Leftists Shred CNN Reporter For ‘Legitimate Questions’ About Hunter Biden

Brianna LymanSeptember 05, 2022

Leftists on Twitter ripped a CNN reporter Saturday for questioning Hunter Biden and his business dealings and claiming it “shouldn’t be a partisan issue.”

Correspondent Sara Sidner shared an article from Yahoo! News regarding Hunter’s business dealings with Chinese billionaire Ye Jianming and Patrick Ho, who were under FBI investigation in 2017 for a “global bribery scheme.”

The article postulates whether Hunter’s associations with Chinese businessmen could pose a “counterintelligence threat.”

Sidner said people should be asking “legitimate questions” about Hunter Biden and the ongoing FBI investigation into him.

“There are serious questions that should be asked about Hunter Biden. H’s not an elected official but legitimate questions should be asked and answered about his former business dealings and how it was handled by the FBI. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue.”

Tim Fullerton, who worked for former President Barack Obama’s digital team during his 2012 re-election claimed the Hunter scandal isn’t a “real story.”

“Can anyone explain to me why this is a story other than the GOP made it one? The only way this is a real story is if somehow Biden somehow did illegal to make his son rich. Do the people at CNN have any evidence that happened? And if they don’t (which they don’t), why cover it?”

Actor John Cusack told Sidner to “gimme a break” and deflected by asking ” are you gonna ask the same question about bill bars [sic] Ties to Epstein? Through his daddy? His obstruction of mueller / lying to Congress – child abduction?”

Former spokesperson for the Republican National Committee Cheri Jacobus simply tweeted “unfollowed.”

Former FBI agent Timothy Thibault resigned from the agency and is accused of stifling negative Hunter Biden reporting. Thibault was accused of ordering the closure of an “avenue of additional derogatory Hunter Biden reporting” in October of 2020, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley alleged.

https://dailycaller.com/2022/09/05/leftists-attack-cnn-reporter-sara-sidner-hunter-biden-laptop/

The clowns attack, even a Republican!

Kamala Harris Busts Joe Rogan For Weed In Hilarious Photoshopped Promotional Poster

Leena NasirSeptember 05, 2022

Joe Rogan used a photoshopped poster of Vice President Kamala Harris as promotion for his upcoming show, and called her out for advocating for Brittney Griner’s freedom despite incarcerating people for marijuana charges.

Rogan’s poster depicted Harris in a police uniform, with a “Free Brittney Griner” pin on her outfit, while she arrested him as he smoked marijuana. It was posted to his Instagram page Saturday, alongside the caption “Columbus, Ohio! I’m coming in hot!” and was designed as an advertisement for his upcoming show in Cleveland, Ohio on Sept. 16.

Rogan has previously been vocal about the hypocrisy in Harris’ stance on non-violent drug arrests. The comedian has also slammed her on “The Joe Rogan Experience” for throwing people in jail during her time as district attorney.

“That’s why the hypocrisy about the Brittney Griner situation was so egregious in this country,” Rogan said during his Aug. 27 podcast episode with NFL star Aaron Rodgers. “Kamala Harris is talking about how horrible it is that Brittney Griner is in jail. Well, you put people in jail. You did. Thousands of people in jail for marijuana,” Rogan said. “It’s crazy.”

“But how come you guys didn’t exonerate people that were in jail for marijuana when you said you were going to?” Rogan asked. “They said that they were gonna make marijuana federally legal. They said they were gonna exonerate prisoners who were in jail for non-violent drug offences. It’s what they said. None of that has happened,” Rogan said.

“You mean a politician said something they ran on and then didn’t actually enact that said policy?” Rodgers responded jokingly.

The poster indicates Rogan’s upcoming show will be held at the Schottenstein Center and directs fans to his website to purchase tickets.

https://dailycaller.com/2022/09/05/kamala-harris-busts-joe-rogan-weed-promotional-poster/

Kamala Harris claims to eat 1st grape in her 20s over labor boycott, but there’s a wrinkle in dates

Steven Nelson

Vice President Kamala Harris claimed in an interview for Labor Day that she first tried grapes in her 20s because she would “never cross a picket line” — but a review of dates involved reveals problems with the account.

Eating table grapes was shunned by labor activists from the time Harris was 19 to 36 — meaning Harris would have indeed flouted a picket line if her story is true.

“This sounds quaint, and so I’m reluctant to say it, but, you know, I didn’t eat a grape until I was in my 20s,” Harris told The Nation in an interview published Monday.

“Like, literally, had never had a grape. I remember the first time I had a grape, I went, ‘Wow! This is quite tasty.’ It was absolutely ingrained so deeply in me: Never cross a picket line.”

But Harris’ story is inconsistent with the timeline of the three major grape boycotts spearheaded by the Cesar Chavez-led United Farm Workers.

The UFW launched its third and longest California grape boycott in June 1984, just over four months before Harris’ 20th birthday, and it lasted until 2000 when Harris was 36.

The vice president’s office did not immediately respond to The Post’s request for comment on the discrepancy.

It’s not the first story told by Harris to raise eyebrows and during the 2020 campaign then-President Donald Trump and his allies attacked Harris as an unprincipled “phony.”

Detractors say that Harris lied in a 2019 radio interview about smoking pot in college while listening to Tupac and Snoop Dogg.

Critics pointed out that Harris graduated from Howard University in 1986, long before Tupac released his first album in 1991 and about seven years before Snoop Dogg released his first album in 1993.

Harris defenders argued she did not lie, but instead was saying which musicians she listened to while getting high but not necessarily in college. But the episode became a campaign flashpoint, especially due to the fact that Harris went on to oversee 1,900 marijuana convictions as San Francisco district attorney.

She also took heat for allegedly plagiarizing Martin Luther King Jr. by claiming that as a child attending a protest she memorably demanded “Fweedom” — an account that mirrored a 1960s account by the civil rights hero.

The vice president’s head-turning account about eating grapes gained social media attention Monday before a review of the timeline by The Post.

Harris was born in 1964, just before the UFW’s first grape boycott fighting for higher wages and better work conditions. The first UFW grape boycott ended in 1970, when Harris was 5 years old. A second boycott began three years later in 1973 and ended in 1978.

https://nypost.com/2022/09/05/harris-claims-to-eat-1st-grape-in-her-20s-over-labor-boycott-but-dates-add-up/

They lie about everything, all the time.

SHOCKING VIDEO! Via MC4EI and Gateway Pundit — 13 Minutes of Never-Before-Seen Footage of Ballot Trafficking in Detroit, Michigan – Including Postal Workers!

part 1 of 2

Election Integrity investigators in Detroit, Michigan captured never-before-seen footage of DOZENS of ballot traffickers dumping HUNDREDS of ballots into ballot drop boxes during the 2020 US presidential election.

The exclusive drop-box footage from the 2020 presidential election was obtained by The Gateway Pundit and Attorney John Burns.

The MC4EI team in Michigan spent hours scouring through the thousands of hours of security camera footage to put together this explosive 13-minute video.

Special thanks to Patty McMurray and 100 Percent Fed Up for her help in coordinating this effort. The MC4EI team captured dozens of instances of ballot trafficking in the 2020 Detroit Election. The fraud was captured on camera.

Republican Secretary of State Candidate Kristina Karamo and Attorney General candidate Matt DePerno were RIGHT! This footage changes everything!

Today’s report is Part 2 in a Series on the Investigation and Findings from the Detroit Drop Box Surveillance Videos of the November 2020 General Election

• • • • • • • • • *

Guest Post by:

Becky Behrends, M.D., Vice President of Research for MC4EI

Joe Brandis, President of Michigan Citizens for Election Integrity (MC4EI.com)

The Michigan Bureau of Elections issued an Election Officials Manual in October 2020.

According to this manual, the persons who may return an absentee ballot are limited to:

the voter

a member of the voter’s immediate family who has been asked to return the ballot

a person residing in the voter’s household who has been asked to return the ballot

a person whose job normally includes the handling of mail (but only during the course of his or employment)

an authorized election official

MCL 168.764a

Ballot traffickers generally do not deposit a large number of ballots per drop box. With video surveillance, they are aware that this would be too obvious to those looking for violation of election laws. There were exceptions to this in what was noted at the Detroit drop boxes in 2020.

What follows is a sample list of the various multiple ballot drops which was observed by Michigan Citizens for Election Integrity (MC4EI.com), the team which reviewed and analyzed thousands of hours of surveillance videos of the Detroit drop boxes from the November 2020 general election. This list corresponds to various clips you will see in the ensuing video below.

Of note is that when MC4EI investigators initially started watching these videos, they realized they were underestimating the number of multiple ballots a person might be holding. What they assumed might be 3 ballots often turned into many more as they saw a person deposit them incrementally into a drop box. Also, it was observed that the surveillance cameras were sometimes placed at angles which precluded being able to clearly see how many ballots were deposited as the dropbox itself obstructed what was being dropped. Or, the surveillance camera was too far away to clearly see what was being deposited. For those legislators or individuals who think that surveillance cameras are sufficient to provide drop box security, MC4EI would disagree. Our experience proves otherwise.

It was also observed that individuals often wore masks as they approached the drop boxes and took them off when they got back into their cars. Even when there were no people around to worry about viral transmission.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/09/shocking-video-via-mc4ei-gateway-pundit-13-minutes-never-seen-footage-ballot-trafficking-detroit-michigan/

>>17504981

Part 2 of 2

Here is the list of clips of drop boxes you will be viewing in the video below:

Clip #1- Heilmann Recreation Center. A woman deposits a stack of about 50 ballots while another woman appears to be videotaping her. Both are wearing face masks.

Clip #2- Horatio Williams Foundation. A person in a vehicle has a stack of ballots which he takes a phone picture of and then hands it off to another man, who does not appear to be an election official, outside his car who holds the stack up next to the drop box and then carries the ballots off. Sound secure to you?

Clip #3- Liberty Temple (a stand alone drop box, not associated with a satellite voting center ie SVC). A woman wearing a Mickey Mouse t-shirt deposits what initially appeared to be 3 ballots, but actually turned out to be about 6.

Clip #4- Liberty Temple. A person made 11 motions in dropping ballots into the drop box with what appeared to be multiple ballots with each motion. The estimated amount dropped would be 30 to 40 ballots.

Clip #5- Coleman A. Young Municipal Center. A person had about 5 unsealed ballots which were deposited all at once after sealing them.

Clip #6- Farwell Recreation Center. A minimum of 7 or 8 ballots was deposited.

Clip #7- Palmer Community House. A woman who appeared to be a health care worker deposited at least 6 or more ballots.

Clip #8- Farwell Recreation Center. A woman deposited about 6 ballots.

Clip #9- Heilmann Recreation Center. A man deposited at least 5 ballots.

Clip #10-Kemeny Recreation Center. A woman had a stack of multiple ballots which she deposited all at once.

Clip #11- Farwell Recreation Center. A man deposits 6 ballots from a vehicle.

Clip #12- Liberty Temple. A woman deposits a stack of ballots.

Clip #13- Pistons Performance Center. A man with a phone deposits 5 ballots.

Clip #14- North Rosedale Park. A woman with a mask deposits 6 ballots.

Clip #15- Balduck Park. A person on the passenger side of a red truck takes a pic of the drop box and center. A vehicle then drives up with what appears to be a female health care worker who deposits 8 ballots.

Clip #16- Balduck Park. A woman appearing to be a health care worker deposits a minimum of 10 ballots.

Clip #17- Balduck Park. The same woman as noted in Clip#16 deposited 12 ballots.

Clip #18- Liberty Temple. A female postal worker drops a few ballots.

Clip #19- Liberty Temple. The same female postal person as in Clip #18 deposits multiple ballots.

Clip #20- Liberty Temple. The same female postal worker as in Clip #18 arrives in a private vehicle and deposits at least 10 ballots.

Clip #21- Male postal worker deposits about 10 ballots.

Clip #22 -Liberty Temple. Same male postal worker as seen in Clip#21 deposits multiple ballots.

If someone other than the voter is delivering their absentee ballot, it must be delivered to the clerk of the respective city or township office. Not to a drop box. There are no specific rules in Michigan regarding nursing home absentee voting. Michigan does not have special voting deputies for nursing homes as does Wisconsin. Therefore, the general rules apply as noted above.

As seen in the video, postal workers made visits to the drop boxes. MC4EI discussed this with postal service employees in the metro-Detroit area. None of them has ever delivered absentee ballots to drop boxes, but only to clerks offices.

Multiple ballots being deposited raises the question- is this from residents of one household? Potentially 10 to 50 voters from one household? Or does it represent something which is illegal?

Multiple ballot drops have been seen in other states as well, such as Pennsylvania in which a woman was seen dumping a stack of ballots in the off year 2021 election in Montgomery County. In Pennsylvania, if a voter designates another person to submit their ballot, they are not permitted to be dropped off at a drop box but only at the clerks office. In fact, hundreds of people were seen on surveillance videos as stuffing multiple ballots into drop boxes during the Pennsylvania 2021 election.

How can elections be considered secure with such questionable and potentially illegal behavior occurring at drop boxes, even despite surveillance cameras being present? And with no accountability or follow-up by law enforcement for investigation or prosecution? The only sane conclusion one can come to is that drop boxes should be eliminated.

Please consider a donation to MC4EI so that we can continue our in-depth investigations and dissemination of important and vital election integrity information to the public. Please visit our website for more information at MC4EI.com.

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1567057144041844743?s=20&t=VKOUAI_9BuzSNgmdbMnBWA

I'm A Democrat Who Thinks Biden's Rhetoric Has Gone Too Far

Scott J. Street

part 1 of 2

I am a lifelong Democrat. I even worked for Joe Biden at one time. Thus, nothing that has happened in America since January 2021 has surprised me. But the president’s speech in Philadelphia last week marked a new low for America and a new low for a party that I once idolized.

To me, the Democratic Party was the party of hope, tolerance, and opportunity. Indeed, those themes echoed through Bill Clinton’s speeches in 1992. Clinton’s presidency was the high-water mark of the post-war Democratic Party. He blended JFK’s idealism with Reagan’s folksiness. He embodied America’s middle class, the greatest political force at the time, and pulled the country into a new century that our leaders promised would be peaceful and safe.

That has all vanished. Biden’s speech in Philadelphia last Thursday confirmed it.

As speeches go, the Biden speech was a letdown, filled with shallow attacks on broad categories of people and, of course, the former president. Nobody outside of a CNN newsroom, which appears to have modified the speech’s lighting in real-time, will be inspired by a fall campaign focused on Donald Trump and the people who rioted at the Capitol.

But writing a poor speech is one thing. Delivering it in front of a Nuremberg-style backdrop is quite another. The imagery shocked many people. It should have shocked everybody. It took just a few minutes for The Babylon Bee to draw comparisons between Biden’s speech and Nazi Germany. And while most Nazi comparisons are exaggerated, these ones struck a little too close to home.

After all, while the president warns about fascism (or “semi-fascism,” whatever that is) in America, his administration is the one censoring people who disagree with it and trying to prosecute its political opponents, both flagrant violations of democratic norms. His administration is the one that, while claiming to crack down on Big Tech, works with it to punish dissenting voices and stifle debate. His administration is one that attacks its critics as terrorists, and which compares speech to violence. His administration is the one that felt bold enough to create a “disinformation” board within the Department of Homeland Security, an Orwellian concept that the world has not seen on such a large scale since those 1930s regimes that Biden says he hates.

These are not signs of a healthy democracy. They are not what Biden promised to deliver during his 2020 campaign or his inaugural address. Voters have noticed. Although the president’s approval rating stabilized during August, it still sits at a measly 42.1 percent in the RealClearPolitics average. It’s hard to see that number increasing after last week’s speech….

https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/06/im-a-democrat-who-thinks-bidens-anti-democratic-rhetoric-has-gone-too-far/

>>17505061

…Biden’s Rhetoric has gone too far

part 2 of 2

The saddest part is that most Americans want Biden to succeed. That is what drew so many of them, me included, to his campaign. They did not like the negative tone that Trump brought to the White House. They wanted compassionate, competent, bipartisan leadership, somebody with the confidence to thank Trump for his service and move on. Biden seemed the perfect fit.

I learned earlier than others that those were hollow promises, and that Biden is a shell of his former self — at this point, a puppet of the media and political establishment, both of which are obsessed with Trump. Hence last Thursday’s speech.

It’s comforting to know that at least some White House staffers reportedly worried about the speech. They should speak up more often. Or resign and speak out publicly. Voters need to know that there are professionals within the Democratic Party who do not agree with this administration’s descent into demagoguery. There are people who care less about political labels and more about finding common ground on the vast issues our society is facing at home and abroad, people who believe that the progress America made in the decades after World War II were good things and that, while not perfect, we have built the freest and most fair country in the history of the world, a country that is the perfect foil to the oppressive society created by the CCP in China.

I know these people exist because I speak with them privately. But that’s not sufficient. The next two elections will be the most important ones since the Civil War. They will decide whether America moves on from the toxic, divisive Trump/Biden era, to deal with the issues facing the 21st-century world or whether we face another four years of hatred, censorship, and political persecution.

There are some bright signs. Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro has already backtracked on his state’s Covid policies, saying its lockdown didn’t work and that this is an area “where folks got it wrong.” His comments may come too late for the businesses that the lockdown destroyed and the kids whose educations were impaired, but they at least show the open-mindedness that we need in our leaders. And they stand in stark contrast to comments from California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who started the lockdown fetish in America and who still stubbornly claims that he did everything right.

(Disclaimer: as a lawyer, I am litigating a case that seeks to require that Newsom end the statewide Covid-19 emergency that has been in place since March 2020.)

But it’s clear that Biden is not the answer and needs to go. Last week’s speech confirmed it.

Of course, it’s possible that the president will acknowledge the criticism and pivot. But I doubt it. There are still too many people in the media and political establishment who are obsessed with Trump and want to see him behind bars. It’s hard to ignore that echo chamber and it’s hard to pivot from calling your political opponents fascists who are a threat to the country itself.

Thus, expect the message to continue and to change only if Americans finally say enough and vote accordingly.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/06/im-a-democrat-who-thinks-bidens-anti-democratic-rhetoric-has-gone-too-far/

Michiganders Blast Secretary Of State Who Claims Her Hands Are Clean In 2020 Election-Funding Scheme

BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD

SEPTEMBER 02, 2022

part 1 of 2

Michigan voters are calling out Democrat Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson over her claims that she bears no responsibility for a private funding operation that affected election processes leading up to the 2020 general election.

As part of a lawsuit brought by the Thomas More Society on behalf of Michigan voters, the reply brief filed on Aug. 30 addressed Benson’s claims that she is not personally responsible for allowing millions of dollars worth of private grants to flood the state during the 2020 election cycle “because ‘she did not personally hand out the money’ and that the courts have no authority to review her failure to follow Michigan law because the election scheme occurred in the 2020 general election.”

“Secretary Benson is wrong,” said Thomas More Society Special Counsel Thor Hearne. “This lawsuit does not seek to relitigate the results of the 2020 general election. Rather, it is about how futureMichigan elections are conducted and Secretary Benson’s responsibility to conduct elections according to Michigan’s Constitution and Election Code so that every Michigan voter has equal access to the ballot.”

Hearne also went on to debunk Benson’s claims that even if such a “private funding scheme is contrary to Michigan’s Constitution and Election Code, she is not responsible and, Michigan voters lack any judicial remedy to hold her accountable.”

Benson does not deny that “she is responsible for supervising Michigan elections and directing how Michigan — and other — election officials conduct the election,” Hearne said. “Nor does she deny that she was fully aware of and supported this private funding scheme. Secretary Benson is asking the court to overlook her responsibility and hold that, because she did not personally pay the money to election officials, she bears no responsibility.”

The lawsuit against Benson was originally filed by the Thomas More Society back in October 2020 in the Michigan Court of Claims over the state’s 2020 use of grants from the left-wing Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), with the legal group alleging that the bid to utilize private grants in the conduction of an election “was intended to influence the election results and den[y] Michigan voters’ right of equal access to the ballot.”

The complaint also argues that “several Michigan election laws were violated when Secretary Benson allowed the use of illegal drop boxes, permitted illegal acquisition of ballot containers that facilitated ballot harvesting, and allowed election authorities to spend public funds for private purposes.”…

https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/02/michiganders-blast-secretary-of-state-who-claims-her-hands-are-clean-in-2020-election-funding-scheme/

>>17505101

part 2 of 2

Given upwards of $400 million by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, CTCL was instrumental in quietly altering state and local election processes in the lead-up to the 2020 election. In Michigan alone, the group distributed “135 grants above the $5,000 minimum,” resulting in $16.8 million “Zuckbucks” being poured into localities across the state.

“Out of these grants just 45 of the recipient localities were won by Trump, while 90 were won by Biden. Together these 90 municipalities received $14.6 million or 86 percent of all CTCL funds in Michigan,” a Capital Research Center report found. “Meanwhile, Trump won municipalities overwhelmingly received CTCL’s minimum $5,000 grant, though some received even less.”

As detailed by Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway in her New York Times bestselling book, “Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections,” Zuckerberg’s financing of “liberal groups running partisan get-out-the-vote operations” such as CTCL and the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR) was ultimately “the means by which [Democrat] activists achieved their ‘revolution’ and changed the course of the 2020 election.”

“It was a genius plan,” wrote Hemingway. “And because no one ever imagined that a coordinated operation could pull off the privatization of the election system, laws were not built to combat it.”

Federalist Contributor William Doyle further expanded upon the effects of CTCL and CEIR’s election funding last year, writing that the groups’ efforts “had nothing to do with traditional campaign finance,” but everything to do “with financing the infiltration of election offices at the city and county level by left-wing activists, and using those offices as a platform to implement preferred administrative practices, voting methods, and data-sharing agreements, as well as to launch intensive outreach campaigns in areas heavy with Democratic voters.”

“CTCL demanded the promotion of universal mail-in voting through suspending election laws, extending deadlines that favored mail-in over in-person voting, greatly expanding opportunities for ‘ballot curing,’ expensive bulk mailings, and other lavish ‘community outreach’ programs that were directed by private activists,” Doyle wrote.

As of September 2022, 24 states and five counties have passed laws banning or restricting public officials’ use of “Zuckbucks” and other private funds when conducting elections.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/02/michiganders-blast-secretary-of-state-who-claims-her-hands-are-clean-in-2020-election-funding-scheme/

RNC, Other Conservative Groups File Lawsuit Against Pennsylvania For Illegally Altering Ballots

BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD

SEPTEMBER 03, 2022

The Republican National Committee (RNC) announced on Friday that it will lead a lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania over the issue of illegally “curing” ballots in elections, a process whereby election workers alter incomplete or unreadable ballots rather than treating them as the law requires.

“The RNC is joining with the NRSC, NRCC, Pennsylvania GOP, and concerned Pennsylvania voters to sue the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for unequal treatment of its citizens at the ballot box. Pennsylvania Democrats, led by Governor Tom Wolf, are unconstitutionally flouting the law by failing to adopt uniform rules for how elections in the Keystone State are run,” said RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel in a statement. “This lawsuit will ensure that Pennsylvania voters have confidence in their elections and underscores the Republican Party’s commitment to making it easier to vote and harder to cheat in Pennsylvania and nationwide.”

According to the RNC press release, the lawsuit seeks to challenge “the illegal and unfair practice of some [Pennsylvania] counties allowing voters to ‘cure’ defective mail ballots while others do not.”

“Pennsylvania law does not permit counties to contact voters and allow them to cure their ballots,” the document reads. “Many counties in Pennsylvania follow the law and do not allow for curing; however, others have implemented a curing process, largely in secrecy, that varies by county.”

Ballot curing is a process by which an election worker adds information to an absentee ballot that has a noticeable defect, such as missing personal information. The law does not allow for anyone but the voter to fill out a ballot. The law says mail-in ballots that are not filled out as legally required must be declared invalid rather than altered by election workers so they can be counted.

As noted in the lawsuit, “[i]n 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously held that ‘the

Election Code provides procedures for casting and counting a vote by mail’ but does not provide for a notice and opportunity to cure procedure for a voter who fails to comply with the requirements for voting by mail or absentee.”

“The [Pennsylvania] Supreme Court further stated that ‘[t]o the extent that a voter is at risk of having his or her ballot rejected’ due to failure to comply with the Election Code’s signature and secrecy ballot requirements for mail-in and absentee ballots, ‘the decision to provide a “notice and opportunity to cure” procedure to alleviate that risk is one best suited for the Legislature,'” the lawsuit reads.

“It is the Pennsylvania legislature’s responsibility to uniformly enact these procedures and for them to apply across the state. The U.S. Constitution is clear that state legislatures should set the rules for how elections are run,” the RNC said.

Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf has regularly blocked efforts by the state’s GOP-controlled legislature to bring transparency and security to state and local elections. Last year, Wolf vetoedlegislation that would have “mandated voter identification in all elections,” among “a host of other changes to election law.”

“Governor Tom Wolf has vetoed and opposed Pennsylvania Republican-led legislation to remedy [the issue of ballot curing],” the RNC said in conclusion. “Now, a coalition of Republican groups and concerned citizens are stepping in to protect and standardize Pennsylvania elections.”

https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/03/rnc-other-conservative-groups-file-lawsuit-against-pennsylvania-for-illegally-curing-ballots/

Where was the RNC during the election, they wait until two years later to challenge this during midterms?

https://twitter.com/JohnBasham/status/1567148528450916353?s=20&t=48Z8yTduYNeowlvY5cE4rg

https://twitter.com/DailySignal/status/1567145342709239808?s=20&t=wQHcdrH4IGbg3aUDdyelVg

Special Counsel Must Choose: Risk A Russia Hoaxer’s Second Acquittal Or Expose More Deep-State Dirt

BY: MARGOT CLEVELAND

SEPTEMBER 06, 2022

PART 1 OF 3

Crossfire Hurricane agents never intended to drop their investigation of Donald Trump, and therefore any lies he told the FBI did not affect their decision-making, Igor Danchenko argued in a motion filed on Friday seeking dismissal of the criminal charges pending against him in a Virginia federal court. With the trial set to start next month, Special Counsel John Durham must now decide whether to acknowledge the deep state’s complicity or risk a second acquittal.

Durham charged Danchenko last year with five counts of making false statements to the FBI related to Danchenko’s role as Christopher Steele’s primary sub-source in the fake dossier the Hillary Clinton team peddled to the FBI and the media. According to the indictment, Danchenko lied extensively when he provided Steele with supposed intel, and then later made false representations to the FBI during a series of interviews.

One count of the indictment concerned Danchenko’s denial during an FBI interview on June 15, 2017, of having spoken with “PR Executive-1” about any material contained in the Steele dossier. According to Durham’s team, “PR Executive-1,” who has since been identified as the Clinton and DNC-connected Charles Dolan, Jr., told Danchenko that a “GOP friend” had told him Paul Manafort had been forced to resign from the Trump campaign because of allegations connecting Manafort to Ukraine.

“While Dolan later admitted to the FBI that he had no such ‘GOP friend’ and that he had instead gleaned this information from press reports, Dolan’s fabrication appeared in the Steele dossier.” But according to the indictment, when the FBI asked Danchenko whether he had talked with Dolan about that and other details included in Steele’s reports, Danchenko lied and said he hadn’t.

The four remaining counts of the indictment concerned Danchenko’s alleged lies during questioning by the FBI on March 16, May 18, October 24, and November 16, 2017, concerning conversations he supposedly had with Sergei Millian, who was the then-president of the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce. According to the indictment, Danchenko told FBI agents during those interviews that he believed Millian had provided him information during an anonymous phone call, including “intel” later included in the Steele dossier that there was “a well-developed ‘conspiracy of cooperation’ between the Trump Campaign and Russian officials.” However, no such call ever occurred, Durham’s team charged.

In seeking dismissal of these five counts, Danchenko’s attorneys argued in the motion to dismiss they filed on Friday that the government’s false statement charges failed as a matter of law because ambiguity in the FBI’s questions and in his own answers make it impossible to show he knowingly lied to the government. What proved more intriguing, however, was Danchenko’s second argument based on “materiality.” Here, in essence, Danchenko argued that his statements, even if knowingly false, could not create criminal liability because they were immaterial to the FBI’s investigation.

To support this argument, Danchenko notes that the FBI was already investigating Millian’s “potential involvement with Russian interference efforts long before it had ever interviewed or even identified Mr. Danchenko,” apparently based on Steele’s claim that Millian served “as the source of relevant information.” Accordingly, Danchenko maintains his supposed lies were not the reason the FBI targeted Millian.

Danchenko further emphasizes in his brief that Steele had falsely told the FBI that “Danchenko had reported meeting with [Millian] in person on multiple occasions.” Danchenko exposed Steele’s own lies by telling the FBI he had never met with Millian “and could not be sure he ever spoke to him,” Danchenko’s attorneys stress in their motion to dismiss, thus calling Steele’s “statements, and portions of the Company Reports, into question.” Yet, even after learning of Steele’s apparent lies, the FBI did not alter the course of the investigation and, in fact, continued to rely on Steele’s reporting to seek renewals of the FISA surveillance orders, Danchenko’s brief underscores to argue that nothing Danchenko said during his interviews really mattered to the FBI.

Because Danchenko’s statements failed to change the trajectory of the government’s investigation into Millian and more broadly Trump and his associates, Danchenko posits that “it is difficult to fathom how the government would have made any decision other than to continue investigating [Millian] … regardless of what Mr. Danchenko told them.” In other words, Danchenko’s alleged lies were immaterial.

HTTPS://THEFEDERALIST.COM/2022/09/06/SPECIAL-COUNSEL-MUST-CHOOSE-RISK-A-RUSSIA-HOAXERS-SECOND-ACQUITTAL-OR-EXPOSE-MORE-DEEP-STATE-DIRT/

>>17505325

part 2 of 3

As a matter of law, Millian’s materiality argument is weak, but as a matter of defense-attorney rhetoric, it holds the potential to score Danchenko an acquittal.

Potential for Acquittal

The legal standard for materiality requires a false statement to have “a natural tendency to influence, or [be] capable of influencing, either a discrete decision or any other function of the agency to which it is addressed.” Further, “the falsehood need not actually influence the agency’s decision-making process, but merely needs to be ‘capable’ of doing so.” Thus, legally speaking, that the Crossfire Hurricane team, and later Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office, seemed unconcerned with what Danchenko said, as shown by their continued reliance on Steele and his dossier, is irrelevant. The question is whether the lie was capable of influencing how a hypothetically “objective” government official would have acted had they known the truth.

While Durham’s team will argue to the jury — assuming the district court denies Danchenko’s motion to dismiss the indictment — that the alleged lies were capable of influencing several decisions of the FBI agents, the reality is that the jurors will have a hard time buying that proposition unless Durham exposes the malfeasance of the Crossfire Hurricane agents and the members of Mueller’s team. In short, Durham needs to tell the jury that Danchenko’s alleged lies did not actually influence the government’s investigation because the agents were out to get Trump.

If the Special Counsel’s office does not take this tack, what the jury will hear is the story Danchenko previewed in his motion to dismiss:

“During the course of its investigation into the [Steele dossier], the FBI determined that the defendant, Igor Danchenko, was a potential source of information contained in the [dossier]. In order to assist the FBI in its investigation of the accuracy and sources of the information in the [dossier], Mr. Danchenko agreed to numerous voluntary interviews with the FBI from in or about January 2017 through November 2017. He answered every question he was asked to the best of his ability and recollection. As part of the 2017 interviews, FBI agents asked Mr. Danchenko to review portions of the [dossier] and describe where he believed the relevant information had derived from and to explain how any information he had provided to [Steele] may have been overstated or misrepresented in the [dossier].”

Danchenko did as the FBI asked, his defense will argue to the jury, before stressing that even after Danchenko highlighted Steele’s lies to the bureau, agents continued to investigate Millian. This fact will serve as a lynchpin for Danchenko to argue that his statements, even if false, were immaterial.

A Likely Argument

In his motion to dismiss, Danchenko previewed another argument likely to be repeated at trial, namely that no one thought Danchenko lied until the appointment of a second special counsel. “The Special Counsel’s office closed its entire investigation into possible Trump/Russia collusion in March 2019,” Danchenko noted in his motion, stressing that while “approximately thirty-four individuals were charged by Mueller’s office, including several for providing false statements to investigators. Mr. Danchenko was not among them. To the contrary, not only did investigators and government officials repeatedly represent that Mr. Danchenko had been honest and forthcoming in his interviews, but also resolved discrepancies between his recollection of events and that of others in Mr. Danchenko’s favor.”

While these arguments are currently aimed at the court, a repeat will surely follow during next month’s trial, and unless Durham provides the jury with an explanation for the FBI and Mueller’s lack of concern over Danchenko’s statements to investigators, an acquittal seems likely.

>>17505329

part 3 of 3

Durham’s Strategy

We won’t have to wait until the start of the trial to learn Durham’s likely strategy, however, as the government’s response to Danchenko’s motion to dismiss will likely provide some strong hints, especially given some of the assertions included in Danchenko’s brief. For instance, in his summary of the facts, Danchenko claimed, based on the DOJ’s inspector general report, that there was an “articulable factual basis” to launch Crossfire Hurricane based on “information received from a Friendly Foreign Government.” The “information received from a Friendly Foreign Government” refers to then-Australian diplomat Alexander Downer’s claim that Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos made suggestions that the Russians could assist the Trump campaign with the release of damaging information about Clinton.

Those well-versed in the Russia-collusion hoax will remember that Durham has already publicly pushed back against the Inspector General’s claim that Downer’s tip prompted the launching of Crossfire Hurricane. Durham released a statement following the publication of the IG report contradicting the IG’s assertion and revealing that “based on the evidence collected to date,” his team had “advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”

Another passage in Danchenko’s brief could similarly prompt pushback by Durham. Relying again on the inspector general’s report on FISA abuse, Danchenko asserts that there is “no evidence the [Steele] election reporting was known to or used by FBI officials involved in the decision to open the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.”

Two years have passed since the IG issued its report, however, and during that time Durham has been continuing to investigate the claimed predication of Crossfire Hurricane. If his team found evidence that Steele’s reporting prompted the launch of Crossfire Hurricane, Danchenko’s motion provides a perfect opportunity for Durham to publicly reveal that evidence.

Whether Durham will reveal these details and others remains to be seen. And while the special counsel’s office used pretrial court filings in the criminal case against former Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann to pepper the public with new revelations about the Russia-collusion hoax, the lead prosecutor in that case, Andrew DeFilippis, is no longer prosecuting the case against Danchenko. We should know soon whether Durham, who is now personally involved in the Danchenko prosecution, will use the case to expose more details about SpyGate.

Durham has already filed his first motion in limine, or a pretrial request for the court to rule on the admissibility of evidence, in the Danchenko case. That motion, however, concerns classified information and was thus sealed. The special counsel will likely be filing several more motions in limine in the weeks to come, with the court last week entering an order encouraging the parties to file those motions “as early as possible,” but no later than October 3, 2022, absent good cause.

Those motions, as well as Durham’s response to Danchenko’s motion to dismiss, will provide some insight into the special counsel’s planned strategy in the Danchenko case and specifically whether the special counsel will highlight the complicity of the deep state in the Russia-collusion hoax. If Durham doesn’t, it might cost his team a second loss.