Arizona arizona senate Election 2020 Election audit Intelwars Maricopa county ballots Voting Machines

Arizona judge orders Maricopa County to turn over ballots to state Senate

A judge in Maricopa County, Arizona, ordered county election officials on Friday to answer a subpoena from the state Senate to turn over ballots from the November election and provide access to its voting machines for audit.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Timothy Thomason said that the Senate subpoenas were “legal and enforceable” in a ruling resolving a dispute between the Arizona Senate and county officials over how to interpret state law.

According to the Arizona Republic, the county had claimed it was illegal for the Senate to subpoena the ballots and contended that multiple audits of the election which had already been competed were sufficient. The Senate argued that there are still lingering questions about the validity of the ballots and the integrity of the machines and wants to commission its own audit of the election.

The dispute arose over two state laws, one defining the Senate’s subpoena powers and another law that orders county election officials to seal the ballots for two years after an election.

From Arizona Republic:

First, state law gives the Legislature sweeping authority to issue subpoenas and conduct investigations. The Arizona Attorney General’s Office weighed in on this, saying that legislative bodies or committee chairs can issue summonses either to inform future legislation or to “investigate whether a particular governmental entity properly discharged its functions.”

But state law also requires that, after results are certified, ballots be kept “in a secure facility managed by the county treasurer, who shall keep it unopened and unaltered for twenty-four months for elections for a federal office.”

That portion of the law also states that a court order could unseal the ballots.

Essentially, the county said that only a court order could request the ballots and contested the Senate’s ability to subpoena. In his ruling, Thomason sided with the Senate and said the law “does not immunize the ballots from being subpoenaed, let alone from being subpoenaed by the legislature, acting in its Constitutional role to ensure the ‘purity’ of elections.”

“This statute simply does not create a privilege, justifying non-disclosure,” he concluded after a hearing Thursday.

Last December, Arizona state Senate President Karen Fann issued two subpoenas to the Maricopa County election board.

The first subpoena calls for an audit of scanned ballots to collect an electronic ballot image cast for all mail-in ballots counted in the November 2020 general election. The second subpoena calls for a full forensic audit of ballot tabulation equipment, the software for that equipment, and the election management system used in the 2020 general election, the Washington Examiner reported.

The county has already conducted multiple audits of the election, including logic and accuracy tests for the machines and a hand count of a statistically significant number of ballots. The audits found that the machines counted votes accurately.

Most recently, an independent audit of the election published its findings Tuesday. The audit found that the voting machines produced accurate numbers.

“The combination of these findings, along with the pre and post Logic and Accuracy Tests performed by the Arizona Secretary of State, the post-election hand count performed by the political parties, and the many security protocols implemented by the Elections Department confirm that Maricopa County Elections Department’s configuration and setup of the tabulation equipment and election management system provided an accurate counting of ballots and reporting of election results,” the auditors said in a statement.

Biden press Biden speech Biden summit Change my mind COMEDY Crowder Crowder bits Crowder bits playlist1776 Crowder clips Crowder confronts Crowderbits CURRENT EVENTS Dementia Dementia biden Election 2020 fake news Funny conservative gaff How to debate How to debunk Intelwars Joe Biden liberal libertarian Louder with crowder Lwc Mug club n-word news Politics President Biden Racism Stephen Crowder Steven Crowder Video

‘Can you imagine if Donald Trump had said that?’ – Steven Crowder on Biden’s latest word whisker

You may have heard President Joe Biden’s virtual Munich Security Conference speech on Friday . But you probably didn’t hear the mainstream media report on Biden’s N-word gaffe. Don’t worry, Steven Crowder has you covered.

In this clip, Crowder pointed out Biden’s latest word whisker in a light-hearted way. However, Crowder took issue with the media for not covering the gaffe. Crowder’s question of the day: “Can you imagine if Donald Trump had said that?”

According to Crowder, “Biden is not racist. He is an idiot.”

Though Biden got tripped up saying the word “eager,” Crowder expressed his belief that the media would have been all over Trump if he had made the same error.

Watch the clip for more. Can’t watch? Download the podcast here.

Use promo code LWC to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Steven Crowder?

To enjoy more of Steven’s uncensored late-night comedy that’s actually funny, join Mug Club — the only place for all of Crowder uncensored and on demand.

Alex Jones Alex jones banned Andrew Cuomo Capitol riot Change my mind COMEDY Crowder Crowder bits Crowder bits playlist1776 Crowder clips Crowder confronts Crowderbits Cuomo Cuomo brothers Cuomo nusing homes CURRENT EVENTS Election 2020 fake news Funny conservative How to debate How to debunk insurection Intelwars January 6th liberal libertarian Louder with crowder Lwc Mug club New York New York State news Nursing homes Politics Stephen Crowder Steven Crowder The who trump Video voter fraud WHO

EXCLUSIVE: Alex Jones opens up about Jan. 6 at the Capitol

“I tried to get ahead and stop it but I couldn’t move,” Alex Jones recalled as he opened up about the tragic scene that unfolded Jan. 6 outside the U.S. Capitol.

During an exclusive interview with Steven Crowder, a passionate Alex described reaching the Capitol building in Washington, D.C., where he witnessed “hundreds of thousands” people at a rally with a small group of them breaching the building.

“We are running. We get there and there is tear gas and explosions, and it’s surreal,” Alex said. He recalled using a bullhorn to make the rioters stop but “by that point the crowd could not even hear him.”

Steven asked Alex if he felt responsible [as an organizer of the event] for what happened that day.

Alex said he arrived to find “flash bangs” and “people beating cops” and he was sick over it.

Watch the clip for more from Alex.

Can’t watch? Download the podcast here.


Use promo code LWC to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Steven Crowder?

To enjoy more of Steven’s uncensored late-night comedy that’s actually funny, join Mug Club — the only place for all of Crowder uncensored and on demand.

american democracy culture Election 2020 Intelwars poll survey US elections

Poll: Only 16% of Americans say US democracy is working

Most Americans are feeling pessimistic about the state of democracy in their country, according to a new poll conducted by the Associated Press.

Only 16% of Americans surveyed said that democracy is working well or extremely well in the United States, a sentiment shared by individuals of all political persuasions. Almost half of Americans, 45%, think that democracy isn’t functioning properly. A little more than a third, 38%, say democracy is working only somewhat well.

According to the Associated Press, the poll’s findings are “broadly consistent with how Americans graded democracy before the election,” however there was a noticeable partisan swing in views about democracy since the 2020 election.

Last October, 68% of self-identified Republicans said democracy was working at least somewhat well. After the election, though, only 36% of Republicans felt that way. Conversely, in October, just 37% of Democrats believed democracy was working at least somewhat well, but after Joe Biden won the election, that number increased to 70%.

In other words, when Donald Trump was president, most Republicans believed democracy was at least partially working, while most Democrats disagreed, and after Joe Biden won, most Republicans thought democracy wasn’t working, but Democrats were more optimistic.

Roughly two-thirds of Americans say Joe Biden is the legitimately elected president, but only one-third of Republicans believe the election was legitimate, according to the survey.

The Associated Press report blames former President Donald Trump’s claims that the 2020 election was stolen for at least in part eroding Republicans trust in the election:

The core elements of democratic government, including free and fair elections and the peaceful transfer of power, were put to a dire test by the baseless claims of election fraud advanced by former President Donald Trump. Those assertions of fraud were a root cause of the deadly violence at the U.S. Capitol last month, which damaged the country’s reputation as a model for democracy.

Trump will face an unprecedented second impeachment trial in the Senate this week for his role in sparking the violence. About half of Americans say the Senate should convict the Republican former president.

The poll’s findings are broadly consistent with how Americans graded democracy before the election. But there are signs that Trump’s attacks on the democratic process, including his repeated and discredited argument that the election was “stolen” because of voter irregularities, resonated with Republicans.

But Democrats and the mainstream media are not without blame either.

In the wake of the 2016 election and Trump’s surprise win, many Democrats advanced claims that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to defeat Hillary Clinton. The mainstream media in 2017 spread a misleading story that “Russian government cyber actors” attempted to hack the 2016 election results. A poll conducted in 2018 found that 67% of Democrats believed that “Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected.” Further, the 2018 Georgia Democratic candidate for governor, Stacey Abrams, never conceded the election to her Republican opponent Brian Kemp, the legitimately elected governor, whom Abrams accused of engaging in voter suppression tactics to win.

Both political parties have criticized the electoral system in America when it was politically convenient to do so. Perhaps that’s why so many Americans have doubts about their democracy.

Election 2020 Intelwars Marjorie taylor greene

Commentary: I disagree strongly with Marjorie Taylor Greene’s past statements. However, it would be dangerous for the House to punish her for them.

Like many people, I was pretty appalled when the extent of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s social media history began to reach the public consciousness in the last couple of weeks. Certainly, I do not approve of the idea of taking violent action against members of Congress, nor do I think that the Rothschilds are starting forest fires with space lasers. I have absolutely no use for QAnon or its nutty prophecies that never come true. I do not doubt that the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, happened. If given the choice, I would not vote for anyone who held or espoused these views.

All of that being said, what the Democrats are attempting to do to Greene is dangerous and should not be tolerated, either by the House GOP conference or by Democrats.

Greene herself says that she did not make many of these claims and that they were posted to her social media by members of her “team” without her knowledge. I have no idea whether that is true or not, but let’s assume for a moment that Greene wrote and said all these things herself. Even so, any sort of punitive action taken against her for these comments would set a dangerous precedent that every member of the House should oppose.

The key determining factor here is that Greene made these comments before she was elected or took office. They were posted to her public social media accounts. We must therefore assume that the voters who elected her either knew about them, or had the opportunity to know about them, and chose to elect her anyway. And that really ought to seal the deal.

As repulsive as members from all other 434 Congressional districts might find Greene’s pre-election statements and views, they are simply not in an acceptable position to pass judgment on the decision of the voters in her district to send her to Congress to do a job. I am quite sure that the voters in Greene’s district find many of the things believed by, say, Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) to be horrifying; however, members of Congress are not elected to pass judgment on what views are acceptable for other duly elected members of Congress to hold.

If the House wishes to discipline a duly elected member of Congress by stripping committee assignments, the practice should be reserved only for egregious behavior committed by that member while in office, like what happened with former Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). In that circumstance, it could be argued that King’s comments brought disrepute upon the House based upon behavior that had not, as yet, been considered by his voters. In such a circumstance, stripping King of his committee assignments was at least defensible, even if you believe (as I do) that such a measure should be used sparingly and only in dire circumstances.

Punishing a member for pre-election wrongthink — no matter how wrong that think might be — would start us down a very dark path indeed. Now, the Democrats control the levers of power in the House and feel confident removing Greene because so many people nationwide disapprove of her comments. What happens when they decide that everyone who is or has been at any point in time opposed to gay marriage should also be stripped of their committee assignments? What happens when they expand that to everyone who opposes Medicare for All? What happens when Republicans regain power (as eventually they will) and turn it on Democrats?

Whatever you or I might think about Greene and her past history, one ineradicable fact remains: The voters in her district just voted to send her to Congress in a legal and fair election in spite of those views. Whether you or I or anyone else disagrees with that decision is a moot point, at least until the next election rolls around. If either Democrats or Republicans find it distasteful to serve alongside someone with those views, then they can employ the DCCC or NRCC to find someone to run against her and use advertising money to amplify that message to the voters in her district.

Until that time, unless Greene says something that is completely beyond the pale while she is in office, she should not be disciplined by members who were elected to represent other districts.

absentee voting Election 2020 Election 2021 Intelwars Mail-in ballots Mail-in voting Virginia

Judge rules Virginia elections board violated law with late absentee mail-in ballot rule

Last August, the Virginia Board of Elections issued a rule that would’ve allowed elections officials to count late mail-in ballots that arrived without a postmark up to three days after the November election. On Monday, a state judge ruled that the board’s decision was illegal.

Virginia Circuit Court Judge William Eldridge said that Virginia’s mail-in ballot rule violated state elections law and issued an injunction preventing the state from adopting the rule for future elections, the Daily Caller reported. The judge’s decision was announced by the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), a legal group representing Frederick County electoral board member Thomas Reed in his case against the state mail-in ballot law.

“This is a big win for the Rule of Law,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “This consent decree gives Mr. Reed everything he requested – a permanent ban on accepting ballots without postmarks after Election Day and is a loss for the Virginia bureaucrats who said ballots could come in without these protections.”

The Virginia Board of Elections issued its election guidance to county boards on Aug. 4, 2020, notifying them that any ballots “received by the general registrar’s office by noon on the third day after the election … but does not have a postmark, or the postmark is missing or illegible” were not to be rendered invalid. But a week later, the elections board decided that such ballots should be counted.

On Oct. 13, PILF filed a lawsuit against the state elections board on behalf of Reed, who argued that he would not enforce the directive because it violated state law.

The relevant Virginia statute states: “Any absentee ballot returned to the general registrar after the closing of the polls on election day but before noon on the third day after the election and postmarked on or before the date of the election shall be counted.” Reed’s lawyers argued that a plain reading of state law prevents ballots that lack a postmark from being counted.

Two weeks later on Oct. 28, 2020, the court sided with Reed in a preliminary injunction hearing, issuing an order that prevented the state of Virginia from accepting and counting late absentee ballots that were missing postmarks.

The result is that none of the contested ballots were counted in the November election and Judge Eldridge’s final ruling siding with Reed over the Virginia elections board will not change the outcome.

The ruling, however, will apply to future elections in Virginia, including the November 2021 gubernatorial and state legislature elections.

Capitol riots Capitol siege Donald Trump Election 2020 Intelwars

President Trump announces he will not be attending Joe Biden’s inauguration

President Donald Trump made it clear Friday morning what his plans are for the inauguration ceremony for President-elect Joe Biden. He will not be going.

What did he say?

President Trump made the announcement on his favorite platform, Twitter, saying, “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

There were ongoing questions since even before the election about whether President Trump would attend the Jan. 20, 2021, inauguration of his successor should he lose his re-election bid. That question is now answered.

And it comes at a time when the nation is still reeling from Wednesday’s protests and riots on Capitol Hill that went down as a joint session of Congress was meeting to count and debate the final Electoral College vote.

Critics of the president went after him for, they claimed, not taking a strong enough stance against the violence that was happening within the halls of Congress by reported Trump supporters despite tweets he sent calling for peace while also repeating his accusations of election fraud.

Shortly after the riots were quelled, Congress resumed its Electoral College duties and affirmed the certification of Joe Biden as president-elect.

Following Congress’ vote, President Trump issued a statement agreeing to an “orderly transition” of power.

Even though I totally disagree with the outcome of the election, and the facts bear me out, nevertheless there will be an orderly transition on January 20th. I have always said we would continue our fight to ensure that only legal votes were counted. While this represents the end of the greatest first term in presidential history, it’s only the beginning of our fight to Make America Great Again!

On Thursday, the president issued a forceful denunciation of the conduct of the rioters and called for them to be prosecuted.

I would like to begin by addressing the heinous attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Like all Americans I am outraged by the violence, lawlessness and mayhem. I immediately deployed the National Guard and federal law enforcement to secure the building and expel the intruders. America is and must always be a nation of law and order. The demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of American democracy.

To those who engaged in the acts of violence and destruction, you do not represent our country. And to those who broke the law, you will pay. …

Now Congress has certified the results. A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20th. My focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power. This moment calls for healing and reconciliation.

President Trump concedes, condemns supporters who rioted

Dominion defamation lawsuit Dominion systems dominion voting systems Election 2020 Intelwars Sidney powell Voter fraud allegations

Dominion accuses Sidney Powell of defamation, sues for $1.3 billion

Attorney Sidney Powell, who filed multiple unsuccessful lawsuits alleging a widespread conspiracy of voter fraud in the 2020 election, was sued for defamation on Friday by Dominion Voting Systems.

Dominion, a manufacturer of electronic voting machines, was central to claims Powell and others made about votes being switched from President Trump to President-elect Joe Biden and foreign interference in the election. The lawsuit seeks $1.3 billion from Powell, who claimed that Dominion machines used software manufactured in Venezuela to help Hugo Chavez fraudulently win elections, among other unproven accusations. Dominion is an American company based in Denver and Toronto and has no ownership ties to the government of Venezuela.

“Powell’s wild accusations are demonstrably false,” the company said in its complaint. “Acting in concert with allies and media outlets that were determined to promote a false preconceived narrative about the 2020 election, Powell launched a viral disinformation campaign about Dominion that reached millions of people and caused enormous harm to Dominion.”

“As a result of the defamatory falsehoods peddled by Powell … Dominion’s founder, Dominion’s employees, Georgia’s governor, and Georgia’s secretary of state have been harassed and have received death threats, and Dominion has suffered enormous harm,” Dominion’s lawsuit states.

Last month, Dominion and Smartmatic, another voting machine company named in conspiratorial claims about the 2020 election, each sent letters to Fox News, One America News Network, Epoch Times, and other media outlets and personalities who repeated Powell’s claims threatening imminent legal action. In response, Fox and other outlets aired segments with corrections debunking some false claims about the election. Still, more lawsuits from Dominion are likely.

Powell was also issued formal notice by Dominion, and the company requested that she retract her claims, which the lawsuit recounts.

“After Dominion sent Powell a letter putting her on formal notice of the facts and the death threats and asking her to retract her false claims, Powell doubled down, tweeting to her 1.2 million Twitter followers that she heard that ‘#Dominion’ had written to her and that, although she had not even seen Dominion’s letter yet, she was ‘retracting nothing’ because ‘[w]e have #evidence’ and ‘They are #fraud masters!'” it states.

“Dominion brings this action to set the record straight, to vindicate the company’s rights under civil law, to recover compensatory and punitive damages, to seek a narrowly tailored injunction, and to stand up for itself and its employees,” the lawsuit declares.

“It’s very easy to say something on Twitter without evidence,” Dominion chief executive officer John Poulos told reporters Friday. “It is another thing to have to come forward in a court of law and identify your basis for making these statements.”

Election 2020 Election fraud allegations Georgia runoff election Intelwars Project veritas video Voter fraud allegations voter registration

Project Veritas claims to expose illegal voter registration scheme in Georgia, but does not appear to show illegal activity

A new hidden camera video released by Project Veritas purports to expose illegal voter registration of homeless people in Georgia, but in fact highlights a practice that may be legal.

In the video, Georgia Central Outreach and Advocacy Center executive director Kimberly Parker admits to helping multiple homeless people register to vote using the same address. Project Veritas accused the Center of “illegally registering thousands of homeless to vote” at an address they do not reside at in Atlanta.

Parker explains, “So, the majority of the people we serve don’t have an address, so we allow them to use our address if they register to vote and to get Georgia State ID.”

The video notes that Georgia state law requires a person to vote where they live, and that “permitting someone to use a false statement on voter registration is illegal … and punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment.”

However, Georgia election law permits homeless people to register to vote using the address of somewhere they routinely stay, such as at a shelter or a church. If they do not stay at a location with an address, they may denote a park name or the closest intersection to where they sleep as their residence. They must also provide a mailing address where they can receive mail and may use the address of a shelter, church, charity, relative, or friend to do so.

“Because you have to have proof of residence and so although we’re not a shelter, we do allow them to use 201 Washington Street,” Parker continues. “So, I can’t even begin to tell you how many people have that address on their ID. And we’ve never run into any problem with that until this election.”

She adds that “one of our board members got wind that they thought we’re doing things not on the up and up, because so many people have the address, but we’ve not heard any repercussion from it since.”

The Central Outreach and Advocacy Center is an Atlanta-based nonprofit organization headquartered in the lower level of Central Presbyterian Church. The agency provides support services to Atlanta’s homeless people, including helping them acquire government documents like ID cards or birth certificates, setting up medical appointments, and providing job and skills training to help them find work.

Also featured in the video is Adam Seeley, who is the director of social services for Emmaus House, another nonprofit organization that serves the Atlanta community, and also serves as a board member at the Central Night Shelter. Seeley states that his organization does not know how many people have used their address to register to vote.

“You know, we’ve always kind have been unsure at how many people were having us established as a mailing address in terms of a larger scope,” Seeley said.

“One day I walked into Emmaus House to pick up the mail, and Beverly was like, one of our ladies, she’s where the mail comes into our office, and she’s like, ‘you gotta get this stuff outta here.’ And I’m like, ‘what are you talking about?’

“And it was probably a couple thousand people that had our address registered as their mailing address for their voter registration,” he continued. “And I was like, oh my god, so I’m looking through it and I’m like, well this guys is dead.”

TheBlaze contacted Central Outreach and Advocacy Center and Emmaus House with requests for comment. Project Veritas also did immediately return a request for comment.

D.c. protests Election 2020 Intelwars Mayor muriel bowser President Donald Trump President-elect joe biden washington dc

DC mayor calls in National Guard ahead of Jan. 6 protests that President Trump will attend

The mayor of Washington, D.C., activated an estimated 340 National Guard troops on Monday as the city prepares for expected protests later this week when Congress will vote to affirm President-elect Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory.

The Associated Press reported that on New Year’s Eve Mayor Muriel Browser requested a National Guard presence within the city from Jan. 5 to Jan. 7 in anticipation of the vote. The troops will not be armed and will not wear body armor. They are mostly expected to be used for traffic control and “other assistance.”

In a statement released Sunday, Bowser asked city residents to avoid the areas in downtown D.C. where President Donald Trump’s supporters will gather to protest the results of the 2020 election. She told residents “not to engage with demonstrators who come to our city seeking confrontation, and we will do what we must to ensure all who attend remain peaceful.”

On Monday, she repeated her warning at a news conference, urging residents to avoid those “looking for a fight.” She also warned “we will not allow people to incite violence, intimidate our residents or cause destruction in our city.”

According to the Associated Press, about 115 troops will be on duty at any one time in the city, setting up traffic control points and working with local law enforcement to manage crowds.

“Some of our intelligence certainly suggests there will be increased crowd sizes,” acting Police Chief Robert Contee said. “There are people intent on coming to our city armed.”

Demonstrators are reportedly planning to gather at the Washington Monument, the Freedom Plaza and the Capitol.

It is illegal to openly carry firearms in Washington, D.C. Concealed-carry permits from other states will not allow the permit holder to carry a firearm inside the district. Additionally, federal law prohibits firearms at popular protest sites including Freedom Plaza, and the National Mall, while D.C. law bans guns within 1,000 feet of a protest.

President Trump said Sunday he will attend the protests in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, when Congress will vote to certify the Electoral College results that Biden won 306-232. Trump has not yet conceded the election and continues to claim that widespread voter fraud stole the election for Biden.

Some Republican lawmakers plan on objecting to the certification of the Electoral College votes, which will trigger several hours of debate that could delay the process but will likely fall short of persuading enough members of Congress to vote against rejecting the results.

Election 2020 Geoff duncan Georgia Georgia election Intelwars Trump phone call Voter fraud allegations

Georgia’s Republican lieutenant governor criticizes Trump phone call as ‘inappropriate,’ unhelpful, and ‘based on misinformation’

The Republican lieutenant governor of Georgia said Monday that President Donald Trump’s phone call with Secretary of State Brad Ratffensperger, in which the president appeared to pressure the secretary to “find” enough votes to overturn Joe Biden’s electoral victory, was “inappropriate” and that he was “disappointed” at the president’s conduct.

“I am 100% certified to tell you that it was inappropriate. And it certainly did not help the situation,” Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan said on CNN’s “New Day.” “It was based on misinformation, it was based on, you know, all types of theories that have been debunked and disproved over the course of the last 10 weeks.”

The Washington Post on Sunday published a four-minute excerpt of what was reportedly an hour-long phone conversation between the president and Georgia’s top election official. In the transcript of the call, partially published by Newsmax, Trump made several claims of voter fraud and other election irregularities, said there were approximately “300,000 fake ballots,” and put pressure on Ratffensperger to “give me a break” and find enough fraudulent ballots, approximately 12,000, to change the results of the election. In response, Raffensperger and his attorney, Ryan Germany, disputed the president’s claims, arguing that the data the president cited is incorrect and that the vote numbers certified by the state of Georgia are accurate, not fraudulent.

The report of the phone call immediately sparked controversy, with several former top U.S. officials suggesting that Trump had potentially committed a crime while the president’s supporters demanded that the full audio of the phone call be released to put Trump’s words in context.

Duncan, who supported Trump’s campaign for re-election, also said he was “disappointed” at the president’s questions for Ratffensperger and the tone the president used. He worries that the controversy will distract from the runoff Senate elections in Georgia on Tuesday, harming Republican chances for victory.

“I’ve continued to encourage everybody, including the president, to stay focused on tomorrow,” Duncan said. “That phone call did absolutely nothing to help drive turnout for Republicans here in Georgia for Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue. I was disappointed and quite honestly I can’t imagine anybody on his staff encouraging that call or not giving him the advice to hang up and move on to the next subject.”

Sens. Loeffler and Perdue each face tough re-election challenges from Democratic candidates who feel the wind at their backs as Republican enthusiasm to vote is tamped down by a sense that GOP officials are not doing enough to support and provide evidence for Trump’s claims of voter fraud. The Trump campaign and others filed more than 50 lawsuits in the wake of the presidential election, nearly all of which were either dismissed by the courts or dropped because of a lack of evidence to support claims of election misconduct.

#boycottwalmart Election 2020 Electoral college certification Intelwars Josh hawley Twitter trends Walmart

Walmart apologizes after company Twitter account calls Sen. Josh Hawley a ‘#soreloser’ — #BoycottWalmart trends

Walmart has issued a public apology to Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) after the company’s Twitter account criticized the senator for announcing he will object during the Electoral College certification, calling him a “#soreloser.”

Hawley on Wednesday became the first U.S. senator to declare his intention to object to the Electoral College certification on Jan. 6. “Millions of voters concerned about election integrity deserve to be heard. I will object on January 6 on their behalf,” Hawley tweeted.

In response, the verified corporate Twitter account for Walmart wrote, “Go ahead. Get your 2 hour debate. #soreloser.” That tweet has since been deleted, but not before Hawley captured a screenshot and replied back.

“Thanks ?@Walmart? for your insulting condescension. Now that you’ve insulted 75 million Americans, will you at least apologize for using slave labor?” Hawley asked.

In a follow-up tweet, he added: “Or maybe you’d like to apologize for the pathetic wages you pay your workers as you drive mom and pop stores out of business.”

Walmart did issue an apology for the tweet but not for the things Hawley accused the company of doing.

“The tweet was mistakenly posted by a member of our social media team who intended to publish this comment to their personal account,” Walmart senior manager Casey Staheli said in a statement to the Washington Examiner. “We have removed the post and have no intention of commenting on the subject of certifying the electoral college. We apologize to Senator Hawley for this error and any confusion about our position.”

On Jan. 6, Congress will meet in a joint session to certify the results of the Electoral College vote, which President-elect Joe Biden won 306 to President Donald Trump’s 232. According to the Congressional Research Service, when the certificate or papers documenting each state’s electoral votes is read during the session, the president of the Senate (Vice President Pence) will call for objections, if there are any. An objection may be made by presenting the Senate president with a written document signed by one member of the House of Representatives and one member of the Senate listing the grounds for their objection. At this point, the joint session will be suspended and each house of Congress will consider the objection separately. Both houses must agree to the objection by simple majority vote, otherwise it will fail and the electoral votes will be counted.

It is extraordinarily unlikely that the Democratic majority in the House will vote to discount the electoral votes of any state that declared Joe Biden the winner, and therefore any objection filed by Hawley or others is all but certain to fail after debate on the matter is finished and each house of Congress votes.

After Walmart’s interaction with Hawley, #BoycottWalmart trended on Twitter.

Congress Election 2020 Electoral college certification Electoral college vote Intelwars Josh hawley us senate

Josh Hawley is first US senator to say he will object to Electoral College certification

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) on Wednesday became the first U.S. senator to declare his intention to object to the Electoral College certification on Jan. 6.

Hawley will object to the certification of the Electoral College votes from Pennsylvania and other states that he says failed to follow their own election laws. Hawley will also call for Congress to launch an investigation into allegations of voter fraud and other election irregularities made by President Donald Trump’s campaign.

“Following both the 2004 and 2016 elections, Democrats in Congress objected during the certification of electoral votes in order to raise concerns about election integrity. They were praised by Democratic leadership and the media when they did. And they were entitled to do so. But now those of us concerned about the integrity of this election are entitled to do the same,” Hawley said in a news statement.

He continued:

I cannot cote to certify the electoral college results on January 6 without raising the fact that some states, particularly Pennsylvania, failed to follow their own state election laws. And I cannot vote to certify without pointing out the unprecedented effort of mega corporations, including Facebook and Twitter, to interfere in this election, in support of Joe Biden. At the very least, Congress should investigate allegations of voter fraud and adopt measures to secure the integrity of our elections. But Congress has so far failed to act.

For these reasons, I will follow the same practice Democrat members of Congress have in years past and object during the certification process on January 6 to raise these critical issues.

By officially announcing his intention to object to the certification of Electoral College votes, Hawley has all but assured that the process will be bogged down by debate in Congress and guaranteed that Republicans will face a tough vote on whether to accept the election results.

Several Republican members of the House of Representatives, led by Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), have already announced they will object when Congress moves to officially certify the Electoral College votes from several contested battleground states where the Trump campaign’s legal team and its allies have made allegations of election irregularities. When Hawley joins these representatives in objecting, they will trigger several hours of debate in a joint session of Congress in the House chamber.

At the end of the debate, the House and Senate will vote on whether to accept the results from Pennsylvania and other disputed states, forcing several GOP senators to choose between supporting President Trump’s unproved claims of voter fraud or respecting the certified election results of these states.

Bill O'Reilly Election 2020 Intelwars Media coverage of election trump

Bill O’Reilly blasts media over ‘DISGUSTING’ coverage of election

Bill O’Reilly told Glenn Beck that the mainstream media’s coverage of the 2020 presidential election was — and continues to be — “disgusting.” He said he doesn’t think the media even wants to know what really happened in November, and he believes the partnership between the media and the far left poses a “danger to the republic.”

Watch the video clip below to find out why:

Bill O’Reilly is “REALLY ANGRY” about media’s coverage of election

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Election 2020 Election legal challenge Electoral college certification Intelwars louie gohmert mike pence us house of representatives

GOP rep sues Vice President Pence to have presidential election overturned

A Republican lawmaker in the House of Representatives is suing the vice president of the United States in a last-ditch effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election — a move that is highly improbable to succeed.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) filed a lawsuit along with Arizona GOP Chairwoman Kelli Ward and GOP officials against Vice President Mike Pence, seeking to have a federal law governing the role the office of the vice president plays in accepting the Electoral College results declared unconstitutional.

The lawsuit is the latest in a series of unsuccessful efforts to have courts overturn the election, which was declared for former Vice President Joe Biden while President Donald Trump and his supporters claimed massive voter fraud and other election irregularities tainted the results.

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 establishes procedures for the counting of electoral votes in Congress. On Jan. 6, Congress will meet to certify the results of the Electoral College, which President-elect Biden won 306 to outgoing President Donald Trump’s 232. The vice president’s role, as president of the Senate, is to “open all the certificates” — that is the papers containing the Electoral College results from each state — in the presence of both houses of Congress.

The 1887 law Gohmert and others seek to challenge requires the vice president to open “all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates,” a provision which is intended to prevent any vice president, who at times may be a presidential candidate and usually has a vested partisan interest in the outcome of an election, from refusing to present to Congress Electoral College votes he or she objects to. The plaintiffs argue that these provisions unconstitutionally limit the vice president’s “exclusive authority and sole discretion under the Twelfth Amendment to determine which slates of electors for a State, or neither, may be counted.”

By challenging this law, the plaintiffs seek to effectively give Pence the power to reject Electoral College votes from key battleground states where there are allegations of voter fraud and accept an “alternative” slate of electors from those states.

Election law experts who spoke to the Hill said this new lawsuit is not likely to fair better than any of the other failed legal challenges.

“The idea that the Vice President has sole authority to determine whether or not to count electoral votes submitted by a state, or which of competing submissions to count, is inconsistent with a proper understanding of the Constitution,” said Edward Foley, a law professor at the Ohio State University.

He predicted that U.S. District Judge Jeremy Kernodle, a Trump-appointed judge who will hear the case, will find that Gohmert, Ward, and the other Republicans part to the lawsuit lack standing to sue.

“I’m not at all sure that the court will get to the merits of this lawsuit, given questions about the plaintiffs’ standing to bring this kind of claim, as well as other procedural obstacles,” Foley said.

The Daily Caller’s Henry Rodgers uploaded a copy of the lawsuit to view.

If the lawsuit is unsuccessful, it is still possible that some members of Congress will object to the certification of certain states’ Electoral College votes. If that happens, the certification of Biden’s victory may be delayed as Congress will be forced to engage in up to 12 hours of debate before holding a vote on whether to accept the election results.

Election 2020 Election investigation Intelwars Iowa Mariannette miller-meeks Rita hart

Democrat who lost Iowa congressional race by 6 votes asks Congress to throw out the certified results of the election

Maybe you’ve heard this one before.

The loser of a close 2020 election is asking the House of Representatives to throw out certified election results and name the conquered candidate the victor.

No, this time it’s not President Donald Trump (or one of his allies) — it’s the loser of the extremely close election in Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District.

When Trump and his team have made similar requests of the House or the legislatures of various states to overrule the certified Electoral College results, they have been roundly mocked and criticized by political opponents.

Now failed Iowa Democratic House candidate Rita Hart is making life difficult for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and other Democrats in Congress.

What’s going on?

Hart famously lost her race to Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks by just six votes — 196,964 to 196,958.

Hart’s team has repeatedly claimed that the election was essentially stolen by Miller-Meeks who somehow was able to prevent some votes from being counted.

Hart campaign manager Zach Meunier alleged late last month that “the Miller-Meeks campaign has sought to keep legitimate votes from being counted — pushing to disqualify and limit the number of Iowans whose votes are counted,” the Iowa City Press-Citizen reported.

And now Hart is following up on those allegations, not by taking the appropriate legal steps and making challenges in court, but instead by filling a Notice of Contest with the U.S. House of Representatives. Hart wants the body to intervene and throw out the results of the election, which were certified by the state on Nov. 30.

In an announcement posted to Twitter Tuesday morning, Hart said, “Today, I am officially asking the House to ensure every Iowan’s voice is heard in #IA02. 22 ballots remain uncounted from Election Night & thousands of others that were never examined. We’ve got to count the votes & get this right.”

The press release included in Hart’s tweet claimed that the 22 “legally-cast, uncounted votes” would be enough to put her ahead by nine votes.

Hart’s petition to the House, the Des Moines Register reported, calls for an investigation on two counts: first, on the alleged 22 legally cast but uncounted votes; second, that the recount boards in the district’s 24 counties — which ultimately showed Miller-Meeks to have been the rightful winner — used irregular procedures.

The notice claims that Hart would have netted 15 votes had the allegedly wrongfully excluded 22 votes been included.

It also alleges “the recount itself failed to comply with Iowa law and the U.S. Constitution” because each county’s recount board conducted its own recount and failed to do so consistently across the district.

According to Hart’s complaint, Congress needs see that a “uniform recount” is conducted and must avoid “prematurely ending this contest” in a way that would “disenfranchise Iowa voters and award the congressional seat to the candidate who received fewer lawful votes.”

“Federal law does not permit such an outcome,” the notice states.

“Everyone has acknowledged that there are uncounted votes left and, after reviewing those ballots and making sure they are counted, it will be clear that I have won this election,” Hart said, according to the Register. “It is crucial to me to make sure that this bipartisan review by the U.S. House is fair. Iowans deserve to know that the candidate who earned the most votes is seated.”

“I am that candidate,” she claimed.

Election 2020 Hunter biden Intelwars Joe Biden Media Bias poll President Trump survey

Majority of Americans say Hunter Biden story was buried by the media to influence election: poll

In mid-October, the New York Post began publishing explosive allegations against Hunter Biden, accusing Joe Biden’s son of having inappropriate business dealings with energy corporations in Ukraine and China.

The source for the accusations was reported emails from a MacBook Pro laptop that allegedly belonged to Hunter Biden, but he never picked it up from a computer repair shop in Delaware after dropping it off there in April 2019.

Joe Biden denied the allegations at the final presidential debate by saying, “I have not taken a penny from any foreign source ever in my life.”

The accusations arrived at the stretch run for the 2020 presidential election, but much of the mainstream media flat-out refused to cover the story or labeled the New York Post reports as a “Russian disinformation campaign,” despite many details being published in 2018 by the New York Times.

In a new Rasmussen poll, a majority of Americans believe that the media purposely buried the Hunter Biden laptop story to influence the 2020 election.

Rasmussen asked 1,000 likely U.S. voters: “Which is closer to your thinking — that many news organizations ignored the Hunter Biden story to help Joe Biden’s presidential campaign or that many ignored the story because they felt it was a partisan hit job?”

The national telephone and online survey found that 52% think that news organizations ignored the Hunter Biden story to help his father’s presidential campaign. There were 32% who said the media ignored the story because they felt it was a partisan hit job, and 17% were not sure what to believe of the situation.

There were 56% who believed that Joe Biden was consulted about and perhaps profited from his son’s overseas business deals.

The poll also found that 70% of voters said they have been “closely” following the news about Hunter Biden’s business dealings, and 38% have been following it “very closely.”

“Among those who have been following Very Closely, 76% say the media deliberately ignored the story before Election Day to help Joe Biden, and 72% think the president-elect is likely to have been consulted about and perhaps profited from his son’s overseas dealings,” Rassmussen noted.

Hunter Biden revealed in early December that he was under a federal investigation. Department of Justice sources reportedly said Hunter Biden’s taxes had been under investigation since 2018. There are reports that Hunter Biden is under four federal investigations.

Since the investigation was made public, the mainstream media has shown more interest in covering the allegations. This week, NBC News published a story about the president-elect’s son receiving an email from a business partner that warned Hunter that he had failed to disclose $400,000 in income from the Ukrainian Burisma gas company on his 2014 tax returns.

Election 2020 Georgia election Georgia runoff election Georgia voters Intelwars Senate runoffs

Report: Over 100K Georgians who didn’t vote on Election Day have requested ballots for Senate runoffs — and they skew Democratic

More than 100,000 voters who did not vote in Georgia on Election Day have requested mail-in ballots for the state’s upcoming Senate runoffs, and the sampling of demographics show they probably lean Democratic, a new report from the Peach State revealed.

What are the details?

As of Thursday afternoon, 108,625 Georgians who did not vote in the November election have applied for ballots to vote in the Jan. 5 runoffs, according to data from The tracking site uses publicly available information from the Georgia secretary of state’s website.

The figure, which amounts to 6.3% of all mail-in ballot requests, could be enough to sway results in an election that is expected to be close. Democratic challenger Joe Biden defeated President Trump in the state by a narrow margin of just under 12,000 votes. Both Republican Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler failed to win a 50% majority of the vote, which sent each race to a runoff.

The demographic breakdown of the new runoff applicants skew toward traditionally Democratic voting groups, with non-white voters making up the majority of the sampling. More than 42,000 are white voters while nearly 38,000 are black voters, and the remaining 28,000 classified themselves as Hispanic, Asian, and other.

The demographic breakdown, though perhaps concerning, is certainly not an assurance that Democrats will take the seats due to the fact that Republicans made historic inroads with minority groups during the 2020 election.

What else?

The highly anticipated runoff elections are also reportedly drawing completely new Georgia voters into the state’s voter pool. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, nearly 75,000 new voters have registered in the state since the presidential election in November. The news outlet pulled the data from an updated voter registration list purchased from the secretary of state’s office.

The Journal-Constitution noted that the new voters are “overwhelmingly young, with 57% of them under 35 years old. Some are new Georgia residents; others just turned 18.”

It’s worth noting that Georgia Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger has warned against out-of-state voters temporarily relocating to Georgia to vote in the runoffs. To do so is a felony.

Anything else?

The fact that an increasing number of non-voters are registering ahead of the runoffs doesn’t guarantee that they will actually vote or that turnout will be up overall.

Republican strategist Karl Rove argued recently that the mail-in ballot requests overall are down from what they were for the presidential election.

“In November, 1,740,795 people requested a mail-in ballot — 1,362,369 actually exercised it, voted by mail. So today, the requests are half a million less, a third less than they were for the November election,” he said.

Current figures on show that the vote turnout for the runoff elections is down 9% in comparison to where the vote turnout was for the presidential election at this point. Mail-in allot applications are also down 2%.

“And what you also need to remember is 600,000 of the people on the list for mail-in ballots, 600,000 of that 1.7 million are automatically on the list. They are on the list for a long time. They sign up for permanent mail-in ballots, so they’re counted as a request, but we don’t know whether or not they are actually going to vote,” Rove added.

Biden administration Biden campaign manager Biden deputy chief of staff Election 2020 Intelwars Jen o'malley dillon

Biden’s deputy chief of staff calls for unity while trashing Republicans as ‘a bunch of f***ers’

The campaign manager and now deputy chief of staff for President-elect Joe Biden trashed Republicans as “a bunch of f***ers” recently even as she called for compromise between Democrats and Republicans over the next four years.

Speaking with Glamour magazine in an interview published Tuesday, Jen O’Malley Dillon — who served as campaign manager for former Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke in 2020 before eventually heading up Biden’s campaign — praised the president-elect for his dreamy insistence on unity.

“The president-elect was able to connect with people over this sense of unity. In the primary, people would mock him, like, ‘You think you can work with Republicans?’ I’m not saying they’re not a bunch of f***ers. Mitch McConnell is terrible,” she explained. “But this sense that you couldn’t wish for that, you couldn’t wish for this bipartisan ideal? He rejected that. From start to finish, he set out with this idea that unity was possible, that together we are stronger, that we, as a country, need healing, and our politics needs that too.”

O’Malley Dillon, who last month was promoted to deputy chief of staff for the incoming Biden administration, added that compromise will be essential for American politics moving forward.

“Which is not to say it is easy. It is like a relationship. You can’t do politics alone,” she said. “If the other person is not willing to do the work, then that becomes really hard. But I think, more than not, people want to see impact. They want to see us moving in a path forward. They want to do their work, get paid a fair share, have time for themselves and their family, and see each other as neighbors. And this overhang of this negative, polarized electorate that politics has created is the thing that I think we can break down.”

Of course, talk of compromise always follows an election and almost always is heard exclusively from the winning side. Taking the last four years as an example, it is clear to see that the Democratic Party has not demonstrated compromise to be an abiding characteristic of theirs.

O’Malley Dillon knows this, as she is certainly no stranger to Democratic Party politics. According to CNN, she has previously served as the executive director of the Democratic National Committee and the founding partner at Precision Strategies, a Democratic consulting firm.

2020 presidential election Election 2020 Electoral college vote Gary eisen Intelwars Michigan electors Michigan gop

Michigan Republican loses his committee assignments after comments construed as a refusal to condemn violence

Republican leaders in the Michigan Legislature reprimanded one of their GOP colleagues Monday after he made comments that some construed to “open the door to violent behavior” as security concerns have been raised over groups promising to disrupt the Electoral College vote in the state Capitol this afternoon.

Rep. Gary Eisen (R-St. Clair Township) made the comments on a morning radio program after he was interviewed about the imminent Electoral College vote, the Detroit Free Press reported. Michigan’s 16 electoral votes will be cast for former Vice President Joe Biden, who was certified as the winner of the state in the 2020 presidential election. President Donald Trump’s campaign and other Republicans filed several unsuccessful legal challenges to stop the certification of the election.

Eisen said that he and others would go further by participating in an event at the Capitol to appoint an alternative set of electors for the Electoral College and, when asked, he seemingly did not rule out the possibility of violence at the event. The lawmaker described what he and others were trying to do as a “Hail Mary” for Republicans to overturn the results of the election.

State House and Senate office buildings in Lansing were closed Monday because of “credible threats of violence” reported by law enforcement officials. According to the Detroit Free Press, there have been unconfirmed reports of violent threats made against Michigan delegates to the Electoral College.

Eisen was asked about the security concerns on the radio.

“Can you assure me that this is going to be safe day in Lansing, nobody’s going to get hurt?” radio host Paul Miller asked Eisen.

“No,” he responded. “I don’t know because what we’re doing today is uncharted. It hasn’t been done.”

Following these comments, Michigan House Speaker Lee Chatfield (R-Levering) announced that Eisen would be stripped of his committee assignments in a statement denouncing threats made against the Electoral College proceedings and accusing Eisen of opening the door to violence with his remarks.

“We have been consistent in our position on issues of violence and intimidation in politics — it is never appropriate and never acceptable. That is true of threats or suggestions of violence against Gov. (Gretchen) Whitmer, Secretary (of State Jocelyn) Benson, Rep. (Cynthia) Johnson and others on the Oversight committee, Republicans, Democrats, and members of the Electoral College. That applies to threats made toward public officials, and it must also apply when the public officials open the door to violent behavior and refuse to condemn it. We must do better,” Chatfield said.

“We as elected officials must be clear that violence has no place in our democratic process. We must be held to a higher standard. Because of that, Rep. Eisen has been removed from his committee assignments for the rest of the term.”

Eisen responded Monday afternoon, releasing a statement that clarified he supports sending an alternate slate of delegates to the Electoral College but does not condone violence. He announced that he will not attend the event at the Capitol this afternoon.

“I regret the confusion over my comments this morning, and I want to assure everyone that those of us who are supporting an alternative slate of electors intend to do so peacefully and legally. I wanted to attend today’s event to help prevent violence, not promote it. I no longer plan to go to the Capitol with that group today,” Eisen said.

White House aide Stephen Miller on Monday went on Fox News and promised that “an alternative” slate of electors would be appointed by Republicans in contested battleground states where the Trump campaign argues Biden won by fraud or by an illegitimate electoral process. There is no legal precedent for recognition of an “alternate” slate of electors from any state and Congress is extremely unlikely to recognize any electors but the official ones appointed by the several states.

Earlier this month, Michigan Republicans also stripped Democratic Rep. Cynthia Johnson of her committee assignments after she issued a video warning to “Trumpers” and urged “soldiers” to “make them pay.” Johnson later claimed her comments were referencing “soldiers” for “Christ” against “racism” and “misogyny” and that her video was made in response to racist threats she’s received. In the video she said she wants her supporters to “hit ’em in their pocketbooks,” which according to Johnson meant make those threatening her pay financially by reporting them to the authorities.

dominion voting systems Election 2020 Fox News Intelwars NewsMax Oann Smartmatic Smartmatic defamation suit Voter fraud allegations

Election software company Smartmatic accuses Fox News of defamation, demands retractions, threatens lawsuits

Election software company Smartmatic on Monday demanded that Fox News and other right-of-center media outlets retract “false and defamatory” statements made about the company in the wake of the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

In legal notices and retraction demands, the company accused Fox News, Newsmax, and One America News Network of making “dozens of factually inaccurate statements” as part of a “disinformation campaign” to discredit the results of the election.

Business Insider obtained a copy of a letter addressed to Fox News executive vice president and general counsel Lily Fu Claffee claiming that the network “continually and repeatedly published demonstrably false information and defamatory statements.”

“Fox News told its millions of viewers and readers that Smartmatic was founded by Hugo Cha?vez, that its software was designed to fix elections, and that Smartmatic conspired with others to defraud the American people and fix the 2020 U.S. election by changing, inflating, and deleting votes,” the letter stated.

The company, which designs and implements election security technology, was central to claims of voting fraud made by attorney Sidney Powell as part of the legal challenges to the 2020 election filed on behalf of President Donald Trump. Powell and others claimed that Smartmatic’s software was created in Venezuela at the direction of socialist dictator Hugo Chavez “to make sure he never lost an election.” She also claimed Smartmatic worked in partnership with Dominion Voting Systems, a voting machine manufacturer, as part of a conspiracy to illegitimately swing the election for former Vice President Joe Biden.

At the time, Smartmatic issued a statement denying Powell’s claims and clarifying that no ownership nor financial relationship exists between itself and Dominion.

“Smartmatic had nothing to do with the ‘controversies’ that certain public and private figures have alleged regarding the 2020 U.S. election,” Smartmatic said Monday. “Multiple fact-checkers have consistently debunked these false statements with stunning consistency and regularity.”

“They have no evidence to support their attacks on Smartmatic because there is no evidence. This campaign was designed to defame Smartmatic and undermine legitimately conducted elections,” Smartmatic CEO Antonio Mugica said. “Our efforts are more than just about Smartmatic or any other company. This campaign is an attack on election systems and election workers in an effort to depress confidence in future elections and potentially counter the will of the voters, not just here, but in democracies around the world.”

Smartmatic’s statement noted that contrary to claims made by Powell and others, the company’s only involvement in the 2020 U.S. election was as a manufacturing partner, system integrator, and software developer for Los Angeles County’s voting system.

Smartmatic has reserved “all its legal rights and remedies, including its right to pursue defamation and disparagement claims” should Fox News, Newsmax, and One America News Network refuse to retract their respective statements.

2020 Election Alexandria ocasio-cortez Allie Allie beth stuckey Allie blazetv Allie stuckey America AOC Biden Biden vs. Trump black Black Lives Matter blaze Blaze podcasts Blaze radio autonomous zone Blaze tv Blazetv Capitol hill autonomous zone Capitol hill occupied protest Change my mind Chaz Chop COMEDY Commentary conservative Conservative commentary Conservative commentator Coronavirus COVID-19 Crowder Crowder confronts CURRENT EVENTS Democrat ad Democrat Party democratic party discussion election Election 2020 fake news Fox Business Fox News Funny conservative George floyd protests Glenn Beck Honest democrat ad Intelwars Joe Biden Learn history liberal libertarian Louder with crowder Lwc Make America Great Again millennial Mug club news parody Pat Pat gray Pat gray podcast Pat gray radio Pat gray unleashed Pat gray videos Pat grey Politicad ad Political comedy political news Political parody Political vlog Political vlogger Politics President Trump Protests Radio Relatable with allie beth stuckey Relatable with allie stuckey reopen america republican republican party Riots Sara gonzales Sara gonzales unfiltered Seattle Socialism Stephen Crowder Steven Crowder TALK RADIO The Blaze TheBlaze trump Trump 2020 Trump vs biden values Video Vlog Vlogger Welcome to braz

VOTE NOW: Which is your favorite BlazeTV Parody video of 2020?

BlazeTV staff members combed through social media pages and channels for the most popular content produced throughout the year. Over the next 12 days, you decide 2020’s standout videos.

Our first category: Best Parody!

Kung Flu Fighting (Parody of ‘Kung Fu Fighting’)

AOC Tells People: Don’t Go Back To Work…Um, WHAT?

An Honest Ad From Your Democratic Party Spokesperson

OBEY: The Woke Party Demands Your Compliance (‘1984’ Parody)

Vote for your favorite parody now!

Want more BlazeTV?

To enjoy more straight talk from BlazeTV’s all-star lineup, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Constitution Donald Trump Election 2020 electors clause flip the election Headline News Intelwars Joe Biden Ken Paxton Lawsuit outcome States Supreme Court Texas voters

The Texas Lawsuit Is On The Docket – The Supreme Court Will Determine The Fate Of The 2020 Election

This article was originally published by Michael Snyder at The End of the American Dream. 

Very few of the lawsuits that Trump’s legal team has filed since Election Day have really worried the left, but when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit directly with the Supreme Court on Monday night they immediately began freaking out.  The reason why they are so alarmed is because they understand that this suit has the potential to flip the election.

The suit alleges that the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin conducted their elections in ways that violated the U.S. Constitution, and if the Supreme Court agrees that would almost certainly mean that the Supreme Court would force the state legislatures of those states “to appoint a new set of presidential electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment”.

At this hour, we are being told that Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, and South Dakota have all joined the suit that Paxton has filed.  The U.S. Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over controversies between states, and so this is why this case did not need to be filed in a lower court first.  But the Supreme Court is not obligated to hear any particular case, and many on the left initially thought that the Court would never actually agree to hear it.

Well, it was put on the docket just 12 hours after it was filed, and so it will be heard.

And on Tuesday evening, the Supreme Court ordered the defending states to file their answers by Thursday at 3 PM eastern time.

So this is really happening.

The Supreme Court will determine the fate of the 2020 election after all.

In his complaint, Paxton argued that voters in his state were affected by the unconstitutional voting procedures in the other states because in “the shared enterprise of the entire nation electing the president and vice president, 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.”

And he is absolutely correct.  When one or more states violates the U.S. Constitution during a presidential election, that harms everyone that voted, because voters in every state are involved in electing the president.

According to the Electors Clause, state legislatures have the authority to establish how presidential electors will be chosen in their particular states, but Paxton alleges that government officials in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin made up their own rules and did not follow the election laws that had been passed by their own state legislatures

“Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification, government officials in the defendant states of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, usurped their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes,” Paxton wrote in his filing.

“To safeguard public legitimacy at this unprecedented moment and restore public trust in the presidential election, this Court should extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors to allow these investigations to be completed,” he wrote. “Should one of the two leading candidates receive an absolute majority of the presidential electors’ votes to be cast on December 14, this would finalize the selection of our President. The only date that is mandated under the Constitution, however, is January 20, 2021.”

Unlike the allegations of election fraud that are floating around out there, these allegations are very easy to prove.

The following is a brief summary of some of the issues in each of the four states that comes from the Heritage Foundation

  • Pennsylvania: The complaint accuses Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar of, among other things, “without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogating” Pennsylvania statutes that require “signature verification for absentee or mail-in ballots.” These changes were “not ratified” by the Pennsylvania legislature.
  • Georgia: Similarly, the complaint describes how Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, also “without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogated Georgia’s statute governing the signature verification process for absentee ballots.”
  • Michigan: The complaint states that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson “abrogated Michigan election statutes related to absentee ballot applications and signature verification.”
  • Wisconsin: Lastly, Wisconsin’s elections commission made similar changes in state laws without the permission of the legislature that “weakened, or did away with, established security procedures put in place by the Wisconsin legislature to ensure absentee ballot integrity.”

For these constitutional violations alone, the election results in all four states should be thrown out.

In addition, in his complaint, Paxton alleges that voters in various parts of these states were treated very differently

Second, the complaint describes how voters in different parts of these states were treated differently. For example, election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties in Pennsylvania set up a “cure process” for voters in those jurisdictions whose absentee ballots did not comply with state legal requirements. Those noncompliant ballots should have been rejected because state law does not allow such a procedure.

As a result of this behavior and similar behavior in other states, there was “more favorable treatment allotted to votes” in areas “administered by local government under Democrat control.”

Once again, this should be a slam dunk to prove based on the evidence that has already been publicly presented.

And without a doubt, differential treatment violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

On top of that, in Bush v. Gore the Supreme Court clearly prohibited “the use of differential standards in the treatment and tabulation of ballots within a state.”.

Since differential standards in the treatment of ballots occurred in all four states, that should mean that the election results in all four states should be thrown out.

Lastly, Paxton alleges that there were “voting irregularities” in each of the four states, and those allegations are going to be more difficult to prove.

But Paxton doesn’t need to prove them, because the violations of the Electors Clause and the violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment should both be slam dunks.

Assuming that is the case, what is the appropriate remedy?

Paxton is asking that the state legislatures of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin be forced “to appoint a new set of presidential electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, or to appoint no presidential electors at all.”

In each of those states, those legislatures could opt to hold new elections, or alternatively, they could decide to choose new slates of electors themselves.

And since all four of those state legislatures are controlled by Republicans, that would seem to favor President Trump.

Needless to say, if the current election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are overturned, the left will have a massive temper tantrum.  Cities all over the nation would burn and we would see endless civil unrest for the foreseeable future.

So that may make some members of the Court hesitant to overturn the current election results no matter what the Constitution actually says.

But if there are at least five justices that are willing to follow the Constitution no matter what the consequences are, we may soon see the most shocking decision in the entire history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

***Michael’s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.***

About the Author: My name is Michael Snyder and my brand new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available on In addition to my new book, I have written four others that are available on including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters. (#CommissionsEarned) By purchasing the books you help to support the work that my wife and I are doing, and by giving it to others you help to multiply the impact that we are having on people all over the globe. I have published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream, and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe. I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites, but I also ask that they include this “About the Author” section with each article. The material contained in this article is for general information purposes only, and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal, business, financial, or health decisions. I encourage you to follow me on social media on FacebookTwitter, and Parler, and anyway that you can share these articles with others is a great help. During these very challenging times, people will need hope more than ever before, and it is our goal to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as we possibly can.

The post The Texas Lawsuit Is On The Docket – The Supreme Court Will Determine The Fate Of The 2020 Election first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Election 2020 Intelwars Supreme Court Ted Cruz Texas trump

President Trump asks Ted Cruz to argue Texas case before SCOTUS: report

President Donald Trump has reportedly asked Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to argue Texas’ lawsuit against four battleground states before the U.S. Supreme Court.

What are the details?

The New York Times reported Wednesday that the president asked Cruz the night before if he would be willing to present the case filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, which accuses officials in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin of exploiting the COVID-19 pandemic to unconstitutionally expand mail-in voting for the Nov. 3 election.

The suit seeks to delay the Electoral College vote until nationwide investigations into potential voter fraud are completed. President Trump and his campaign have filed dozens of lawsuits in numerous states contesting the results of the election that mainstream media has roundly declared for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.

On Monday, Cruz
offered to argue an election lawsuit spearheaded by Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Kelly (R), if the Supreme Court agreed to take it up. But the high court denied the case the next day.

The Texas senator issued a response to the Supreme Court’s decision on the Pennsylvania case, saying in a statement:

“I am disappointed that the Court decided not to hear the case challenging the election results in Pennsylvania. The anger and division we see across the Nation needs resolution. Late last year, the Pennsylvania Legislature passes a law that purported to allow universal mail-in voting, notwithstanding the Pennsylvania Constitution’s express prohibition. This appeal filed raised important and serious legal issues, and I believe the Court had a responsibility to ensure our elections follow the law and the Constitution.”

Cruz has argued several cases before the Supreme Court in the past, most when he served as solicitor general for the state of Texas. As of this writing, he has not issued a public response to The Times’ report, nor has the president.

Momentum behind the Texas case built up considerably on Wednesday, after several Republican state attorneys general issued statements expressing their endorsements of the lawsuit.

Trump vowed on Twitter, “We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!”

He added later, “Wow! At least 17 States have joined Texas in the extraordinary case against the greatest Election Fraud in the history of the United States. Thank you!”