Michigan Democrat Bill Preemptively Chills Questions About Election Fraud

BY: ALLISON SCHUSTER JULY 01, 20241/2

This is evidence of the left’s plan to rig the 2024 election by attempting to silence legitimate concerns about election fraud.

Last week, ==Michigan passed legislation obstructing the process of recounting votes in the event of suspected election fraud this November.

Senate Bills 603 and 604 would, if enacted, thwart the ability to recount votes==through several means, chiefly by requiring any fraud allegations to be referred to the county prosecutor (i.e. Democrat district attorneys), rather than conducting a recount through bipartisan boards.

Republican state senators are sounding the alarm on the threat this poses to the integrity of their state’s elections. The pair of bills, passed in conjunction with one another, invite voter fraud by making investigating the fraud nearly impossible.

Each county in Michigan has a board of canvassers that reports to the Board of State Canvassers. Each board is bipartisan with two Democrats and two Republicans.Under current Michigan law, these boards have the authority to investigate fraud with respect to voting. But these Democrat-pushed bills completely strip that away. Not only do they double the fees for a candidate to request a recount, butthey also change the definition of what constitutes investigation at all.

“Under current law, recounts of votes can be done based on the allegation of fraud or a mistake.The legislation removes fraud as a reason for a recount,” a statement released last week from Michigan House Republicans reads. “It also states that recount petitions may only allege an error and must state that there would have been a different outcome in the election without that error.”

These bills not only remove potential fraud as a cause for recount but alsospecify that recount petitions may only be brought if they would have changed the election results.

According to Michigan Fair Elections Chair Patrice Johnson,this provision in Section 861(a) was delicately constructed to chill and intimidate the questioning of election results, as doing so would result in an arduous, expensive legal matter. Regardless of legitimate errors involved, one needs to be able to prove outright that it would have upended an entire election. This directly prevents the counties’ ability to investigate election interference as a whole.

Another section states that any and allgenuine suspicions of fraud must be worded as suspicions of “error, rather than fraud or mistake …”

“Section 862 guts candidates’ right to question fraud. It ties their hands to requesting recounts, limited to cases in which the number of votes could overturn the results,” Johnson said in an interview.“It quashes free speech in the use of the word fraud. Suspicions of fraud must be worded as suspicions of errors. Shades of George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.”

Accordingly, Michigan Republicans are voicing serious concern.

“Passing a law crippling checks and balances of our election system only further deepens public distrust,” Republican Michigan Rep. Greg Markkanen, who voted against the bill, reportedly said in a news release. “The world is full of bad people who may do bad things, including defraud our elections. Our system must be robust and equipped with all the tools necessary to uncover and investigate all discrepancies.”

Michigan GOP Sen. Ruth Johnson, who serves on the Senate Elections Committee and also as the former Michigan secretary of state, has come out strongly against the bills.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/07/01/michigan-democrat-bill-preemptively-chills-questions-about-election-fraud/

>>21122105

2/2

“Right now, Michigan has 104.5% of our state’s voting-age population registered to vote. No photo ID is required to vote. We have no system to tell if someone votes in multiple states and thecurrent secretary of state failed to remove 170,000 names from the voting rolls of people who no longer lived in the state until after she was sued,” said Sen. Johnson in a press release. “If we want people to have faith in the electoral process, we should not be taking away people’s rights to have allegations of election fraud investigated during a recount.”

We’ve Seen This Before

The Michigan GOP has good reason to be on high alertregarding election laws in their state after the last presidential cycle.In 2020, Michigan conducted one of the worst elections ever seen in American history. The epicenter of the chaos was Detroit, the state’s largest city.

President Trump ended the evening with a comfortable lead in the state.

However, thousands and thousands of ballots materialized overnight, and Trump’s advantage withered away under these massive vote dumps as Biden took the lead. At the TCF Center, the Detroit site where the votes were being counted, poll watchers were reportedly barred from entering the arena, affidavits alleging misconduct were plentiful, and the overall sense was that something rotten had occurred.

Such concerning behavior will only worsen in 2024 if these Senate measures are allowed to put an unprecedented amount of power in the hands of the Democrat district attorney of Detroit.

Mounting Election Interference Efforts in Michigan

This November, both the Biden and Trump campaigns’ success hinges on winning the swing state of Michigan to reach 270 electoral votes. Despite Trump’s drastically increasing popularity in the Great Lake state, the power of left-wing, George Soros-linked district attorneys — in a state whose governor is one of the most prominent activists campaigning for Biden — cannot be overstated.

What’s more, this legislation comes on the heels of the Michigan attorney general’s indictment of 16 so-called “false electors,” who exercised their due diligence modeled in multiple elections throughout U.S. history — including by Democrats in both the election of 1876 and 1960 — to prepare for the possible event of Joe Biden’s win in the state being overturned. This preposterous prosecution, now followed by Senate Bills 603 and 604, is moreevidence that Michigan Democrats seek to chill Republicans’ freedom to speak out against suspicious election administration.

These bills tie the hands of voters and candidates. They aren’t attempts to streamline an election because none of these maneuvers makes the election simpler. They are yet another tactic employed by the left in its war against our Republic.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/07/01/michigan-democrat-bill-preemptively-chills-questions-about-election-fraud/

“A Private Citizen Cannot Criminally Prosecute Anyone, Let Alone a Former President” – Clarence Thomas Questions Jack Smith’s Authority in Blistering Opinion on Immunity Ruling

By Cristina Laila Jul. 1, 2024 12:00 pm1/2

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas questioned Jack Smith’s authority as special counsel in his concurring opinion on the high court’s presidential immunity ruling.

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 6-3 that Trump has absolute immunity for his core Constitutional powers. Former presidents are entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts. The Supreme Court ruled there is no immunity for unofficial acts.

Jack Smith’s DC case against Trump will be delayed again as it bounces back down to the lower court to Judge Tanya Chutkan.

Earlier this year the US Supreme Court agreed to hear Trump’s presidential immunity claim in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s January 6 case in Washington, DC.

Trump’s lawyers argued that Trump is immune from federal prosecution for alleged ‘crimes’ committed while he served as US President.

“In 234 years of American history, no president ever faced criminal prosecution for his official acts. Until 19 days ago, no court had ever addressed whether immunity from such prosecution exists,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in last month’s filing, according to CBS News. “To this day, no appellate court has addressed it. The question stands among the most complex, intricate, and momentous issues that this Court will be called on to decide.”

The Supreme Court ruled in Trump’s favor which means Jack Smith’s January 6 case in DC is effectively delayed.

Clarence Thomas went off on Jack Smith in his concurring opinion and questioned his authority as a special counsel. President Trump is separately arguing that Jack Smith’s appointment was unlawful in the classified documents case playing out in a Florida court.

Clarence Thomas questioned Jack Smith’s authority because he was a private citizen when he was tapped as a special prosecutor.

“I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure. In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been “established by Law,” as the Constitution requires. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. By requiring that Congress create federal offices “by Law,” the Constitution imposes an important check against the President — he cannot create offices at his pleasure. If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President,” Clarence Thomas said.

Clarence Thomas argued that no other former US President has been prosecuted for official acts despite numerous past Presidents taking actions that would argue constitutes crimes.

“No former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country. And, that is sodespite numerous past Presidents taking actions that many would argue constitute crimes. If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding,” Clarence Thomas wrote.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/07/clarence-thomas-questions-jack-smiths-authority-blistering-opinion/

>>21122289

2/2

Thomas also argued that Jack Smith is not senate confirmed (Trump’s lawyers are also using this argument before Judge Cannon).

“The Constitution sets forth how an office may be created and how it may be filled. The Appointments Clause provides: “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Department.” Art. II, §2, cl. 2. The constitutional process for filling an office is plain from this text. The default manner for appointing “Officers of the United States” is nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate. Ibid.

“But the Clause provides a limited exception for the appointment of inferior officers: Congress may ‘by Law’ authorize” one of three specified actors “to appoint inferior officers without the advice and con-sent of the Senate.” NLRB v. SW General, Inc., 580 U. S. 288, 312 (2017) (THOMAS, J., concurring). As relevant here, a “Hea[d] of Department”—such as the Attorney General—is one such actor that Congress may authorize “by Law” to appoint inferior officers without senatorial confirmation. Art. II, §2, cl. 2.

Thomas once again reiterated that a special prosecutor must be senate confirmed.

“Before the President or a Department Head can appoint any officer, however, the Constitution requires that the underlying office be “established by Law.”1 The Constitution itself creates some offices, most obviously that of the President and Vice President. See §1. Although the Constitution contemplates that there will be “other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for,” it clearly requires that those offices “shall be established by Law.” §2, cl. 2. And, “established by law” refers to an office that Congress creates “by statute.” Lucia v. SEC, 585 U. S. 237, 254 (2018) (THOMAS, J., concurring); see also United States v. Maurice, 26 F. Cas. 1211, 1213 (No. 15,747) (CC Va. 1823) (Marshall, C. J.).”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/07/clarence-thomas-questions-jack-smiths-authority-blistering-opinion/

Thomas was on the SC when Jack Smith was before them for the set up job of the cases below, Thomas is not going to let this go, and he shouldn’t:

A review found that Mr. Smith’s team followed the same playbook in the Trump case as in other high-stakes political prosecutions of both Republicans and Democrats. That playbook has resulted in a spotty record:

• Mr. Smith’s conviction against former Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell, a Republican accused of accepting payments and gifts in violation of federal public corruption laws, was overturned by the Supreme Court.

• The case against former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, a Democratic presidential candidate accused of illegally using campaign cash to conceal his mistress and love child, ended with a hung jury and mistrial.

• The prosecution of Sen. Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat accused of taking bribes, collapsed in a mistrial.

• The conviction of New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Democrat, on federal corruption charges was overturned by an appeals court. He was convicted during a second trial, but an appeals court threw out three of the six guilty verdicts. He died last year.

“Government lawyers have a higher duty to the truth and cause of justice, and that’s where some of these government prosecutors, like Mr. Smith, have fallen short,” Mr. McDonnell said. “They are smart and well-credentialed, but they don’t seem to be exercising good judgment when it comes to this point.”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jul/4/jack-smiths-record-rife-mistrials-overturned-convi/

>>21120874, >>21120897, >>21120999, >>21121051, >>21121094, >>21121197, >>21121235, >>21121264, >>21121298, >>21121336, >>21121346, >>21121370 Dims, Swallowwell plus moarPN

Are all these people insane? Don't they release the court just protected Obama, Bidan, Bush and Clinton from any prosecution. What did they really expect, the SC would kneecap all future presidents and they'd be afraid to do their duty, like if nuclear bomb was coming to the US, and they were too afraid to get convicted for starting a war, this is the craziest I've ever seen them.Their TDS is not getting better, it's getting worse

“Terrifying” – Mueller’s Hatchet Man Andrew Weissmann Melts Down Over SCOTUS Immunity Ruling, Floats Absurd SEAL Team 6 Assassination Hypothetical(VIDEO)

By Cristina Laila Jul. 1, 2024 3:00 pm

(This is not hypothetical, this is a crime that OBAMA did, he ordered either Seal Team or others to murder American Citizens in AfghanistanThey keep on saying Trump would do these things when Bidan, Obama and others did them)

Mueller’s hatchet man Andrew Weissmann melted down on Monday after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Trump has absolute immunity for his core Constitutional powers. (Official Acts are Immune, unofficial acts are NOT, does he think sending a team to kill someone as a political rival, and official act of the Presidency? They are intentionally twisting what the Court said. The most dishonest people of all time.)

Former presidents are entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts.

The Supreme Court ruled there is no immunity for unofficial acts.

“You could make the argument that is official conduct at the very least presumptively…” Weissmann said referring to the absurd hypothetical argument that a president could order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival.

“What if a president decides that a political adversary is a threat to democracy and orders the killing?” Weissmann said referring to Biden-appointed Judge Florence Pan’s argument.

WATCH:

The SEAL Team 6 assassination plot hypothetical originally started with Jack Smith and Biden’s appointed federal judge Florence Pan (DC Circuit Court of Appeals).

President Trump’s attorney John Sauer earlier this year appeared before a three-judge panel for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to argue Trump’s immunity claims in Jack Smith’s DC case.

The three-judge panel hearing oral arguments on immunity claims: Florence Pan (Biden appointee), Michelle Childs (Biden appointee), and Karen Henderson (George W. Bush appointee).

Recall that Jack Smith went completely off the rails and told a federal appeals court that Trump’s immunity argument would allow him to order his supporters to murder opposing lawmakers.

Trump’s lawyers argued that Trump is immune from federal prosecution for alleged ‘crimes’ committed while he served as US President.

Jack Smith’s team argued that if Trump is protected by the presidential immunity argument, what could stop him from telling his “inciting his supporters during a State of the Union address to kill opposing lawmakers…”

In January, a three-judge panel heard oral arguments and appeared skeptical of Trump’s immunity claims – one judge, a Biden appointee, asked attorney John Sauer if Trump would be subject to criminal prosecution if he ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate his political rivals.

“Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, and is not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?” Judge Florence Pan, a Biden appointee asked John Sauer.

John Sauer, former Solicitor General of Missouri and friend of The Gateway Pundit replied, “If he were impeached and convicted first… my answer is qualified yes, there is a political process that would have to occur under the structure of our Constitution which would require impeachment and conviction by the Senate in these exceptional cases…”

Of course this is an absurd hypothetical question that echoes Jack Smith’s argument to the federal appeals court.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/07/terrifying-muellers-hatchet-man-andrew-weissmann-melts-down/

Just like my brother said in 2020 when I asked, are you really going to vote for this old man, he said, "I'd vote for him if he was in a coma"

Democrats are really accepting the idea that cheating is the only way they keep their tyranny, so seemingly good people will cheat, lie and steal, etc. to prevent Trump from being elected.

MSNBC’s Resident Wacko Joy Reid Claims Biden’s Health Irrelevant — ‘He Could Be in a Wheelchair, I Don’t Care, As Long As Trump Doesn’t Win’(VIDEO)

Jim Hᴏft Jul. 1, 2024 2:20 pm

I remember the great memes anons did when I told them that statement from my brother. Now it's a memes for Joy Reid, (her parents REALLY MISNAMED HER) Oh, they are seriously afraid of Trump coming after the Press when he gets in, that's really got them shaking.

>>21122497

They are so freaked out, and the hatred is so deep for Trump and Us, I think they have no souls and sneaked out of hell for a couple of years.

>>21121913

Why do you love Pence so much, he is the worst, take your fixation somewhere else. Its tiresome.