>>14696115

Tyb

Far Left Judge Marie Avery Moses Issues Protective Order on Eric Coomer's Deposition After He Comes Across as Completely Unhinged - But Not on Defendants Including The Gateway Pundit

What double standard?

The American left is out to destroy the justice system in the country today.

Attorney Sidney Powell announced during an interview last week that her legal team will depose Dominion’s Eric Coomer for questioning later in the day.

Coomer sued several Trump supporters, media outlets and media personalities following the 2020 presidential election, including Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Michelle Malkin, Joe Oltmann, The Gateway Pundit and Jim Hoft, among others.

Eric Coomer was deposed for an hour by Powell’s attorneys last week.

From what we are hearing it was a complete disaster. The Dominion executive came across completely unhinged and angry.

That’s when far left Judge Marie Avery Moses stepped in to protect Eric Coomer.

Judge Moses issued a Protective Order that only grants secrecy to Eric Coomer’s deposition – but not anyone else’s.

According to our confidential source, “The Judge issued this order sua sponte, which means that no one asked her to do this. She just did it on her own the day after Coomer gave a train-wreck deposition in which he was very clearly emotionally unstable, arrogant, and repeatedly failed to give direct answers to questions. He was clearly playing games and his testimony is simply not credible.”

The media is now blocked from downloading his testimony.

One wonders how the Judge came to this conclusion – the day after Coomer’s deposition – that his deposition transcript needed to be sealed.

What happened to integrity, honesty and justice in America?

Here is the court order by Judge Moses.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/far-left-judge-marie-avery-moses-issues-protective-order-eric-coomers-deposition-comes-across-completely-unhinged-not-defendants-including-gateway-pundit/

https://t.me/gatewaypunditofficial/7169

Biden claims vaccines aren't about personal rights or freedom, calls for even stricter mandates

https://rumble.com/vn5hi6-biden-claims-vaccines-arent-about-personal-rights-or-freedom-calls-for-even.html

Biden claims vaccines aren't about personal rights or freedom, calls for even stricter mandates

(6:11)

https://rumble.com/vn5hi6-biden-claims-vaccines-arent-about-personal-rights-or-freedom-calls-for-even.html

1/2

Opinion | Biden’s Justice Department Should Not Be Pursuing Trump’s Political Vendetta

It’s time to wrap up the Durham investigation.

Will the 2016 election ever end? The question is worth asking once again after it was reported on Thursday that a grand jury subpoena had been issued to a law firm that worked for the Hillary Clinton campaign, a development that comes on the heels of the indictment earlier this month of a lawyer at the firm for alleged misconduct in the run-up to the election.

The newly reported subpoena and the earlier charge against the Clinton campaign lawyer, Michael Sussmann, are the latest developments in a yearslong effort by Donald Trump and former Attorney General William Barr to seek retribution for the Trump-Russia investigation. The indictment was obtained by John Durham, who was appointed by Barr in early 2019 — shortly after the release of the Mueller report — to investigate the origins of what Trump and Barr had characterized as a “witch hunt.” Their apparent hope was that Durham, who was the U.S. attorney in Connecticut at the time, would find that senior DOJ or FBI officials in the Obama-Biden administration had somehow tried to manufacture or exaggerate ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. So far, he has not, but the fresh round of subpoenas suggests that Durham is continuing his work.

Perhaps Durham has provided Joe Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, with serious reason to believe that a much worthier criminal prosecution than the one against Sussmann is coming soon. But if Durham has not, Garland should at this point insist that Durham wrap up his work in a prompt and orderly fashion. The Biden administration need not continue to throw federal resources at a seemingly aimless criminal investigation that began as a political vendetta on the part of Trump.

Even before the Sussmann indictment, Durham’s investigation was an enigmatic and curious effort. Throughout 2020, Trump and Barr teased the possibility of explosive developments prior to the election that never materialized, and the political pressure to find something appears to have prompted the resignation of a senior prosecutor on Durham’s team. Nevertheless, in October, Barr designated Durham as a “special counsel” in an apparent (though legally nonsensical) effort to entrench Durham if Biden won the election.

The only tangible result of the Durham investigation was the 2020 prosecution of a low-level FBI lawyer named Kevin Clinesmith that should have raised far more concerns about the conduct of Durham and his prosecutors than it did at the time. Clinesmith altered an internal email while working on an application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in 2017 to surveil Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Thanks largely to the conservative media’s amplification of Durham’s team — which, among other things, claimed that Clinesmith had been motivated by anti-Trump bias — many people took this to mean (a) that the altered email had somehow misled the court into approving the surveillance of Page and (b) that Clinesmith had deliberately tried to deceive the court.

Neither of those things was true. Durham’s team conceded at the last minute that there was “no indication” that the email, which concerned a relatively narrow factual point, had an effect on anything that took place within the FBI or at the FISC. And the presiding judge eventually concluded that Clinesmith was not “trying to achieve” anything improper, that he actually believed what he had written, and that he was merely “saving himself some work” by altering the email in question.

This is not to excuse the conduct — Clinesmith took full responsibility for it when he pled guilty — but it was blown wildly out of proportion by Durham’s prosecutors and many right-wing commentators. In a less politically charged context, there is a very good chance that Clinesmith, who ultimately received probation, never would have been prosecuted to begin with.

The indictment of Sussmann appears to reflect a similarly questionable exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

2/2

Sussmann is charged with lying during a September 2016 meeting with Jim Baker, the FBI’s general counsel at the time, while he urged Baker to investigate whether Trump’s company had maintained a secret computer server to communicate with a Russian bank. The indictment alleges that Sussmann “stated falsely that he was not acting on behalf of any client” and “was conveying the allegations as a good citizen” when, in fact, he was doing so as part of his law firm’s work for the Clinton campaign.

This could have been laid out in a few pages, but Durham’s team produced a 27-page indictment that suggests that what really offended them was the way in which the underlying technical analysis that Sussmann provided Baker was prepared and disseminated at the time. The indictment essentially alleges that the Clinton campaign used its lawyers to push a technical analysis to both the FBI and the media that had been prepared by people who knew that it was garbage, and that they did this in order to promote the “narrative” that Trump had shady ties to Russia.

The not-so-subtle implication is that Sussmann himself knew that the analysis was junk even as he pushed the FBI to investigate, but the indictment does not actually come out and say so. It may have been difficult for prosecutors to definitively establish this one way or the other since Sussmann’s communications on this point may have been privileged. This appears to have left Durham’s team with Sussmann’s alleged misrepresentation about who he was representing when he met with Baker.

Even on that narrow theory, the case against Sussmann suffers from some significant problems. For one thing, it is far from clear that the alleged misrepresentation even took place: Baker attended the meeting alone and later gave testimony to Congress about what Sussmann said that is arguably inconsistent with the indictment. Also, the legal threshold for materiality is very favorable to the government, but as a practical matter it is hard to believe that the alleged misrepresentation mattered much, particularly since the bureau appears to have known that Sussmann and his firm worked on behalf of the Democratic Party and the Clintons. The case was also filed in D.C. — not exactly a Trump-friendly jurisdiction — so it is not hard to envision a jury acquitting Sussmann if he takes the case to trial, which further suggests the indictment may have been meant more for the court of public opinion than anything else.

All of this has had the distinct appearance of an effort on the part of Durham’s team to scapegoat Sussmann for potentially unseemly conduct on the part of the Clinton campaign that they are not prepared to criminally charge — and that they may never be able to charge — in much the same way that they forced Clinesmith to shoulder public responsibility for the Page surveillance. It remains to be seen whether the latest subpoena to Sussmann’s firm will actually turn anything up, but at least from the outside, the effort looks suspiciously like a proverbial fishing expedition. These concerns were further compounded on Thursday, when both CNN and the New York Times published stories that suggested that the allegations in the Sussmann indictment concerning the technical analysis were based on a highly selective — and arguably disingenuous — characterization of relevant emails.

It is possible that Durham’s team may have uncovered a legitimate media and political scandal — assuming that the Clinton campaign did use Sussmann to provide the FBI with a shoddy analysis whose principal purpose was to instigate a federal investigation that might discredit Trump in the days before the election, while some journalists were, at best, too credulous of political operatives — but even so, Durham is not supposed to be a taxpayer-funded media ombudsman or political reporter. If he wants to air out supposed facts that he believes are of legitimate public concern — but that are of questionable relevance to an actual criminal prosecution — he can put them in the public report that he is supposed to produce, and the public can weigh them accordingly.

In the two-and-a-half years and millions of dollars spent since his investigation began, Durham has yet to identify any misconduct of real consequence within the FBI. We find ourselves in the surreal position of having an ongoing criminal investigation concerning the 2016 election, while, at the same time, the DOJ under Garland appears to be sitting idly by as information continues to accumulate that provides further reason to investigate the conduct of Trump himself in the wake of the 2020 election.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/09/30/biden-justice-department-trump-political-vendetta-durham-investigation-514722

>>14696172

>>14696181

We The Media, [30.09.21 20:46]

[Forwarded from World Line Zero Report]

pretty stupid opinion since he is a special prosecutor Ankush. look up what that means you donut

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/09/30/biden-justice-department-trump-political-vendetta-durham-investigation-514722

https://t.me/WeTheMedia/35333

1/2

Arizona Informer Channel, [30.09.21 20:47]

[Forwarded from Wendi’s READ IT! UncoverDC Channel (Wendi Strauch Mahoney)]

Dr. Shiva’s Report: 25 Percent Surge In Duplicates After The 2020 Election

Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai’s EchoMail 180-page presentation for the Arizona Senate Republicans’ forensic audit on Sept. 24 shows a 25-percent surge in duplicate early voting ballot return envelopes (EVBREs) between Nov. 4 and Nov. 6 in the 2020 Maricopa County Presidential Election. His report also showed 34,448 EVBRE’s “originating from 17,126 unique voters.” The duplicates Shiva found were additional to those found in the Cyber Ninjas report. Shiva’s 99-page summary report can be found here.

17,126 people double, triple, or quadruple voted by mail in Maricopa County, according to Dr Shiva. He said this wasn’t included in the report, then he moved on to talk about signatures without saying how many of the duplicate votes were for Trump or Biden. pic.twitter.com/AkelvEHYgR

— Ivory Hecker (@IvoryHecker) September 25, 2021

Maricopa County never showed how many ballot envelopes they received. The County only showed how many early votes they counted. Shiva did not compare the signatures they examined with the voter registration signatures because the voter registration rolls were never made available to the audit team. However, reportedly, if a signature can’t be matched, the County contacts the voter.

I don't know if Dr. Shiva will mention this, but if election officials can't match the envelope signatures to the voter signature on file, they contact the voter to determine they were the ones who signed the envelope

— Jeremy Duda (@jeremyduda) September 24, 2021

Below is the summary of Shiva’s findings as compared with the first Maricopa audit. Maricopa reported 6,545 more unique EVBs than Shiva’s team while they reported no duplicate ballots.

Shiva Table/Shiva findings v Maricopa Canvass

Duplicates Surge After The Election

The increase in duplicate EVBs is shown in the graph below in the last six days of the counting, which ended on Nov. 9. No duplicates were reported in the Maricopa County canvass that Dr. Shiva used as a basis for his investigation. The blue line indicates the EVBRE’s received throughout the election. The red line represents blank signatures, and the green line represents scribbles.

Duplicate Surge

The second graph below shows all the EVBREs, and the duplicates received in the same graph. “For two days, on 11/7/2020 and 11/9/2020,” said Shiva, “Over 96% of the daily EVBRE are duplicates. On the days of 11/5/2020, 11/7/2020, and 11/9/2020, the daily duplicates percentage is nine to ten times more than the highest daily duplicate percentage recorded on 10/19/2020.” He also notes anomalies on 10/16/2020, 10/26/2020, and 11/2/2020.

Duplicate Surge

The second graph below shows all the EVBREs, and the duplicates received in the same graph. “For two days, on 11/7/2020 and 11/9/2020,” said Shiva, “Over 96% of the daily EVBRE are duplicates. On the days of 11/5/2020, 11/7/2020, and 11/9/2020, the daily duplicates percentage is nine to ten times more than the highest daily duplicate percentage recorded on 10/19/2020.” He also notes anomalies on 10/16/2020, 10/26/2020, and 11/2/2020.

Duplicates Only/Shiva

Various Findings Concerning the Duplicates

Developed by Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, EchoMail is an automatic classification and pattern recognition program to help identify and organize documents. He developed the program to “automatically analyze and classify President Clinton’s emails.” He used the same process to more confidently verify what counts as a voter’s signature on a Maricopa County ballot.

Dr. Shiva analyzed data contained in the signature box on the EVBs at a very granular level, categorizing them by signature, blank, likely blank, and scribble. It is unknown how the County defined the signatures it examined.

Shiva explained EVBRE “is the protective vehicle by which the early voting ballot (EVB) is transported and processed. The authentication/verification of the signature on the EVB return envelope is critical to the reliability of the process.” Shiva maintains that it is difficult to ascertain proper verification of a vote if one cannot reliably check signatures to ensure a person’s ballot equates to the same person’s vote.

Shiva classified the duplicates as 2, 3, and 4 copy duplicates. Oddly, many duplicate blanks were verified, stamped, and approved by the County. Some were stamped and approved in the signature box region of the EVBs. There were also EVBs with the same name, address, signature, and phone number with two different voter IDs. The County confirmed that voters should not share voter IDs.

Shiva/2,3,4 copy duplicates

There were discrepancies between Shiva’s numbers and those shown by the Maricopa County canvass. Shiva stated the bad signature and the no signature EVBs were surprisingly low in number compared to those reported in 2016. Shiva found over four times more bad signatures (scribbles) than Maricopa County found.

Shiva Report/Arizona Audit

To put the bad signature anomaly into perspective, it means there was allegedly only one bad signature for every 3,268 EVBs in the County’s election. The graph below shows the proportions of that perspective:

Shiva/Bad Signatures

The inverse relationship between bad signatures and total EVBs, comparing the 2016 and 2020 elections, is shown in a table from the Maricopa County Recorder’s office below. There are more ballots, fewer bad signatures, and blanks for 2020. Fewer ballots, more bad signatures, and blanks for 2016. One would expect that with more people voting, the errors would increase, for example.

Maricopa County Canvass/MC Recorder

Shiva 2016/2020

Maricopa County’s explanation for scribbles is that some voters cannot fully sign their names on the EVBRE, so the County visually approves the signatures.

Special bipartisan election boards assist voters who may need assistance w/ signing affidavits. Often, in case of severe medical conditions such as stroke, people may only be able to make a small mark such as an X. Our boards visually affirm the marks are the voter's correct sig.

— Maricopa County (@maricopacounty) September 24, 2021

Shiva also noted some odd patterns in the illegible signatures when he compared the signature submissions before the election with the ones after. There was a 3% to 97% increased illegibility rate of signatures four days after the election. Four weeks prior to the election, the inverse was true.

Heat Map/signatures

Dr. Shiva concluded his report with many unanswered questions, some of which are pictured in the screenshot below:

Dr. Shiva/Questions

As Senate President Karen Fann explained in her press conference after the audit report presentations, many questions may have been in service of the final reports by Maricopa County had they cooperated with the auditors. They resisted the auditors at every turn.

“We were doing an audit to the best of our abilities, and can you imagine if you were an auditor and you went in to audit one of our agencies or a big corporation, and they said we’re only gonna let you see these books over here, we’re not gonna let you see them over here. So, an auditor can only do the audit on what they’re available to see. And, of course, that audit is going to have a disclaimer on it that says, ‘I did this to the best of my ability. It doesn’t answer all the questions, but I can tell you what this leads me to, and I can tell you some suggestions about what it may or may not be. But it needs further investigation. That’s the best we can do’.”

This is the third in a series of reports by UncoverDC breaking down the forensic audit reports submitted by Cyber Ninjas, CyFIR, and EchoMail. A report from Jovan Hutton Pulitzer on paper and kinematics is forthcoming, as is a report on the findings from the routers, admin passwords, and hardware keys. No date has been given for the arrival of those reports.

https://uncoverdc.com/2021/09/30/dr-shivas-report-25-percent-surge-in-duplicates-after-the-2020-election/

https://t.me/azinformer/3458

Bun for Baker

>>14696199, >>14696214, >>14696222 Dr. Shiva’s Report: 25 Percent Surge In Duplicates After The 2020 Election

Massive ‘Fraudulent’ Votes And Apparent Nursing Home Vote Fraud Found in Delaware In 2020 Election

Delaware saw massive “fraudulent” votes being submitted in the 2020 election and nursing homes that had way more votes submitted than people who lived there, according to 2020 Delaware U.S. Senate candidate Lauren Witzke and a memo from Patriots for Delaware that has been obtained by NATIONAL FILE.

Lauren Witzke: “Preliminary Audits of the Delaware 2020 elections are damning. Only 10% of the votes have been audited and they’ve already found over 20k fraudulent ballots. Internal polling before the elections were EXTREMELY close. They couldn’t let Joe Biden’s home state seem even remotely competitive while they were busy stealing the swing states- would have raised a few eyebrows. Ladies and gentlemen, it’s looking like I pulled in at least 47% of the vote- I maybe even won. Thank you to Seth Keshel’s Team for all of their hard work. More on this to come. Stay tuned!”

Covfefe Coffee

According to a Patriots for Delaware memo written by Jennifer Cooke: “Patriots for Delaware held a public meeting on Sept. 28 where they relayed some initial findings in reference to their 2020 election canvas that have raised more questions than answers. Not only did dead people vote, there also seems to be a high number of votes coming from some nursing homes who don’t have nearly that many beds. There are 296 votes that came from a nursing home with only 94 beds. That’s 315% votes coming from a facility that is rarely at full occupancy. There were several other nursing homes that reported over 100%, while most facilities in the state reported anywhere from 0% to 75% votes in relation to available beds. Where are all the people that voted from these nursing homes? How could the nursing homes have been that full, occupancy wise, given the Covid-19 protocol was to lock the facilities down and keep our elderly socially distanced and quarantined? It was also revealed that hundreds upon hundreds of votes from “Uniformed and overseas citizens” had a mailing/residential address listed as the addresses of the three county elections offices in the state. The election law clearly states that these particular voters’ addresses should be listed as their last residential address. People don’t live at the state-owned Carvel building in Wilmington. Are these votes legal?

Another subject that is called into question is the voter rolls. Almost 30 thousand voters were added to the voter rolls in the months leading up to the Nov. 3 election. Oddly enough, over 11 thousand of those voters were removed from the rolls in August 2021 alone. The state only provides month-to-month data on voter registration totals. Any added or removed voters, on a day-to-day basis, would not be apparent in the month-to-month data. Why were so many voters added to the rolls starting a few months before the election and why are they being removed now? Why would 11 thousand people unregister to vote in one month? Were the elections offices “cleaning up” their voter rolls? If so, why wait until after a historic election to remove voters?

Last, is the astronomically high 47,205 ballots sent to adjudication. That amounts to 25% of all mail-in/absentee ballots cast in the state. The FEC allows .0008% of ballots to be sent to adjudication. Clearly something was wrong during the ES&S tabulation machine scanning of these mail-in/absentee ballots to cause so many of them to be deemed unable to read. Furthermore, according to Delaware’s election law, each ballot needed a Republican, a Democrat, and an election judge to view them and decide the voter’s intent. What kind of man hours would it take for elections officials to view every one of those adjudicated ballots? The mail in ballots were not supposed to be opened or counted until Election Day. How did that many ballots get processed in such a short amount of time? Did any of the officials question or raise concern for the amount of adjudications? Were the ES&S tabulation machines calibrated correctly? Were the machines certified? Who certified them? We the People of Delaware deserve to know what happened on Nov. 3, 2020. We should have complete confidence in our elections given that a FREE and FAIR election is the cornerstone of this Constitutional Republic. Our elected representatives and appointed Board of Elections, have a duty to We The People that they have not been living up to. We have questions. We want answers. We will not settle for “There’s nothing I can do” any longer. Audit Delaware.”

https://nationalfile.com/massive-fraudulent-votes-and-apparent-nursing-home-vote-fraud-found-in-delaware-in-2020-election/

>>14696590