody at the horrific D.C. Jail where they are being subjected to the same kinds of horrific abuses that prisoners of war suffer in authoritarian regimes. Most of them can’t even see their lawyers, which is blatantly unconstitutional. And yet, not a peep from the “Justice” Department.
Meanwhile, several states are either conducting audits of 2020 ballots or are considering do so, which they are well within their constitutional and legal right to do. But suddenly, under the current regime, it’s not allowed; doing so is a violation of ‘voting rights’ laws, according to the same “Justice” Department that is allowing American citizens to rot in jail in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Earlier this summer, Attorney General Merrick Garland ‘warned’ states like Arizona they’d better be careful conducting their audits because any violation of voting laws (real or imagined, of course) would result in punishment.
“Many of the justifications proffered in support of these post-election audits and restrictions on voting have relied on assertions of material vote fraud in the 2020 election that have been refuted by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, of both this administration and the previous one, as well as by every court, federal and state, that has considered them,” Garland said in a speech at the Justice Department in June.
That drew a fiery response from Arizona Rep. Mark Finchem, now a GOP candidate for Arizona attorney general. In an appearance on Steve Bannon’s War Room: Pandemic podcast, he warned Garland and his “band of thugs” they’d better stay away from the state’s ballot audit.
“I got news for Merrick Garland, there’s this little thing called the Constitution,” said Finchem. “Article I, section IV, the times places and manner of holding election for senators and representatives… it is the legislature that has responsibility for nominating and naming the electors for President.”
Now, Garland’s thugs have come back with a threat of their own: Jail time if the ‘Justice’ Dept. finds what it will claim are violations of voting laws.
“The ultimate purpose of the Civil Rights Act’s preservation and retention requirements for federal elections records is to ‘secure a more effective protection of the right to vote,'” a document from the department states.
“There are federal criminal penalties attached to willful failures to comply with the retention and preservation requirements of the Civil Rights Act,” it continues.
“Election audits are exceedingly rare. But the Department is concerned that some jurisdictions conducting them may be using, or proposing to use, procedures that risk violating the Civil Rights Act. The duty to retain and preserve election records necessarily requires that elections officials maintain the security and integrity of those records and their attendant chain of custody, so that a complete and uncompromised record of federal elections can be reliably accessed and used in federal law enforcement matters,” the document continues.
Case in point: Finchem is right. The duty to conduct and hold elections falls first to the states, via the Constitution. States would not have joined a federal union at the beginning if those autonomous enclaves were not permitted to control their own balloting.
But again, the Biden regime doesn’t care about the Constitution. It cares about power, even if it means plunging the nation into civil war to get it.”
https://amgreatness.com/2021/08/06/the-2020-election-is-breaking-the-legal-profession/
“The Hill reports that a Colorado federal magistrate judge, N. Reid Neureiter, “sanctioned lawyers who challenged the 2020 presidential election results, calling their election claims ‘fantastical.’” “Plaintiffs’ counsel shall jointly and severally pay the moving Defendants’ reasonable attorneys [fees]”—which is very likely to be many thousands of dollars. This ruling comes while a federal district judge in Michigan, Linda Parker, considers imposing sanctions on attorneys Sidney Powell and Lin Wood, both of whom raised questions about the propriety of the 2020 presidential election.
In January, James Boasberg, a federal district judge in Washington, D.C., “referred a Minnesota lawyer [Erick Kardaal] for potential discipline” for his lawsuit regarding the last election. And these three proceedings occur in the shadow of the sanctioning of Rudy Giuliani by a New York state appellate court, which saw fit to suspend his law license for representing his client, then-President Donald J. Trump, in the wake of the 2020 election. Giuliani likely will face “permanent sanctions” at the conclusion of the process.
These are deeply troubling developments. Even the Bush v. Gore saga didn’t generate such official acrimony.
Attorneys in every state are duty-bound to offer zealous advocacy for their clients. This doesn’t mean that they can lie to the court or to the other lawyers involved in a case, or make a mockery of the process, but it does mean that they have an ethical obligation to press every possible good-faith claim in their client’s favor as hard as they possibly can. The American legal system is adversarial; therefore, a case’s legal soundness is only as good as the competition between the lawyers who appear before the court.
The Colorado magistrate and the New York appellate court both rested their decisions imposing sanctions on the alleged “threat” that the cases posed to the continuity of America itself; both cited the January 6, 2021 “insurrection.” (In Giuliani’s case, shockingly, almost none of the statements that the New York court cited as the basis for its sanctions ruling were things that Giuliani said in court filings or to the court itself; the vast majority were public utterances. First Amendment, anyone?)
This is all more than a little ridiculous, and if Americans paid even half as much attention to the goings-on of the courts as these jurists seem to think they do, we certainly would not be in such dire straits. Fact is, hardly anybody does follow judicial minutiae very closely, and most don’t follow it at all. Back in 2011, a poll showed that only 37 percent of those polled knew that there are nine justices on the Supreme Court of the United States, and a poll released in January 2016 revealed that 10 percent of college graduates think “Judge Judy” is one of them!
Given the appalling lack of civic literacy surrounding even the nation’s highest, and consequently most visible, tribunal, I’m on very safe ground when I say that these lower court cases emphatically are not “the stuff of which violent insurrections are made” (which is how the hyperventilating Colorado magistrate characterized the case before him).
Elites are psychologically predisposed to swat down, with extreme prejudice, any perceived threats to the ruling class’ continued legitimacy; it has ever been thus. But make no mistake: This sort of thing, if it spreads and becomes normalized as the routine operation of our legal system, will have dire consequences.
Our legal system, as I noted, is premised on zealous advocacy. It grew out of the medieval practice of “trial by combat.” In that system, it became perfectly acceptable for people to hire strong (and thus expensive) champions to win a trial on their behalf. This is roughly the role that lawyers play today—just without the literal blood, physical injury, and death.
But the system only works if both sides have access to strong, vigorous advocates. You can imagine how trial by combat would go if one side was only permitted to hire measly runts to defend them in battle, while the other side was able to hire people like “The Mountain.” Barring a miracle, “The Mountain” is going to win. But such a disparity is, in effect, what is happening now. The system is imploding because the ability to access quality legal representation for certain cases and causes increasingly is subject to elite approval.
The penalties levied on lawyers who litigate claims the ruling class finds icky and verboten are premised on a serious misunderstanding of the nature of the legal profession. Lawyers do not have to agree with their clients; in fact, you simply can’t be a good lawyer if you expect to agree 100 percent with everyone who hires you. To say that a lawyer who represents a client and therefore a cause that some people think is odious should be punished for that representation is to destroy our entire system of justice.
It appears the Left is becoming more comfortable enforcing its orthodoxy through formal channels. Not only will you get cancelled if you represent someone they don’t like, you’ll also be fined, sanctioned, and held in contempt of court. If lawyers are unable to represent clients as zealously as is humanly possible, then our legal system is no more.
Lawyers are hired guns. They’re paid to advocate on behalf of their clients’ interests. They do not have to agree with or even like their clients. But they do have to fight like hell for them.
Sanctioning lawyers who are fighting to uphold the country’s election system, to uphold “ballots”—“the rightful and peaceful successors of bullets,” as Abraham Lincoln put it—is a great way to scare away competent, qualified, and strong ones from taking charged cases.
Maybe that’s the point.
If this transmogrification becomes complete, our legal system will have been gutted, even as, appearance-wise, it will seem to be the very same venerable system passed down to us and developed over the centuries by our ancestors. And for what?
All to stick it to the Bad Orange Man.
This way lies madness, but there’s still time to course correct. If we care about justice, we will.”