Author Topic: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.  (Read 517761 times)


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18596
    • View Profile
From above post
« Reply #2752 on: March 24, 2024, 07:26:40 AM »
" The day after certification in 2022, the Ohio statewide voter roll database showed:

58,209 resided in an apartment or in a mobile home lot but had no unit number as required on their voter registration application to ensure proper delivery of mail, including mail-in ballot material.
4,143 were older than the oldest person in the U.S. at the time or were too young to legally register.
6,348 had a date of birth that was different in 2022 than it was in 2020.
253,486 voters supposedly registered on January 1st, 84,221 voters registered on another Federal holiday and 201,693 voters registered on Sunday -- all times when Ohio boards of elections and state offices are closed.
120,094 had registration dates in the 2022 state voter file that were earlier than their registration date in the 2020 file. 59,025 people were listed as registering to vote before they were born.
243,583 had state identification numbers that had changed since 2020, even though federal laws require each voter be issued “a unique state identifier.” 34,233 had 2 to 5 registration records with different state identification numbers, making it possible for them to vote more than once."

The official response:

"The Secretary of State office’s response placed responsibility on shortcomings in county boards’ “staffing, IT expertise and database technology,” and claimed “the core problem is almost always human data entry.” It also asserted, contrary to Ohio law, that the county-maintained voter registration list is the official list. In actual fact, Ohio Revised Code § 3503.15 establishes: “The statewide voter registration database shall be the official list of registered electors for all elections conducted in this state.”

:x :x :x


  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69662
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #2753 on: March 24, 2024, 07:54:25 AM »
Thank you CCP for taking to time to make that entry.


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2023
    • View Profile
Chicago: Vote Early, Vote Often, & Keep Doing So After You’re Dead
« Reply #2754 on: March 25, 2024, 05:09:03 PM »
My old stompin’ grounds. The favored candidate was behind so, lo and behold, uncounted mail in ballots were found & the Machine’s candidate is now ahead as we learn, gasp, the other candidate was supported by WHITE MEN!!!

I’m so glad Illinois and I parted ways….


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2023
    • View Profile
Returned Ballots: A Recipe for Electoral Fraud
« Reply #2756 on: March 28, 2024, 08:22:00 PM »
Returned ballots are harvested, perhaps via postal workers, completed for the preferred (Dem) candidate, and then remained as valid, among other tidbits found here:


  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69662
    • View Profile
Third Circuit ruling on PA mail-in ballots
« Reply #2758 on: March 29, 2024, 03:59:13 PM »

Is This the End for Pennsylvania’s Undated Ballots?
A Third Circuit ruling could stabilize 2024 voting, right on time.
The Editorial Board
March 29, 2024 5:47 pm ET


Gift unlocked article


(4 min)

A Delaware County secured drop box for the return of vote-by-mail ballots is pictured, May 2, 2022, in Newtown Square, Pa. PHOTO: MATT ROURKE/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Judges in Pennsylvania have been arguing for four years about whether election officials must count undated mail ballots, since some voters always fail to fill in the required date field. The latest answer, issued by a federal appeals court on Wednesday, is no. The good news is that this could help stabilize a wild 2024 election that is now only months away.

WSJ Opinion Potomac Watch
Undated Mail Ballots Are No Longer Valid in Pennsylvania

Add to Queue
Explore Audio Center
Pennsylvania’s election law, upheld by the state Supreme Court, clearly tells mail voters to “fill out, date and sign the declaration.” Last year, though, a federal judge ruled that the date field was effectively optional, citing the Civil Rights Act. That law prohibits states from denying a person the right to vote based on a nonmaterial “error or omission” on paperwork that is “related to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting.”

But if that interpretation is correct, where does it stop? States have all kinds of neutral, de minimis rules for voting. Pennsylvania also rejects unsigned mail votes, as well as “naked ballots” that are returned without their mandatory “secrecy” envelopes. Other states require absentee ballots to have witness signatures and addresses. What else might judges deem to be immaterial, if Donald Trump leads President Biden by 1,000 votes in one state, or vice versa? That’s the national nightmare.

A panel of the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 this week that the lower judge’s view is wrong. Her position, the majority says, “cannot be reconciled with the text and historic backdrop of the statute, nor cabined to the date requirement while leaving intact other vote-casting rules that serve valid state interests.” All three of the judges on this panel are Democratic appointees.

The majority argues that the Civil Rights Act provisions in question were aimed at ending literacy tests and other Jim Crow efforts to keep black citizens off the voting rolls in the South. “No longer could States block ballot box access to an applicant who misspelled a State’s name or failed to calculate correctly his birthday to the day,” the ruling says. This obviously isn’t what Pennsylvania is doing.

“Once inside the voting place (where, in the 1960s, nearly all voting took place), all voters must follow the same rules for casting a valid ballot,” the majority opinion adds. A mail ballot in Pennsylvania might be void if it’s filled out half in pencil and half in pen. But a state that sets aside defective ballots isn’t denying the right to vote. “We find it implausible,” the majority says, “that federal law bars a State from enforcing vote-casting rules that it has deemed necessary to administer its elections.”

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by two conservative colleagues, said much the same in 2022, when a separate dispute over Pennsylvania’s undated ballots reached the Supreme Court on the emergency docket. In that case, a different Third Circuit panel went the opposite direction, saying such votes must be tallied. But its ruling was eventually vacated as moot, setting up this week’s heartening correction.

The dissenting judge says that two years ago “10,000 timely-received ballots” were rejected under Pennsylvania’s date rule. Such errors are regrettable, and the possibility of making one is a reason to prefer voting in person. But the way to build trust in the fairness of elections is to run them by the book.

After Election Day, losing candidates will always plead to count a few more invalid votes. Judges shouldn’t be standing by to rewrite state law to do it.


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2023
    • View Profile
Eight Months to Stack the Electoral Deck
« Reply #2759 on: April 01, 2024, 10:28:53 PM »
I came up north of Chicago where vote fraud was a given. Mayor Daley swung Illinois to Kennedy, beating Nixon with a vast wave of Chicago votes drummed up by ward healers, aldermen, and Democratic Party machine politics as practiced in the big cities they controlled. Claims the dead voted in Chicago? Duh, what else were the dead gonna do? Fraud was just a give and the Party machine in control of every lever of power to the point there was no agency or state organ that had the desire, let alone the ability, to do anything about it.

These days the tools are different, but the results the same. The once cynical media that would occasionally try to strike a blow against the status quo is these days fully co-opted to the cause, while ward healers drumming up votes in bars and grave yards no longer have to transport drunks from ward to ward to vote a numerous times under dozens of names, many of which were no longer in use by the decedents save for on their tombstones. Swiping a postal flat full of mail in votes is instead the preferred method these days, as this piece points out:

Two Weeks to Flatten Became Eight Months to Change the Election


In 1845, Congress established Election Day as the Tuesday after the first Monday of November. The Act sought “to establish a uniform time” for Americans to cast their ballots for president. Historically, voters needed to provide a valid reason – such as illness or military service – to qualify for absentee ballots.

But Covid served as a pretext to overturn that tradition. Just 25% of votes in 2020 occurred at the polls on Election Day. Mail-in voting more than doubled. Key swing states eliminated the need to provide a valid reason to cast absentee ballots. The virus and racial justice became justifications to disregard verification methods like signature requirements.

Rejection rates for absentee ballots plummeted by more than 80% in some states as the Covid regime welcomed an unprecedented increase in mail-in voting. Politicians and media outlets ignored rampant voter fraud in the months leading up to the election. They treated concerns surrounding absentee voting as obscure conspiracy theories despite a bipartisan commission describing it as “the largest source of potential voter fraud” just a decade earlier.

It is now clear that the overhaul of our election system was a deliberate initiative from the outset of the pandemic response. In March 2020, when the Government’s official policy was still “two weeks to flatten the curve,” the administrative state began instituting the infrastructure to hijack the November presidential election, more than 30 weeks beyond when the Covid response was supposed to end.

March 2020: The CDC and the CARES Act Meddle in the Election

On March 12, 2020, the CDC issued a recommendation for states and localities to “encourage voters to use voting methods that minimize direct contact with other people,” including “mail-in methods of voting.”

Two weeks later, President Trump signed the $2 trillion CARES Act, which offered states $400 million to re-engineer their election processes for that November.

At the time, proponents of the CARES Act argued it was necessary to reopen the country. For example, the New York Times argued it was “critical to fund and implement the safety measures necessary to let Americans get back to work, school and play without a recurrence of the virus.”

But political actors immediately plotted ways to use the funds to entrench their power long past the proposed two-week lockdowns. Nearly every swing state announced plans to promote mail-in voting and reduce electoral safeguards in a Congressional report.

“Michigan will use the funds to bolster vote by mail,” the report announced. Governor Gretchen Whitmer received $11.3 million from the CARES Act to change election procedures in her state. In November, 57% of Michigan voters (over 3 million people) cast their ballot by mail. For the first time, the state did not require a reason for absentee voting, and mail-in ballots more than doubled. President Trump would go on to lose Michigan by just 150,000 votes.

When Trump signed the CARES Act, just 0.05% of Michigan residents had tested positive for Covid. The state’s political leaders later boasted that their agenda had not been focused on public health. “Even when there’s not a pandemic, once people begin using the absentee ballot process, they’re much more likely to continue to do so in the future,” said Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson after Election Day.

Pennsylvania received $14.2 million from the CARES Act to address its election process. At the time, the infection rate in the Keystone State was 1 in 6,000 (0.017%). Democratic Governor Tom Wolf’s administration told the federal government it would use its plans to increase absentee voting. In November, 2.5 million Pennsylvanians voted by mail. President Biden won 75% of those votes – a difference of 1.4 million. President Trump lost the state by under 100,000 votes.

The CARES Act provided Wisconsin with over $7 million for election matters. Democratic Governor Tom Evers said the state would use funds to provide “absentee ballot envelopes,” to develop “the statewide voter registration system and online absentee ballot request portal,” and “to account for additional costs” related to mail-in voting.

Governor Evers explained, “Having as many absentee ballots as possible is absolutely a top priority [and] always has been given the emergency we’re in.” Eight months later, 1.9 million of the state’s 3.3 million voters cast their ballot by mail. The rejection rate for absentee ballots plummeted from 1.4% in 2016 to 0.2%. President Biden won Wisconsin by just 20,000 votes.

Democratic activists were unsatisfied with the $400 million added to the national debt to reshape the elections. Mark Zuckerberg’s foundation offered an additional $300 million. In Time, Molly Ball celebrated the “shadow campaign that saved the 2020 election.” She quoted Amber McReynolds, the president of “nonpartisan National Vote at Home Institute,” who called the government’s reluctance to provide additional funding “a failure at the federal level.” Despite her professed “non-partisanship,” President Biden rewarded her service by appointing her to the Board of the US Postal Service.

In Time, Ball hailed the mail-in activists’ efforts, which included targeting “Black voters” who may have otherwise “preferred to exercise their franchise in person.” They focused on social media outreach to try to convince people that a “prolonged [vote] count wasn’t a sign of problems.” Their informational warfare may have changed Americans’ perception on mail-in voting, but it could not eradicate the predictable controversies that it created.

April and May 2020: Voter Fraud Skyrockets

In May 2020, New Jersey held municipal elections and required all voting take place via mail. The State’s third largest city, Paterson, held its election for city council. The results should have been a national scandal that ended the push for mail-in voting.

Shortly after the election, the Postal Service discovered “hundreds of mail-in ballots” in one town mailbox. A Snapchat video showed a man named Abu Razyen illegally handling a stack of ballots he said was for candidate Shanin Khalique. Khalique initially defeated his opponent by just eight votes. A recount found their vote was tied.

Paterson resident Ramona Javier never received her mail-in ballot for the election. Neither did eight of her family members and neighbors, yet they were all listed as having voted. “We did not receive vote-by-mail ballots and thus we did not vote,” she told the press. “This is corruption. This is fraud.”

Election officials rejected 19% of the ballots from Paterson, a city with over 150,000 residents. While Paterson’s election was particularly troublesome, mail-in ballots were problematic across the state. Thirty other New Jersey municipalities held vote-by-mail elections that day, and the average disqualification rate was 9.6%.

New Jersey brought voting fraud charges against City Councilman Michael Jackson, Councilman-Elect Alex Mendez, and two other men for their “criminal conduct involving mail-in ballots during the election.” All four were charged with illegally collecting, procuring, and submitting mail-in ballots.

A state judge later ordered a new vote, finding that the May election “was not the fair, free and full expression of the intent of the voters. It was rife with mail in vote procedural violations constituting nonfeasance and malfeasance.”

Politicians refused to concede that the incident revealed the vulnerability of absentee balloting. Instead, Governor Phil Murphy told the press that the scandal was a good sign. “I view that as a positive data point,” he argued. “Some guys tried to screw around with the system. They got caught by law enforcement. They’ve been indicted. They’ll pay a price.”

Murphy and other allies of Joe Biden ignored the threat, presuming the forces would not hurt their hopes that November.

In Wisconsin, the April 2020 primary election offered further evidence of the challenges and corruption surrounding mail-in voting. Following the primary, a postal center outside Milwaukee discovered three tubs of absentee ballots that never reached their intended recipients. Fox Point, a village outside Milwaukee, has a population of under 7,000 people.

Beginning in March, Fox Point received between 20 and 50 undelivered absentee ballots per day. In the weeks leading up to the election, the village manager said that increased to between 100 and 150 ballots per day. On election day, the town received a plastic mail bin with 175 unmailed ballots. “We’re not sure why this happened,” said the village manager. “Nobody seems to be able to tell me why.”

Democrats admitted the system threatened election integrity. “This has all the makings of a Florida 2000 if we have a close race,” said Gordon Hintz, the Democratic minority leader in the Wisconsin State Assembly. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo went further. “It’s a harder system to administer, and obviously it’s a harder system to police writ large,” he said. Cuomo continued, “People showing up, people actually showing ID, is still the easiest system to assure total integrity.”

The Wisconsin primary also featured special elections for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. A liberal judge upset the incumbent conservative justice, and partisans embraced their overhaul of the electoral system. The New York Times reported: “Wisconsin Democrats are working to export their template for success – intense digital outreach and a well-coordinated vote-by-mail operation – to other states in the hope that it will improve the party’s chances in local and statewide elections and in the quest to unseat President Trump in November.”

Despite the corruption, the lost ballots, and the admissions of threats to electoral integrity, the process had been a success in political terms; their candidate had won. The ends had justified the means. Citizens lost faith in their election process, and political leaders readily admitted that their concerns were justified; but the professional politicos and their mouthpiece, the New York Times, characterized the disaster as a “template for success.”

Controversies continued to emerge surrounding mail-in ballots.

In September 2020, a government contractor threw Trump mail-in ballots in the trash in Pennsylvania. ABC News reported that “ballots had been found in a dumpster next to the elections building.” A week later, three trays of mail with absentee ballots were found in a ditch in Wisconsin.

In Nevada, the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony offered gifts, including gift cards, jewelry, and clothing to Native Americans who showed up to vote. Activist Bethany Sam organized the event, where she donned a Biden-Harris mask and stood in front of the Biden-Harris campaign bus.

Voters in California received ballots with no place to vote for president, over 20% of ballots mailed to voters in Teaneck, New Jersey, had the wrong Congressional districts listed, and Franklin County, Ohio reported sending over 100,000 absentee ballots to the wrong address due to an “envelope stuffing error.”

In October, Texas police arrested Carrollton Mayoral Candidate Zul Mirza Mohamed on 109 counts of fraud for forging mail-in ballots. Authorities discovered fraudulent ballots at Mohamed’s residence with fictitious licenses. That same month, a Pennsylvania district attorney charged Lehigh County Elections Judge Everett “Erika” Bickford with “prying into ballots” and altering the entries from a local election that June. That election was decided by just 55 votes.

Reports continued to emerge after the election. The New York Post uncovered election records that showed dead people had cast absentee ballots that November.

California law enforcement arrested two men with a 41-count criminal complaint for allegedly submitting over 8,000 fraudulent voter registration applications on behalf of homeless people. Their goal was to get Carlos Montenegro, one of the defendants, elected Mayor of Hawthorne, a city in Los Angeles County. The state also alleged that Montenegro committed perjury by falsifying names and signatures in his paperwork for his mayoral campaign.

In 2022, a Georgia investigation found more than 1,000 absentee ballots that never left the Cobb County government facility. Two months earlier, mail-in ballots from the 2020 election were discovered in a Baltimore USPS facility. In 2023, Michigan police found hundreds of mail-in ballots from the 2020 election in a township clerk’s storage unit.

All of this was entirely predictable, but perhaps that was the point. From the outset, the Covid regime sought to abolish the safeguards of our election system despite well-known concerns regarding election integrity.

The United States of Amnesia: Voter Fraud Was Nothing New

Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.

The Covid regime’s messaging was clear: only conspiratorial lunatics would question the integrity of an election system that more than doubles its mail-in voting. FBI Director Christopher Wray testified, “We have not seen, historically, any kind of coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it’s by mail or otherwise.”

But this wasn’t true. It contradicted long-standing conclusions regarding electoral integrity. Just as the public health apparatus abandoned thousands of years of epidemiological practice to implement lockdowns, the media and elected officials abandoned principles that until that moment had been common sense.

Following the controversy of the 2000 Presidential election, the United States formed a bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform. President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and former Secretary of State James Baker, a Republican, chaired the group.

After five years of research, the group published its final report – “Building Confidence in U.S. Elections.” It offered a series of recommendations to reduce voter fraud, including enacting voter-ID laws and limiting absentee voting. The commission was unequivocal: “Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.”

The report continued: “Citizens who vote at home, at nursing homes, at the workplace, or in church are more susceptible to pressure, overt and subtle, or to intimidation. Vote buying schemes are far more difficult to detect when citizens vote by mail.”

The findings were reinforced by subsequent election scandals.

A 2012 New York Times headline read: “Error and Fraud at Issue as Absentee Voting Rises.” The article made the front page of the paper and echoed the concerns of the Carter-Baker Commission. “Fraud Easier via Mail,” the paper explained.

“You could steal some absentee ballots or stuff a ballot box or bribe an election administrator or fiddle with an electronic voting machine,” said Yale Law professor Heather Gerken. That explains, she said, “why all the evidence of stolen elections involves absentee ballots and the like.”

The Times continued the potential corruption of mail-in ballots. “On the most basic level, absentee voting replaces the oversight that exists at polling places with something akin to an honor system,” the author wrote. The Times then cited US Circuit Court Judge Richard A. Posner: “Absentee voting is to voting in person as a take-home exam is to a proctored one.”

The report went on: “Voters in nursing homes can be subjected to subtle pressure, outright intimidation or fraud. The secrecy of their voting is easily compromised. And their ballots can be intercepted both coming and going.”

Historic controversies supported this consensus. The 1997 Miami mayoral election resulted in 36 arrests for absentee-ballot fraud. A judge voided the results and ordered the city to hold a new election due to “a pattern of fraudulent, intentional, and criminal conduct.” The results were reversed in the subsequent election.

Following Dallas’s 2017 City Council race, authorities sequestered 700 mail-in ballots signed “Jose Rodriguez.” Elderly voters alleged that party activists had forged their signatures on their mail-in ballots. Miguel Hernandez later pled guilty to the crime of forging their signatures after collecting unfilled ballots, and using them to support his candidate of choice.

The following year, it appeared that Republic Mark Harris defeated Democrat Dan McCready in a North Carolina congressional race. Election officials noticed irregularities in the mail-in votes and refused to certify the election, citing evidence and “claims of…concerted fraudulent activities.” The state ordered a special election the following year.

In 2018, the Democratic National Commission challenged an Arizona law that set safeguards around absentee voting, including limiting who could handle mail-in ballots. US District Judge Douglas L. Rayes, an Obama appointee, upheld the law. “Indeed, mail-in ballots by their very nature are less secure than ballots cast in person at polling locations,” he wrote. He found that “the prevention of voter fraud and preservation of public confidence in election integrity” were important state interests and cited the Carter-Baker Commission’s finding that “Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.”

The rest of the world recognized the obvious threat that mail-in voting poses to election integrity. In 1975, France banned postal ballots after rampant voter fraud. Ballots were cast with the names of dead Frenchmen, and political activists in Corsica stole ballots and bribed voters.

In 1991, Mexico mandated voter photo IDs and banned absentee ballots after the Institutional Revolutionary Party repeatedly committed fraud to maintain power. In Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, photo ID is required to get an absentee ballot.

In August 2020, economist John Lott analyzed how Covid was being used as a pretext to overhaul electoral standards in the United States. He wrote:

Thirty-seven states have so far changed their mail-in voting procedures this year in response to the Coronavirus. Despite frequent claims that President Trump’s warning about vote fraud/voting buying with mail-in ballots is “baselessly” or “without evidence” about mail-in vote fraud, there are numerous examples of vote fraud and vote buying with mail-in ballots in the United States and across the world. Indeed, concerns over vote fraud and vote buying with mail-in ballots causes the vast majority of countries to ban mail-in voting unless the citizen is living abroad.

There are fraud problems with mail-in absentee ballots but the problems with universal mail-in ballots are much more significant. Still most countries ban even absentee ballots for people living in their countries.

Most developed countries ban absentee ballots unless the citizen is living abroad or require Photo-IDs to obtain those ballots. Even higher percentages of European Union or other European countries ban absentee for in country voters.

Political actors treated opposition to absentee balloting with scorn while ignoring its history of corruption. Mail-in voting may have been the decisive factor in the 2020 election, but Trump and his allies searched for other explanations to avoid his complicity in signing the CARES Act.

The Trump campaign promised to produce “irrefutable” evidence that proved Trump won the election “in a landslide.” “I’m going to release the Kraken,” one Trump election lawyer told Lou Dobbs in November 2020. President Trump and Rudy Giuliani tweeted blame at Dominion voting machines. Sean Hannity said privately that Giuliani was “acting like an insane person.”

Two days later, he told viewers about a “software error” from Dominion that “wrongfully awarded Joe Biden thousands of ballots that were cast for President Trump, until the problem was amazingly fixed.” In August 2023, Trump announced that he would release an “irrefutable report” demonstrating voter fraud in Georgia. He canceled the announcement two days later.

In the process, they ignored a far more obvious explanation.

Presidential elections in the 21st century have been decided by an average of 44 electoral votes. Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin offer a combined 62 votes in the Electoral College.

Under the pretext of Covid, states abolished their electoral safeguards. They turned Election Day into a month of voting. After prominent Democrats refused to certify the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections, the victors chastised any concerns for electoral integrity as attacks on democracy.

This is all theater. From the outset of the pandemic response, the liberalization of voting rules was integral, all justified based on nonscientific grounds while invoking the cover of science. It wasn’t stopping disease spread that drove the dramatic upheaval in the American system of voting that has caused such widespread distrust. It was the drive for a result different from one that swept the country four years earlier.


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18596
    • View Profile
This is what is infuriating
« Reply #2760 on: April 02, 2024, 06:18:27 AM »
From BBG's previous post:

Thirty-seven states have so far changed their mail-in voting procedures this year in response to the Coronavirus. Despite frequent claims that President Trump’s warning about vote fraud/voting buying with mail-in ballots is “baselessly” or “without evidence” about mail-in vote fraud, there are numerous examples of vote fraud and vote buying with mail-in ballots in the United States and across the world. Indeed, concerns over vote fraud and vote buying with mail-in ballots causes the vast majority of countries to ban mail-in voting unless the citizen is living abroad.

There are fraud problems with mail-in absentee ballots but the problems with universal mail-in ballots are much more significant. Still most countries ban even absentee ballots for people living in their countries.

OF COURSE WE WERE ALL SUSPICIOUS FOR ELECTION FRAUD WHEN  THIS TOOK PLACE and changes were always in the advantage going to Democrats

But the LEFT yells screams out anyone who says this as an election denier - with the implication they are Nazi threats to Democracy

so infuriating!


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18596
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #2762 on: April 02, 2024, 08:17:47 AM »


  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69662
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #2763 on: April 02, 2024, 11:12:32 AM »
Here ya go:

The RNC Is Right: Anyone Who Can’t Recognize Flaws In 2020 Is Unfit To Help Republicans Win
MARCH 28, 2024

Winning requires first acknowledging past and existing problems.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) is reportedly asking prospective employees what they think about the 2020 election — as they should.

Citing unnamed sources, The Washington Post reported that job applicants at the RNC have been asked about whether they believe the 2020 election was “stolen,” although the Post acknowledged the questions were “open-ended.”

The Post tried to spin the story as the RNC “demanding fealty” to former President Donald Trump, using the words of President Joe Biden’s rapid response director. But beating Democrats — who showed in 2020 that they are willing to ignore the rule of law in order to change how elections are fundamentally run, to their advantage — starts by acknowledging what happened in 2020.

“Potential staffers who worked on the front line in battleground states or are currently in states where fraud allegations have been prevalent were asked about their work experience,” RNC and Trump spokeswoman Danielle Alvarez said in a statement to The Federalist. “We want experienced staff with meaningful views on how elections are won and lost and real experience-based opinions about what happens in the trenches.”

[READ NEXT: Leftists Bragged About ‘Fortifying’ The 2020 Election. Now They’re Flaunting Plans To Do It Again In 2024]

So what did happen in the “trenches”?

For one, unelected officials usurped the authority of the legislature to unilaterally change election laws and fundamentally alter the electoral process.

Then-Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar serves as a prime example, having bucked not only the legislature but guidance from the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court declined to expedite Pennsylvania Republicans’ challenge to a state supreme court order that permitted ballots that were postmarked by Election Day but received during the three days following Election Day — and also ballots lacking a postmark but received during the same period — to be counted, based on the understanding that Boockvar would segregate ballots received during the three day extension.

Republicans argued the state supreme court’s decision violated state law that stipulates ballots must arrive by Election Day. Any move to extend the deadline for accepting ballots, they contended, should belong to lawmakers.

Boockvar initially issued guidance on Oct. 28 ordering all ballots received after Election Day be kept separate in the event the high court ruled the ballot extension unconstitutional. Justice Samuel Alito noted that guidance the same day, in a statement on the court’s decision not to take the case. But just days before the election, Boockvar issued updated guidance ordering the segregated late ballots be counted “as soon as possible upon receipt of the ballots.”

Boockvar was later rebuked by a state court for additional guidance she put out that allowed voters missing proof of identification to “cure” their mail-in ballots until Nov. 12, nine days after the election. Trump’s campaign and the RNC argued Boockvar lacked the authority to change the law and only the legislature had power to legislate election changes.

“[T]he Court concludes that Respondent Kathy Boockvar, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth, lacked statutory authority to issue the November 1, 2020, guidance to Respondents County Boards of Elections insofar as that guidance purported to change the deadline … for certain electors to verify proof of identification,” Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt wrote.

[READ NEXT: 3 Fishy Things In Pennsylvania Voter Data The State Has Yet To Explain]

Other battleground states had issues that undoubtedly affected the election, such as Georgia, which saw Democrats sneak in a major change to mail-in voting months before Election Day. As part of an agreement with the Georgia Democratic Party, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, state election officials agreed to permit “ballot curing.”

Ballot curing allows voters whose ballots were rejected a chance to “cure” or correct the issue on their absentee ballot so that it can be counted. But as The Federalist’s John Davidson pointed out, there was a less-publicized provision of the agreement that had consequences for the election. Prior to the agreement, the signature on an absentee ballot had to match the signature in Georgia’s voter registration database. Ballots were rejected if the signatures did not match.

But the new agreement made sure that an absentee ballot signature simply had to match the signature on the absentee ballot application. This means if someone filled out an application fraudulently, that same person could then sign the ballot itself and both signatures would match.

Or take a state like Wisconsin, where two years after Trump lost by roughly 20,000 votes, the state Supreme Court ruled unelected officials did not have authority to usurp the legislature the way it did when it issued guidance permitting the use of ballot drop boxes in direct contradiction of state law. Milwaukee, like other left-leaning cities in the state, had more than a dozen of these illegal drop boxes. President Joe Biden beat Trump by more than 100,000 votes in the city.

Unlawful changes to election laws were only one of the ways the 2020 election was rigged — or “fortified,” as leftists would say. From Big Tech censorship of conservative speech and bombshell news (like the Hunter Biden laptop story), to media interference, to the infiltration of election offices by private donors via “Zuckbucks,” the 2020 election was rife with alarming issues that Republicans would be foolish not to learn from.

“Allowing just one of these attacks to infect our electoral system would be a crisis,” Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway told the House Administration Committee last month. “Allowing all of them at the same time is an existential threat to our system of self-government.”


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2023
    • View Profile
It’s a Coincidence, Honest
« Reply #2764 on: April 02, 2024, 05:12:22 PM »
Someone I follow posted this link showing voter registrations by week as collected by the Social Security Administration. Check out the spiking registrations in states likely to be battlegrounds this fall. Why do you suppose this is?

One would think someone interested in committing an act of serious journalism might follow this trail of bolder sized breadcrumbs, though of course they’d be at risk of discovering malfeasance we are assured does not exist.

Sweet bleeding Jesus, I wish the Republicans had a legal ground game half the size of what the Dems regularly field as this data suggests something very fishy is afoot on a very large scale.


  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69662
    • View Profile
WI: No Zuckbucks here
« Reply #2767 on: April 04, 2024, 08:10:13 AM »
Wisconsin Bans Zuckerbucks
More voters reject the use of private funds to administer elections.
The Editorial Board
April 3, 2024 5:45 pm ET

Restoring trust in elections should be a bipartisan cause, and Wisconsin voters taught the professionals a lesson on Tuesday by approving two state constitutional amendments that increase safeguards for election integrity.

More than 54% approved a referendum banning the use of private grants in election administration. And more than 58% backed a second measure requiring that only public officials “designated by law” can handle election administration.

This is a welcome response to the infusion of so-called Zuckerbucks in the 2020 election. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan handed out cash grants through the nonprofit Center for Tech and Civic Life to state and local officials who run elections and count ballots.

A 2021 report by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) found that more than 86% of the $10 million from the Center for Tech and Civic Life went to the cities of Madison, Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha and Green Bay. “The private money served to increase voter turnout for Joe Biden, but not Donald Trump,” WILL found.

Green Bay received more than $1.2 million and had access to consultants from outside groups. Republicans objected in particular to a consultant from the National Vote at Home Institute who they said was given access to areas containing ballots, a privilege that should have been reserved for government workers.

Green Bay city attorney Vanessa Chavez said the allegations of meddling were “unfounded,” but the mess became fodder for Donald Trump supporters who claimed it was part of a conspiracy to rig the election. That was overblown: Mr. Trump lost Wisconsin by more than 20,000 votes mainly because he received 63,000 fewer votes than Republicans running for Congress. But the appearance of outside meddling was damaging enough to persuade Wisconsin voters to endorse the ban.

Twenty-seven other states have restricted private funding, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Tuesday’s amendments are useful correctives, and they’ll remove one argument from those who want to cast doubt on election results.


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2023
    • View Profile
Colleges Share FERPA Protected Student Data w/ Dem Funded Voter Org
« Reply #2768 on: April 04, 2024, 12:13:13 PM »
At my institution it's difficult to look up student email addresses and phone numbers as they are FERPA protected, yet colleges share this info with a voter org funded by Democrats with nary an issue? I'm sure the MSM will get on this unfair and illegal relationship any day now. Yep ... any ... day:


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18596
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #2769 on: April 04, 2024, 12:32:45 PM »
"University officials may have been duped into
authorizing disclosure of highly sensitive private student data to a partisan private
corporation that works exclusively with Democrats and progressives under the guise of a
dubious “study exception” to FERPA’s prohibitions against sharing of the data. "

I highly doubt they were "duped":

"Politically active non-profits funded by Democrat donors have been encouraging
university officials to sign an agreement allowing National Student Clearinghouse to
circumvent the FERPA protections and share students’ private data with IDHE and an
unnamed “third party vendor” in order to increase registration and election turnout of
students. "

what else does increase registration and election turnout mean other then Dem Party ballot harvesting?


  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69662
    • View Profile
Electoral College
« Reply #2770 on: April 13, 2024, 05:47:01 AM »


  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69662
    • View Profile
Chinese Penetration of American electoral databases
« Reply #2773 on: April 18, 2024, 04:20:31 PM »
Hat tip BBG

This could go a number of places, but given that the FBI is threatening the people revealing this apparent Chinese penetration into electoral databases and research center I'm dropping it in. Could this, perchance, reflect a quid for Biden's numerous Chinese pro quos?

Note: these X posts are graphics heavy and hence this piece should be viewed in the oringal, which starts here:



KONNECH #1🚨: Evidence shockingly suggests that the FBI is shielding two firms closely tied to the Chinese government, which have financed and developed an American election software company for the past 15 years, all while transferring confidential election data back to China.

2) Konnech has provided election administration and logistics software to many prominent cities and counties in the United States, including:

•Alameda County, California
•Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
•Contra Costa County, California
•Denver, Colorado
•Detroit, Michigan
•Fairfax County, Virginia
•Hillsborough County, Florida
•Maron County, Indiana
•Los Angeles, California
•San Francisco, California
•Santa Clara County, California
•St. Louis County, Missouri
•Travis County, Texas
•Washington, D.C.

3) On August 13, 2022, Catherine Engelbrecht (
) and Gregg Phillips (
) convened a group of researchers to discuss how the FBI's headquarters had betrayed them following a 15-month investigation into Konnech's storage of American election data on Chinese servers. The data involved various sensitive information, including:

•Name, DOB, SSN, Address
•Phone, Email, Bank Account
•Voting Machine Passwords
•Thumb Drive Passwords
•Voter Registration Rolls
•Provisional Ballot Serial Numbers
•RFID Tags On Voting Equipment
•Election Building Schematics
•And More...

"You'd be startled to know that this server lives on the main Unicom backbone in China. And it's in a Chinese University in Wuhan, China. I'm not talking about this just being a storage place for data process here.

The app server for this particular application was in China... We're confronted with the fact that everything there was to know about elections in America, and in key counties in key cities, was in this server in Wuhan, China... So what do you do with this information?

Well, we went to the FBI because this was a matter of national security. And, they agreed. So, we started working with the local FBI community. From January of 2021 until April of 2022, the FBI opened up a significant counterintelligence operation on this.

The problem with it was that it wasn't just American information. It was Australian information. It was Canadian information, it was Mexican information. And we ultimately found out that the CCPs own elections are on this same server set in that university...

Everyone involved on the counter intelligence teams at the Bureau agreed on one thing, this software, this penetration, and this opening was a significant national security threat...

So two weeks before the 2000 Mules movie came out, I get a call from an agent and he says this has risen now to the level of a national security threat and headquarters has gotten involved. I don't know who he was referring to, but he said two women saw the case differently, and felt as though we were the criminals.

They had instructed the Detroit FBI office to notify Konnech that we had breached their firewalls, none of which is true... We later found out they were accusing me of stealing three servers from the Chinese Unicom backbone and having illegal possession of American private information.

And they were shopping that around to the other agencies that would be involved NSA, CIA and others. Trying to get somebody to pick up on this so that they could come Roger Stone me...

But the challenge we all have is this software is still in place... When you dig into Konnech's CEO Eugene Yu, in particular the other URLs that he owns, it will take you to the underlying URL that runs the Chinese Communist Party's elections.

It lives on that server, on that same URL address and that URL is owned by Eugene Yu."

4) In 2002, Konnech CEO Eugene Yu was an "officer" on the "finance committee" of a Chinese foundation that flew Professor Charles Lieber, the head of Harvard’s Chemistry Department, to Zhejiang University to give a speech on “Nanotech in Today’s World.”

This discovery was made in a Chinese magazine entitled "Overseas Scholars," written by the China Association for Science and Technology in the United States (CAST-USA) and the American Zhu Kezhen Education Foundation (AZKEF).

CAST is a transnational organization and constituent member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), whose stated mission is to “maintain close ties with millions of Chinese scientists, engineers and other people working in the fields of science and technology” and to operate as “the bridge linking Chinese science and technology community with the Communist Party of China and the Chinese government,” according to organization’s archived “About Us” webpage.

In 2003, CAST established the Help Our Motherland through Elite Intellectual Resources from Overseas Program (HOME) in concert with the Organization Department of the Chinese Communist Party to recruit overseas science and technology talent to transfer technology and intellectual property back to China.

The CPPCC’s role in channeling overseas science and technology knowledge toward China’s development has grown since a 2013 directive from General Secretary Xi Jinping to focus on incentivizing overseas Chinese to contribute their technical skills and expertise to China’s national rejuvenation.

By 2020, a United States congressional body warned that the Chinese government has built a “sprawling ecosystem of structures, programs, and incentives to coopt and exploit overseas experts for the science and technology they acquire abroad.”

“Chinese leaders have long viewed advanced science and technology (S&T) as key to China’s comprehensive national power and sought to acquire it through licit and illicit means from developed countries like the United States,” the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) said in the report.

“This ecosystem sponsors promising Chinese students and scholars at the U.S. and other foreign universities, incentivizes their return to China for the long term, and employs transnational organizations to channel S&T know-how from those remaining abroad back to mainland China.”

The U.S. Senate report continues:

“Many programs associated with Beijing’s S&T transfer ecosystem—including scholarships to study abroad, talent recruitment plans, and entrepreneurship parks—contribute to China’s military-civil fusion strategy by collecting specific technologies and know-how that improve the capabilities of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and advance the goals” of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).”

“This ecosystem sponsors promising Chinese students and scholars to study at foreign universities, incentivizes or requires their return to China in exchange for this support, and recruits researchers via hundreds of talent programs. Moreover, it integrates Chinese students and scholars remaining abroad with organizations that facilitate the transfer of S&T back to the Mainland, where it can be exploited by the PLA, government ministries, state-owned enterprises (SOEs), state-run laboratories, and startups.”

“Even when overseas Chinese students and scholars do stay in the United States after graduation, China’s transnational technology transfer organizations and talent recruitment plans provide a means to contribute to China’s national rejuvenation by transferring technology and know-how without requiring physical return.”

In the magazine, CAST-USA refers to Eugene Yu by his Chinese name YU Jianwei (于建伟), and says that he is an “officer” on the “finance committee” of the American Zhu Kezhen Education Foundation. The foundation’s mission is “to promote exchange and cooperation between Zhejiang University and universities in the United States” and “invite United States professors or scientists to Zhejiang University.”

In 2020, Prof. Charles Lieber was arrested for concealing his funding from the Wuhan University of Technology and participating in China’s Thousand Talents Program.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Bill Priestap, the former Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, stated that China’s talent recruitment plans are effective “brain gain programs” that “encourage theft of intellectual property from U.S. institutions.”

Priestap continued, “For example, China’s talent recruitment plans, such as the Thousand Talents Program, offer competitive salaries, state-of-the-art research facilities, and honorific titles, luring both Chinese overseas talent and foreign experts alike to bring their knowledge and experience to China, even if that means stealing proprietary information or violating export controls to do so.”

Eugene Yu was an “officer” on the “finance committee” of a Chinese foundation in the United States tasked with flying professors like Charles Lieber to China. This discovery was made in a China Association for Science and Technology in the United States magazine entitled “Overseas Scholars.”

Similarly to how the U.S. congressional report described CAST’s overseas science and technology acquisition efforts, AZKEF keeps a list of talented overseas Chinese students, offers incentives for prominent scientists to fly to China, and focuses on bridging Zhejiang University with universities in the United States.

5) On November 29, 2005, Eugene Yu, also known as YU Jianwei (于建伟), established a shadow subsidiary named Jinhua Yulian Network Technology Co., Ltd. (金华宇联网络科技有限公司) in Jinhua City, Zhejiang Province, China, two years after founding Konnech in the United States.

6) On January 25, 2006, Jinhua Yulian Network was accepted into the Entrepreneurship Service Center at the Chinese Academy of Sciences Jinhua Science and Technology Park.

The Chinese government has funded and overseen the development of Konnech's American election software ever since.

7) On February 25, 2006, Eugene Yu registered the website domain "" for Jinhua Yulian Network with the email address

8) On, Eugene Yu wrote in Chinese that he provides election software "with Chinese characteristics" to various levels of the Chinese government, including the National People’s Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.

9) On, Eugene Yu praised "Comrade Jiang Zemin" and emphasized Konnech's philosophy of prioritizing "political tasks first, and economic benefits second."

He highlighted his success stories of "Election Management, Detroit" and "US Overseas Voters."

The entire website was written in Chinese.

10) In December 2006, Konnech announced on Facebook that they had partnered with Michigan State University and the Confucius Institute to build,, an "interactive communication platform and Chinese language learning tool."

11) On July 18, 2007, Eugene Yu posted an ad on the Chinese Academy of Sciences Jinhua Science and Technology Park's website, offering "5 million yuan" for developing "software packages" for Jinhua Yulian Network and

In 2007, 5 million yuan was worth around $700,000 and was the prize money offered by the Chinese government to members of the Thousand Talents Program and other elite overseas entrepreneurs.

12) The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) is a national think tank with extensive research facilities and over 50,000 researchers. CAS has been linked to Chinese military, nuclear, and cyber espionage programs.

The U.S. Department of Defense acknowledges the CAS as China's leading academic institution for comprehensive research and development.

CAS and its affiliated companies are involved in developing AI initiatives, hypersonic spaceplanes, robotic submarines, and missile technology for the Chinese military.

The Justice Department has indicted several individuals associated with CAS for their roles in transferring trade secrets and military technology from U.S. companies through Chinese overseas talent programs.

In October 2002, the Jinhua Science and Technology Park became the first collaboration between the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and a prefecture-level government.

The Chinese government has built more than 150 "Overseas Chinese scholar pioneering parks" in the hearts of 54 "National New and High Technology Development Zones."

These ultra-modern facilities were designed for returning specialists to "incubate" (find commercial or military applications for) technologies acquired overseas as part of China's strategy of "serving in place" that allows Chinese scholars to stay abroad while transferring foreign technology back home.

13) Jinhua Yulian Network's initial address was located at No. 988 Shuanglong South Street, Jinhua City, Zhejiang Province, China, which is situated 500 meters away from the Jinhua People's Government building (No. 801 Shuanglong South Street) and across the street from the Jinhua Science and Technology Bureau (No. 828 Shuanglong South Street).

14) The Jinhua Science and Technology Park (JHTP) offers Chinese government-funded support to domestic and overseas enterprises, including financial assistance, living facilities, server hosting, internet access, university partnerships, technology transfers, research assistance, and patent support.

In 1988, the State Council launched the Ministry of Science and Technology’s national Torch Program to speed up the nation’s “science and technological industrialization.”

In 2005, the Ministry of Science and Technology awarded JHTP the distinction of a national-level technology business incubator.

In 2006, JHTP was granted 3 million yuan by the Ministry of Science and Technology through China's national Torch Program to establish the Park's Internet Data Center, where Jinhua Yulian Network would develop, test, and maintain Konnech's American election software.

15) A 2008 Chinese document titled "International Elite Entrepreneurship Modern Service Outsourcing" reveals that Eugene Yu worked for the Chinese government as a Project Manager of the Guangzhou Economic and Technological Development Zone (GETDZ) from 1983 until 1985.

The document features 46 Chinese high-tech companies operating overseas and describes Konnech as an "Intelligent Web Communications" company with the mission of becoming "one of the top 50 e-commerce service providers for schools and government in the United States within 10 years.”

The document mentions Konnech's Chinese venture fund and describes the company's goal of developing advanced technology in cooperation with Zhejiang University:

“The company will enter a phase of rapid development after the implementation of the venture fund in Wuzhong.”

"In terms of specialized technology, we have been developing and hiring technical personnel with expertise in the field in a rapid manner by utilizing the role of corporate and university professors and graduate classes for project development, with the aim of receiving advanced applied technology."

"... it is an indisputable fact that many cutting-edge products come from American university campuses. We must take the corresponding path and cooperate with American universities and Zhejiang University and other domestic institutions to focus on the development of applied technologies and the application-oriented development of specialized technologies."

The document describes the problems facing the U.S. market, citing “expensive software programming fees and talent shortages” and reduced “funding for IT projects” before concluding, “In this environment, the role of our China branch is fully demonstrated.”

When Eugene Yu’s attorneys filed a motion to dismiss his criminal case in California, they included a section entitled FACTUAL BACKGROUND that says he “worked in various locations” after he graduated from Zhejiang University and before he was accepted into Wake Forest University.

However, it failed to mention his prior employment as a Project Manager in the Guangzhou Economic and Technological Development Zone, where he worked in the Industrial Project Negotiation Department and "completed the introduction of several major projects":

"Eugene Yu was born and raised in Jinhua City, Zhejiang Province, China. In 1974, as part of China’s cultural revolution, Mr. Yu was sent to a communal farm where he labored for four years in squalor conditions. In 1977, after Chairman Mao died, Mr. Yu scored high on a nationwide test, qualifying him for admission to study engineering at Zhejiang University.

After graduating from college, he was sent to work in various locations in China. Mr. Yu then met and married his wife Donna Wang. In 1986, Mr. Yu and Dr. Wang were accepted to graduate school programs at Wake Forest University, where Mr. Yu obtained his MBA degree."

Since the launch of the GETDZ in 1984, China has established 219 national-level Economic and Technological Development Zones (ETDZs), which helped launch China’s rise to a global economic superpower.

In order to promote science and technology-intensive industries, ETDZs offer financial incentives and preferential policies that target domestic and overseas enterprises focused on manufacturing, scientific, and technological industries.

Two decades later, Eugene Yu would return to China to launch his company Jinhua Yulian Network Technology Co., Ltd. (金华宇联网络科技有限公司) in the Jinhua Economic and Technological Development Zone (JETDZ).

16) On January 4, 2011, Lin Yu, a managing supervisor at Jinhua Yulian Network, established Jinhua Red Date Software Co., Ltd., also known as Jinhua Jujube Software Co., Ltd.

On January 16, 2011, Konnech registered the domain reddatesoft[.]com with the email

Jinhua Red Date Software and Jinhua Yulian Network shared the same address at No. 1583 Binhong Road, Jinhua City, Zhejiang Province.

Jinhua Yulian Network's website included "Jinhua Red Date Software Co., Ltd." and "reddatesoft[.]com" in its copyright statement.

Peter McCallister, the General Manager of Konnech Australia, later affirmed in an affidavit that Lin Yu is Eugene Yu's older brother and a Chinese national.

(Note: The modified domain URL "reddatesoft[.]com" is used because of safety concerns with the URL raised by Twitter.)

17) On April 13, 2015, Lin Yu established Jinhua Hongzheng Technology Co., Ltd. (金华鸿正科技有限公司) in Jinhua, Zhejiang Province, China.

Lin Yu (Eugene Yu's brother) owned 99.4% of the company.

Jun Yu (Eugene Yu's nephew) and Guojun Shao, who co-invented a Konnech patent with Eugene Yu, were among the other equity holders.

Jinhua Yulian Network later transferred a voting patent, co-invented with a Zhejiang University professor, to Jinhua Hongzheng Technology.  In a future thread, there will be a detailed discussion about Konnech's patents, employees, and the involvement of this professor.

18) Jinhua Hongzheng Technology provides election administration software, including web and mobile applications, to more than 430 National People's Congresses across over 20 provinces.

The company has established partnerships with Huawei, Lenovo, China Telecom, China Mobile, China Unicom, and the highest levels of the Chinese government.

19) On July 31, 2015, Eugene Yu registered the website domain "hongzhengtech[.]cn" for Jinhua Hongzheng Technology using the email address

As a result, Konnech held significant control over a company that provides election administration software to the highest levels of the Chinese government.

Shortly after Catherine Engelbrecht (
) and Gregg Phillips (
) exposed Konnech's connection to China's National People's Congress, the domain registration email address was changed to

(Note: The modified domain URL "hongzhengtech[.]cn" is used because of safety concerns with the URL raised by Twitter.)

20) In a September 1, 2022, live chat, Catherine Engelbrecht (
) and Gregg Phillips (
) discussed the FBI's betrayal, Konnech programming software for China's National People's Congress, and the company's storage of U.S. election data on Chinese servers.

In January 2021, Phillips said that the cyber analyst he had been working with encountered an “oddity in some of the URLs” such as,, and, which Konnech’s “PollChief” software application used to gather personally-identifying information about poll workers.

Using Binary Edge, a software product companies use to identify and assess the risk of cyber breaches, “We began to look at where these URLs resolve to.

We found that most of them resolve to one I.P. address and that I.P. address — the URL resolved in China,” Phillips said. “What we also learned in our review,, resolved into this same URL in China, meaning that the application itself was residing in China,” he continued.

“In Binary Edge, you can figure out what type of database they are using, their database port, and all the different services offered by ports in this particular application living in China. It turned out that not only did it live there, but they left the database open.”

This database “stored the personally identifying information of over a million Americans,” he emphasized. Engelbrecht and Phillips decided that “this was a major national security risk” and immediately took the information to the FBI.

When Engelbrecht and Phillips took this information to the FBI, the FBI “said the information was forwarded to their counter-intelligence operation, and a counter-intelligence op was opened up in January or February of 2021,” Phillips said.

Phillips described how he and Engelbrecht played an active role in the FBI’s operation, “They engaged us in the operation, they were communicating with us on a regular basis. They were communicating with Catherine regarding communications with the target and this went on for approximately 15 months.”

Phillips and Engelbrecht noted that the field office they worked with for those 15 months was “legitimate” and not “political law enforcement.”

“These were legitimate people who believed that this software posed a national security risk to the United States of America and they were working with us closely to try to stop this from being in place during the midterms,” Phillips said.

“The focus point was always we needed to remove this software from the election, but taking a step further, there were a lot of other concerns that the bureau had.”

In April 2022, Engelbrecht received a call from one of the FBI agents, who informed her that the FBI’s “Washington D.C. headquarters” was now involved in the investigation.

Engelbrecht described how everything changed after this call, “There was no more goodwill, there was no more let's work together, the script had been flipped, and now we were the target,” she said. “That was a very disturbing call.”

The agent informed Engelbrecht that “two women” at the FBI’s headquarters believed that Phillips and Engelbrecht were “in the wrong for doing this” and that the D.C. office was now trying “to figure out how you guys broke the law to find all of this.”

Engelbrecht added, “which of course we didn't, but that was kind of their Modus Operandi, they were going to try to pin something on us, and today you can pick your headlines about how the FBI has done this time and again.”

Phillips remarked, “The problem is they know about this, and they chose to do nothing. They chose to investigate it, and in the end, they chose to blame us, but this is China. These are Chinese operatives in the United States; these are Chinese citizens who are programming this.”

Engelbrecht explained how the FBI agents initially hoped they could persuade the Washington D.C. office to do the right thing, “Our contacts were saying we are going to try and smooth this out, but as the days clicked on, they re-contacted us and one of them said you may need to be ready to — his term was to use the nuclear option and go to the press,” she said.

With the FBI no longer interested in pursuing Konnech, Englebrecht and Phillips organized an event for Saturday, August 13th in Arizona called “the Pit” where they brought together about two hundred “researchers, independent journalists, and big thinkers” to share their story.

“We asked the people in attendance for help, we didn't know what the FBI's plans were for us, we didn't know if we didn't speak this publicly if we would ever have the chance to, but we felt like our best chance was to share this with people we trusted who had the wherewithal to get the word out,” Englebrecht said.

She continued, “There have been so many great things that have happened since that event, but one of the greatest, was this community that came out shoulder to shoulder saying let’s dig this, let's see how much more information we can find.”

“The quality of research that has been done to supplement what we already had and to corroborate what we already had has been incredible.”

Phillips added, “This is some of the best research I have ever seen. The quality of it, the depth of it, we were with a prosecutor the other day and we had an opportunity to share some of this information with them.”

He continued, “There's likely going to be a grand jury convened here in the next week or so. It's supported by not just the research that my team OPSEC did for Catherine and True the Vote, but by the research of one of the best research teams I've ever seen come together.”

“The data and research all stand on their own.”

21) On September 12, 2022, Konnech filed a defamation lawsuit against Catherine Engelbrecht (
) and Gregg Phillips (
), accusing them of spreading baseless "conspiracy theories" and engaging in "racism and xenophobia."   

Konnech denied any affiliation with the Communist Party of China and stated that they had never stored American election data on servers in China.

The legacy media echoed Konnech's claims against
 without conducting any examination of the company's connections to Jinhua Yulian Network, Jinhua Hongzheng Technology, or China's National People's Congress.

22) In an unusual move, U.S. District Court Judge Kenneth Hoyt issued an ex-parte temporary restraining order in favor of Konnech without providing an opportunity for
 to respond to the complaint.

Furthermore, Judge Hoyt immediately ordered them to disclose the identities of all individuals involved in their investigation of Konnech at the outset of the trial, prior to the discovery phase.

Failure to comply would result in the imprisonment of Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips for contempt of court.

23) On October 4, 2022, Eugene Yu, the CEO of Konnech, was arrested by the Los Angeles District Attorney's office for storing the data of American election workers on servers in China.

Deputy District Attorney Eric Neff described the scale of the data breach as "astounding," suggesting that it could be "the largest data breach in United States history."

Prosecutors alleged that Konnech employees shared the personal information of Los Angeles election workers with third-party software developers in China, who were involved in creating and fixing Konnech's software called PollChief.

Furthermore, software developers in China had "super administration access" to PollChief software and confidential election data from the United States.

24) On October 5, 2022, during Eugene Yu's bond hearing, his attorney contended that he posed no risk of fleeing as he had been actively cooperating with the FBI for the preceding month, and his arrest had taken the agency by surprise.

However, the Los Angeles District Attorney's office argued that Yu presented a substantial flight risk due to his strong business ties in China.

Additionally, the prosecution raised concerns about the suspicious nature of Yu's arrest, noting that he was taken into custody without his cell phone while on his way to the airport.

25) On October 28, 2022,
 submitted an affidavit containing approximately 10% of their text messages exchanged with FBI Agents in Detroit and San Antonio, supporting their claim of working with the FBI on a 15-month "counter-intelligence operation" against Eugene Yu, prior to the involvement of FBI headquarters in Washington D.C.

The text messages included conversations with the following individuals:

-Special Agent Bruce Fowler, Detroit
-SA Huy Nguyen, San Antonio
-SA Kevin McKenna, San Antonio
-SA Kristina Spindel, San Antonio

In one text message exchange, Fowler provided his FBI email address and mentioned receiving three thumb drives from the San Antonio office. He asked Engelbrecht to guide him on where to find information on those drives.

In another text message exchange, Engelbrecht asked for the name of an agent in Georgia. Nguyen responded that he would provide the name later, but “in the meantime, you can tell them that you filed the complaint with SA Huy Nguyen and SA Kevin McKenna with San Antonio Division.”

In another exchange, Engelbrecht texted Nguyen, stating:

"I wanted to let you know that we took the nuclear option and went public (in a very limited way, but nonetheless we did it). Konnech quickly filed a civil suit against us in Houston federal court and got an ex parte [temporary restraining order].

Part of the TRO required that we name who we’d gotten the election worker data from, same person who’d provided it to you. We gave the court the name under seal. Our attorney also notified the Houston FBI office, where the case was filed.

I’m very concerned about everyone’s safety at this point. Please do whatever possible to help ensure that name never comes out. I can provide you with whatever you may need."

Nguyen did not respond to Engelbrecht’s text. According to further texts provided by Engelbrecht, she reached out to “KayKay,” saying she hoped to talk, in person, if possible.

“KayKay” replied that she was on a temporary assignment out of state until January and asked if Engelbrecht still had Nguyen’s number. Engelbrecht then explained that she had “called and written him but no response.”

The text then explained: “We have been drug into a vicious lawsuit filed against us by Konnech.” “Our attorneys have contacted the FBI and been told that the Bureau has no interest in engaging with the court in order to maintain confidentiality.”

Engelbrecht added that she, Phillips, and “the researcher who originally provided us the data” are being “doxed,” and that it’s “a very serious situation and we’ve been left to hang.”

Engelbrecht then noted, “Yu has already been indicted by a Grand Jury and arrested,” but they “continue to hear chatter that the FBI is working with Konnech, against us, and still trying to accuse us of crimes we did not commit.”

The True the Vote founder then noted that “what Bobby said on the phone that day in April 22 (when you were reading the yearly CI disclaimer to me) has gone into full overdrive.” She added: “I also now believe Gregg and I have been set up. It’s appalling, heartbreaking, and wrong.”

26) On October 31, 2022, Catherine Engelbrecht (
) and Gregg Phillips (
) were imprisoned for contempt of court as they refused to disclose the identity of a researcher who provided information to the LADA that resulted in the indictment of Eugene Yu:

Despite Eugene Yu's arrest by the Los Angeles District Attorney based on the allegations he had previously denied in his defamation lawsuit, Judge Kenneth Hoyt refused to admit any evidence from the criminal proceedings against Konnech in his courtroom.

Furthermore, Judge Hoyt declined to respond to a phone call from the Los Angeles District Attorney's office and asserted that the criminal case against Eugene Yu was unrelated to the civil case involving Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips.

27) On November 5, 2022, Tucker Carlson discussed Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips being arrested for refusing to reveal the identity of a researcher who provided information to the LADA that resulted in criminal charges against Eugene Yu, the CEO of Konnech:

"George Gascon actually indicted Eugene Yu for exfiltrating the personal records of American poll workers, including their social security numbers and home addresses, out of the country to servers in China. These researchers developed that information.   

Catherine attempted to give it to law enforcement at the FBI and elsewhere and was sued by Konnech for doing that. When Konnech sued them, they got a restraining order, ordering Catherine to turn over the names of these researchers.   

Catherine and Gregg, who are very courageous people, simply refused to do it, and as a result, while Yu is home on bail, Catherine and Gregg are in jail tonight...

The civil libertarians and the mainstream press are basically a flock of sheep that are each bleeding the exact same tune, and all they want to do is deny any conversation about the possibility of fraud in elections."

28) On November 7, 2022,
 were released from prison following a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which overturned Judge Kenneth Hoyt's order to unjustly detain them for contempt of court in a civil defamation case.

Two week later, the appeals court vacated the contempt order and wrote, "the record does not reveal what sort of emergency justified the district court's demand for that information before the parties could file Rule 12 motions before the defendants could file an answer, before the parties could file their initial disclosures, or before discovery could begin let alone conclude in the ordinary course."

"Much less did the district court explain what sort of emergency could warrant jailing the petitioner-defendants for not making such immediate disclosures. Rather, the district court made clear that it was imposing its disclosure requirements because it—the district court—wanted to add defendants to the lawsuit. Resp. 13; App. 188. That is not how the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure work."

Furthermore, the appeals court criticized Judge Kenneth Hoyt for "using a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a civil-contempt order to litigate the case on Konnech's behalf."

 about their arrest and subsequent solitary confinement and provided information about the Konnech data breach that occurred in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, or Allegheny County.

The breach involved the unauthorized exposure of sensitive information belonging to election workers, election judges, the complete Pennsylvania voting registration file, voting machine serial numbers, passwords, and "everything that one would need to cheat."

"This isn't software, guys. This is malware. This is spyware. They are sucking data from the United States, storing it in China, and then using it to create a Chinese-style social credit system where we're all scored.   

United States citizens are scored to manipulate votes, manipulate thought, manipulate pretty much everything you can imagine in our lives. And these people are the tip of the spear for that. They're not the only ones but they're there."

30) On November 9, 2022, the Los Angeles District Attorney's office dropped charges against Konnech and its CEO, Eugene Yu.

District Attorney George Gascon cited concerns over “potential bias” and the “pace of the investigation” as his reasons for the decision.

"We are concerned about both the pace of the investigation and the potential bias in the presentation and investigation of the evidence," Gascon said in a statement.

"We currently have an immense volume of digital data that will define this case, but the processing of that data will take months. We would not be able to fairly and accurately process and present all of that evidence within the statutory timeframes."

"As a result, we have decided to ask the court to dismiss the current case and alert the public in order to ensure transparency."

A few weeks later, Gascon placed Deputy District Attorney Eric Neff, who alleged in court that this was potentially "the largest data breach in United States history," on administrative leave.

31) On December 22, 2022, Grant Bradley, a former employee of Konnech, filed a whistleblower lawsuit against the company that stated he personally “witnessed customer’s data (specifically poll watcher information) being made accessible to foreign nationals from China.”

Additionally, Bradley stated that Konnech used “developers, designers, and coders” who “are all Chinese nationals based out of Wuhan, China.”

32) On February 24, 2023, cybersecurity expert Harry Haury, who forensically imaged Konnech's devices for the Los Angeles District Attorney's office, signed an affidavit stating that he witnessed Konnech storing the personal data of U.S. election workers on servers in China.

Furthermore, the affidavit stated that Konnech's software was developed, tested, and maintained in China, and metadata indicated that Eugene Yu was involved in developing election software for the Chinese government.

Haury, who is the CEO of Cain & Associates, stated that his company assisted the Los Angeles District Attorney's office by following FBI and Justice Department protocols to forensically image servers, computers, cell phones, and other electronic storage devices belonging to Konnech and Eugene Yu.

Haury, who has over 28 years of experience working as a cybersecurity expert for prominent organizations such as the Department of Defense, NSA, CIA, U.S. Treasury, NorthCOM, Sandia National Laboratories, more than a dozen top American banks, and the U.S. Justice Department stated that Konnech's data security system, "amounted to by far the worst example of complete disregard or negligence regarding the protection of PII and sensitive data I have ever seen. We discovered a data breach of U.S. data, which is classified as a total loss of control.”

Substantial evidence was reportedly discovered on Konnech's seized devices, including:

• confirmed multiple instances of Konnech hosting, on servers based in China, U.S. citizens’ personally identifiable information (PII);
• found evidence in private company messages that software code was being developed, tested, and maintained in China;
• confirmed that Konnech was providing administrative credentials to Chinese developers;
• PollChief software suffered from a security vulnerability that allowed any PollChief or Konnech worker to gain "super user" status, giving him or her broad access to information on all U.S. poll workers in the system;
• has evidence that Konnech employees have shared election-related data through, from, and on Chinese servers and applications;
• has evidence in metadata pulled from relevant files indicating Eugene Yu was involved in developing Chinese government (i.e., Wucheng District People’s Congress) election software; and
• has evidence showing Konnech is associated with several companies based in mainland China that appear to be associated with if not subsidized by the Chinese government.

Haury stated, "We concluded that this incident is a very high risk indicator of an intrusion by a foreign intelligence into the U.S. strategic infrastructure, and as obliged by law, we informed the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) and other pertinent law enforcement agencies of this contact."

33) On March 24, 2023, Peter McCallister, the former General Manager of Konnech Australia, signed an affidavit stating that he believed Konnech's software development was done in China by Jinhua Hongzheng Technology, a company owned by "Mr. Yu's older brother" and "Jun Yu, Mr. Yu's nephew, was the person responsible for depositing the data onto the server in China."

Additionally, McCallister stated that after Eugene Yu's arrest, Konnech employees in China attempted to hack Konnech's CTO, Luis Nabergoi, and deleted "all conversations referencing or involving Eugene's nephew, Jun Yu."

Lastly, McCallister believed that Jinhua Hongzheng Technology was "the main provider of election software products to the Communist Party of China" and that Eugene Yu had asked him to sell the same "meeting administration and voting software" to the Australian government.

34) On April 5, 2023, Grant Bradley, the former Konnech employee, signed another affidavit stating "Konnech provided programmers in China private data of U.S.-based election workers, to include social security numbers and other identifying information."

"Konnech appeared to employ at least 80 and perhaps around 100 Chinese nationals to work on its elections software for American clients."

"I witnessed customers' data (specifically poll-watcher information) being made accessible to foreign nationals in China."

"Konnech's election logistics software was (and may still be) substantially developed by developers, designers, and coders who (to the best of my knowledge, information and belief), are all Chinese nationals based out of Wuhan, China."

"The standard process Konnech used to onboard China-based programmers was to create customer environments for the programmers by uploading files containing all of the American customers' poll workers' information, polling locations, and other data to DingTalk or Jira, where the leaders from the Chinese team would have access to Jira, and the entire Chinese team would have access to DingTalk."

"During my employment, on or after October 4, 2022 I was instructed by my superiors to say outwardly to customers that poll worker data was not stored overseas, was not available to foreign nationals, and that we had no idea why Eugene Yu had been arrested... My superiors who instructed me in these regards, and I, knew these statements were false."

35) On April 14, 2023, cybersecurity expert Nate Cain (
), who forensically imaged Konnech's devices for the Los Angeles District Attorney's office, stated that Konnech stored the personal data of U.S. election workers and judges on servers in China.

Furthermore, Cain stated that a "Chinese company that has ties to the CCP" did Konnech's "software development and maintenance," and a Defense Counterintelligence Security Agency (DCSA) analyst reviewed their report, verified that it was accurate, and forwarded it to the FBI.

However, Cain mentioned that he had provided evidence of a major Konnech data breach to the police superintendent of a prominent U.S. county, who subsequently took the information to the FBI, and the FBI had declined to provide assistance, informing the superintendent that they were not interested in pursuing the matter.

Additionally, Cain stated that Los Angeles County had refused to inform several other counties that their data had also been breached.

Cain, who has over 25 years of experience working as a cybersecurity expert for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, DISA, and the FBI, received his cybersecurity training from the NSA as a member of the U.S. Marine Corps Forces Cyberspace Command (MARFORCYBER).

"We found that there was voter poll worker data, as well as election judge data, and election inventory system data found on Chinese servers."

"We weren't expecting to see what we saw, which was that there was a Chinese company that was essentially doing the software development and all of the software maintenance for this company.

And what we discovered was that we got behind the Chinese firewall, and we found documents that showed that this Chinese company actually had ties to the CCP.

And then at that point, I had no choice but to take that information, package it up and provide it to the Defense Counterintelligence Security Agency (DCSA) because as a cleared contractor, I have a sworn obligation to provide them that information that this could be a potential Chinese espionage or intelligence operation working against the United States and our critical infrastructure.

So, I provided that information to them, and now, we're in a difficult situation because I don't think that George Gascon was very happy about that."

36) On April 20, 2023, Konnech and Eugene Yu retracted their defamation case against Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips, a day after
 unveiled a website ( containing much of the information discussed in this Twitter thread.

37) In conclusion, Eugene Yu develops election administration software for the Chinese government in partnership with Huawei, China Telecom, China Unicom, China Mobile, and Lenovo.

Two of his former employees have signed affidavits stating that he stored confidential U.S. election data on servers in China, where his software was developed, tested, and maintained.

Two cybersecurity experts, who forensically imaged Konnech's devices for the LADA, have stated that he stored confidential U.S. election data on servers in China, where he developed election administration software for the Chinese government.

This information is publicly available on the internet.

So, why is the FBI still allowing Konnech's election administration software to be used across the country?

38) On April 14, 2016, Jinhua Hongzheng Technology announced on Weibo that it provides election administration software to China's National People's Congress, Detroit,  Michigan, St. Louis, Missouri, and Washington, D.C.

Its predecessor is Jinhua Yulian Network and "Konnech."

39) So, why is the FBI shielding two firms closely tied to the Chinese government, which have financed and developed an American election software company for the past 15 years, all while transferring election data back to China?

40) And lastly, why is the FBI headquarters in Washington D.C., targeting Catherine (
) and Gregg (
) for exposing this while seemingly protecting Jianwei Yu (于建伟)?

41) If you would like Congress to hold the FBI accountable for betraying Catherine, Gregg, and their commitment to preserving the integrity of our election system, please visit
's website,, and follow these three simple steps:

1. Sign the petition
2. Contact your representatives
3. Review these articles

42) In all of my interactions with Catherine and Gregg, despite facing lawsuits, wrongful arrests, and solitary confinement, their main concern has always been the removal of this national security threat from our election system.

If you would like to support their election integrity efforts, you can donate at:

43) Finally, if you'd like to support my journalism, please consider becoming a member of my Twitter subscriber community.

By joining, you'll gain exclusive access to my reporting, including:

• Exclusive Konnech threads
• Content creation tips
• OSINT research tools
• Monthly Q&A sessions

Thank you for your time!


  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69662
    • View Profile
« Reply #2777 on: April 26, 2024, 01:13:43 PM »
Courts push back against Democrats’ fringe legal assaults on honest, fair elections

Radically reshaping state election integrity through litigation rather than legislation

By Trevor Stanley

Recent court rulings against the Democrats’ legal assaults on fair, honest and open elections could spell trouble for Democrats’ master strategy to use lawfare for political advantage.

In 2017, when control of the Virginia General Assembly was at stake, Marc Elias — the partisan Democratic lawyer sanctioned by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for violations of the ethical guidelines covering a lawyer’s conduct — sued to overturn the result of a valid election, used political operatives to pressure the state board not to certify election results, and deployed lawyers seeking to prevent the counting of a single legal vote that could sway the outcome of the pivotal election. Mr. Elias’ unhinged legal assault resulted in a strong rebuke from a panel of judges objecting to the legal strategy.

When the court finally stopped these partisan tactics and ruled in favor of the Republican candidate, it wrote: “The right of a citizen to cast a free vote has been secured to us by the blood of patriots shed from Lexington and Concord to Selma, Alabama. The manifest injustice against which we must always guard is the chance that a single vote may not be counted.”

Instead of taking the court’s message to heart, Mr. Elias, the lead counsel in those matters, doubled down on shaky legal theories to do whatever he could to tilt the electoral playing field so Democrats could have an advantage at the ballot box.

Although lower courts sometimes acquiesce to pressure from the media and lawyers on the left, appellate courts — often led by judges appointed by Democrats — are pushing back against these fringe legal arguments that threaten state election administration regimes. Most recently, this fight came to Pennsylvania.

The legal battle in Pennsylvania revolved around an

expansive reading of the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 pushed by national Democrats. Congress enacted the provision to outlaw tactics used by Southern Democrats through the mid-1960s to prevent minorities — mostly African Americans — from registering to vote.

For example, the Materiality Provision prevented states from requiring that a person interested in voting list the exact number of months and days in his age or be prevented from registering. Put another way, the Materiality Provision prevents unduly restrictive laws on who may register to vote; it does not prohibit valid election integrity laws that govern the casting of a ballot.

Recently, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Pennsylvania State Conference of the NAACP v. Schmidt, rejected the interpretation of the Materiality Provision advanced by the Democratic National Committee. Had the court sided with Democrats, states would not be able to require that qualified voters vote for one candidate per contest, mark ballots with pens or pencils (not crayons), use a standard envelope to mail ballots, or signify on absentee envelopes that a ballot is enclosed.

This panel of judges, entirely appointed by Democrats, affirmed a state’s ability to protect the integrity of elections by upholding essential state voting rules that give voters confidence that elections in our country are fair, honest and open.

But the fight won’t stop in Pennsylvania. Lawyers from the Democratic Party have virtually unlimited funding to fight on all fronts. Whether the money comes from liberal billionaires such as George Soros and Swiss citizen Hansjorg Wyss, or so-called good government groups like Eric Holder’s National Democratic Redistricting Committee, which is purportedly “working to protect fair maps” and “combat ongoing gerrymandering,” the result is the same: an endless barrage of legal volleys against fair, open and honest elections.

In reality, these funders, as Mr. Holder’s committee admitted to the IRS, are working to “favorably position Democrats,” not to protect the right to vote.

Although the Democratic Party has mostly moved past Mr. Elias because of his big bills and even bigger self-promoting online persona, this unlimited funding allowed him to file suits regarding an expansive reading of the Materiality Provision in states in nearly every federal circuit court of appeals. But the 3rd Circuit’s ruling spells trouble for all these cases.

And while Mr. Elias has been marginalized by the Biden White House, many law firms and lawyers are looking to take his place as the lead lawyers for the Democrats.

This new brand of lawyer will continue to try to radically reshape state election integrity laws through litigation rather than the legislative process by using theories and tactics that fall outside the mainstream. As the court in Virginia found in 2017 in deciding to accept a single vote that Democratic lawyers attempted to prevent from counting: “It matters not the importance of the disposition of a ballot in a given election; it matters the dignity of the citizen, the integrity of the electoral process and the destiny of our constitutional republic.”

Thank goodness the appellate courts are putting black-letter law above politics and supporting the election integrity initiatives that give voters confidence in the American system.

Trevor Stanley is an attorney who specializes in political law. He is also vice president for election education at the Republican National Lawyers Association


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2023
    • View Profile
Fractal Insights: Dark Money Relationship AI Database
« Reply #2778 on: May 01, 2024, 09:43:34 PM »
This is wicked cool and may well serve to reveal and perhaps take down sundry dark money laundering operations working across the “Progressive” sphere. Who knows, maybe the MSM might actually avail itself on this fascinating tool.

Scroll down the article & watch the video. The implications are tremendous, and the tool appears powerful indeed. “Progressives” hate fracking? Got a feeling they are going to dislike fractaling even more:


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2023
    • View Profile
Wisco County Clerk Fired for 2020 Fraud?
« Reply #2779 on: May 06, 2024, 08:02:56 PM »
An interesting tweet re Wisco 2020 electoral skullduggery:


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18596
    • View Profile
Indiana primary
« Reply #2781 on: May 07, 2024, 11:26:02 PM »
there is something fishy about this:


"Indiana is one of about two dozen states that does not register people by political party. There are no registered Democrats, Republicans or anything else.

That means Indiana has what are called open primaries — any registered voter can choose a Democratic or Republican ballot"

Was RFK on the ballot?

So who was on the Ballot Trump Haley and Biden?

Talk about BS .


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2023
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: May 15, 2024, 08:39:51 AM by Body-by-Guinness »


  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69662
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #2786 on: May 15, 2024, 04:43:55 AM »
Is that the link you intended?


  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2023
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #2787 on: May 15, 2024, 07:59:11 AM »
Is that the link you intended?

Whups. Let me see if I can recover the one I intended.


  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69662
    • View Profile
In my neighborhood
« Reply #2788 on: May 16, 2024, 12:50:59 PM »
In my neighborhood:

"According to Howell, the mistake was an easy one to make. “The system is fairly complex; the machines, the paperwork, the processes, the technology that support it in order to safeguard the integrity of our elections is rather involved,” he explained.

"Director Towanna Dixon followed Howell to explain what, by her account, happened. According to Dixon, the issue stemmed from a mix-up of “media sticks,” otherwise known as flash drives, used to record and upload the vote totals. The results for Carthage were recorded on the drive labeled for Pinehurst B2 and vice versa. This mislabeling caused the data to be reported incorrectly."

The ease of this error is not reassuring.  Imagine were bad faith to be involved!!!