The Librarian
5 hours ago
Representation of the People Act 1983, s.107:

Any person who corruptly induces or procures any other person to withdraw from being a candidate at an election, in consideration of any payment or promise of payment, and any person withdrawing in pursuance of the inducement or procurement, shall be guilty of an illegal payment.

s.112: a third party who supplies the money (knowing what it is for) can also be found guilty of an illegal payment.

He committed a crime and whoever sent him committed a crime.

Oh... wait... I forgot.... The Rule of Law no longer applies in the U.S.

About 1,700 people in Arizona voted in 2018 with a federal-only ballot. Two years later, the number grew to 11,600 individuals. //

President Joe Biden claimed victory in Arizona by just 10,457 votes, or about 0.3 percent. //

Twenty years ago, Arizona voters approved Proposition 200, also known as the “Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act.” At its core, the election integrity initiative required proof of U.S. citizenship to vote and photo identification at polling places. Prop 200 has come under constant assault from leftists fighting against the Arizona Constitution’s key qualification to vote in elections: U.S. citizenship.

The challenge went all the way to U.S. Supreme Court, where in 2013 the justices ruled 7-2 that states could not add documentary proof of citizenship requirements to federal election registration forms. States must “accept and use” the standardized federal voter registration form for national elections under the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The NVRA form, developed by the federal Election Assistance Commission, does not require proof of citizenship. It only asks that an applicant “aver, under penalty of perjury, that he is a citizen.”

In 2022, Alaska elected Democrat Mary Peltola in a special House election in the “first federal test” of the state’s “jungle” primary. 

“Ranked-choice voting is a scam to rig elections,” Republican Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton declared at the time, noting that “60% of Alaska voters voted for a Republican, but thanks to a convoluted process and ballot exhaustion—which disenfranchises voters—a Democrat ‘won.’” 

Even when RCV doesn’t deliver victory to a less popular candidate, it can create delays that generally undermine voter confidence.

We have become a nation of Madame Defarges — eagerly knitting names of those to be subject to arbitrary justice. //

The whole idea was already ridiculous when Democrats started trying to use the 14th Amendment to target Trump. Now, this issue has descended further into the realm of the absurd as they seek to disqualify as many Republicans from the ballot as possible.

The Louisiana Supreme Court on Thursday let stand a lower court’s decision that the existence of voter fraud in a local sheriff’s race warranted a new election.

“When a court is presented with proven errors, even when no candidate is responsible for those errors, it is compelled to act and uphold our Election Code,” Justice Scott Crichton wrote, concurring with the majority decision to leave the lower court’s decision in place. “In this case, a new election will ensure confidence in the final outcome.”

So why did I put "removed" in quotes at the beginning of this piece? I did so because it's obvious what's actually going on here. Just as with the Colorado Supreme Court ruling removing Trump from the ballot, Bellows stayed her own decision (meaning it doesn't go into effect), giving the final say to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

What does that tell you? It tells you that none of these cheap stunts are meant to succeed technically. It's essentially a foregone conclusion that the U.S. Supreme Court will not only keep the stays in place, but they will ultimately rule against the states trying to use the 14th Amendment without any due process to bar Trump from the ballot. 

In the end, Bellows doesn't believe she'll win. She just wants her name in lights while setting up the U.S. Supreme Court to play the bad guy for half the country. It's a tactic the Biden administration has used over and over, enacting illegal measures with an eye on passing the buck to the judiciary so they can cry foul when they lose. 

The same thing will happen here. The nation's high court will eventually make a common sense ruling to reinstate Trump on these ballots, and then the far left will call them tyrants who want to destroy democracy. What does that accomplish? It helps juice Democrat turnout. It's all so predictable, and it's a blatant abuse of the system to influence an election.

Local authorities indicted a New York resident on Tuesday for allegedly submitting more than 100 absentee ballot applications during the state’s 2022 Democrat primaries.

A panel of judges made an extraordinary decision. They decided on their own that a person was guilty of treason and/or inciting an insurrection without that person having been charged with either, much less tried and found guilty by a jury of their peers. They did so to make him ineligible to be on the ballot in their state. //

Donald Trump has not been found guilty of either treason or inciting an insurrection, and the U.S. Code for insurrection seems pretty clear that you are ineligible for “any office in the United States” if you’re found guilty. //

Trump has a number of federal-law defenses: that Section 3 isn’t self-executing without implementing legislation or a criminal conviction, that it doesn’t cover the president, that the First Amendment protects Trump’s speech and wasn’t implicitly repealed in that regard by the 14th Amendment, that the Republican Party has a First Amendment right of association to put an ineligible candidate on its primary ballot, and even that Trump may have a legal defense because the Senate didn’t convict him on effectively the same charge. //

I do believe, however, that there is something deeply wrong with the Democrats going along with this and the courts that are making it happen. If you are accused of engaging in treason or insurrection, you should be tried for your crimes and punished appropriately. That is the criminal justice system that we have and it requires a jury of your peers unless you as the accused decide to forgo a jury trial.

But the courts cannot, seemingly on a whim, decide to make a person de facto guilty of a crime in order to justify a ruling they want to make. That is an incredibly dangerous precedent to set and could have far-reaching complications if that sort of mentality takes deeper root in our judicial system.

If he is tried and found guilty of treason or insurrection, I’d be fine with the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision because the system worked as it was supposed to. You may not like those results, but it is incumbent on the accused and his lawyers to prove his innocence either in trial or on appeal. But there was no trial. A panel of judges decided he was guilty without a trial.

That should alarm us all. //

anon-ubjh
a day ago
" … but it is incumbent on the accused and his lawyers to prove his innocence either in trial or on appeal." WHAT? So now we are a country where the defendant is guilty until proven innocent? You have it backwards: it is incumbent on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused. //

FrankD92
a day ago
Umm, actually, Mr. Cunningham, under our system it is NOT “incumbent on the accused to PROVE his innocence.” It is incumbent upon the accuser to prove guilt. And that is a HUGE distinction between a Republic vs totalitarianism. Quit adopting the language of the Marxist Left. //

Liberius
a day ago
It is NOT the responsibility of the accused to prove their innocence. It is the responsibility of the accuser to prove the guilt of the defendant.

How the heck have so many people in this country forgotten that simple concept?

etba_ss
a day ago edited
He shouldn't need to name check Trump. The problem is the decision by the court, not who it is against. The reaction to the ruling should be the same whether it was against Trump, DeSantis or Haley. By making it about Trump, it often clouds the more relevant legal question, because retreat to their camps and either dig in or celebrate it because they love or loathe Trump. ... //

IdeClair
a day ago
If Trump can be removed for a crime he wasn't charged with, much less convicted for, then Biden can be removed for non-convictions too..After all, Biden did commit treason when he took kickbacks from foreign governments..

anon-kvbw IdeClair
a day ago
More that that, Trump was acquitted for the insurrection charge by the Senate would they considered one of the House's serial impeachments. In addition, the Supremes have made it clear in a number of cases that the President is not an 'officer' of the United States. The statute applies to appointed officials, not the President.

• 17% of mail-in voters admit that in 2020 they voted in a state where they are “no longer a permanent resident”
• 21% of mail-in voters admitted that they filled out a ballot for a friend or family member
• 17% of mail-in voters said they signed a ballot for a friend or family member “with or without his or her permission”
• 8% of likely voters say they were offered “pay” or a “reward” for voting in 2020
• Taken together, the results of these survey questions appear to show that voter fraud was widespread in the 2020 election, especially among those who cast mail-in ballots.

The 2024 primary season is already in full swing, but it’s not too late for states to improve the security and integrity of their election process to the benefit of all voters, no matter their political preferences.

The American public wants and deserves an election system in which the candidates who get the most legitimate votes of eligible voters are declared the winners, and elections are not marred by errors, fraud, and other serious issues and misbehavior that make voters and candidates question the legitimacy of election outcomes.

Anyone who doubts the need for reform should take a look at The Heritage Foundation’s Election Fraud Database, which is constantly being updated with new cases of and convictions for fraud from across the country.

In an era of razor-thin elections, guarding against this type of illegal behavior, as well as errors made by election officials, is especially important. In 2024, it could prove critical.

Benny Johnson @bennyjohnson
·
🚨 Judge Overturns Bridgeport Democrat Mayoral Primary Election, Calling Evidence of Fraud ‘Shocking’

“The volume of ballots so mishandled is such that it calls the result of the primary election into serious doubt and leaves the court unable to determine the legitimate result…

Benny Johnson @bennyjohnson
·
Footage showed Wanda Geter-Pataky, vice chair of the Bridgeport Democratic Town Committee and operations specialist for the city, and Eneida Martinez, a former City Council member stuffing ballot dropboxes.
0:37 / 1:53
8:31 PM · Nov 1, 2023 //

UpLateAgain
4 hours ago
This evidence could have been an excerpt from 2000 Mules. The only reason this evidence got to court was because it was a primary... i.e. Democrat on Democrat. Had a Republican been involved, we'd have never even heard of this, or if we had, it would be claimed meaningless and soon memory-holed. EVERY piece of evidence the judge said indicated either fraud or was untrustworthy (ballot stuffing, no signature check, unsigned envelopes, etc., etc.) occurred in 2020 in Atlanta, Phoenix, Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Denver, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, Seattle, and a couple of other dozen major cities in 2020, but if you claim election fraud and demand an investigation, you'll get sued or jailed or both. //

Eradicator!
6 hours ago
D vs D...review all evidence and actually make the right decision...D vs R...disregard all evidence, throw out case and let D win... justice will be served selectively...

Ranked-choice voting ‘is a scheme of the Left to disenfranchise voters and elect more Democrats,’ a new report found. //

Published by the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA), the new analysis unearths how Democrats use the complexities associated with RCV to diminish confidence in elections among U.S. voters. Under RCV, often dubbed “rigged-choice voting” by its critics, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives more than 50 percent of first-choice votes in the first round of voting, the last-place finisher is eliminated, and his votes are reallocated to the voter’s second-choice candidate.

This process continues until one candidate receives a majority of votes.

https://thefga.org/research/ranked-choice-voting-partisan-plot-to-disrupt-elections

A woman named Jane B. from a Southern state was discovered to have 20 different spellings of her name, five different street address numbers, and three different zip codes.

“This is commonly found in Wisconsin,” Mr. Bernegger wrote.

Under these variations, Jane B. purportedly made 18,654 campaign contributions from 2015 through 2022 to candidates across the country. She supposedly averaged 7.3 donations per day, 365 days per year, for seven years.

Of the 10,200 high-frequency donors that Election Watch identified across the nation, almost all are middle-class, white, retired, or otherwise not employed and range in age from their late 60s to their 90s.
Election Watch researchers used readily available public and commercial information sources to study each of the above individuals in order to create a demographic profile.

They had all donated to candidates and political action committees in the past. Then, allegedly without the donors' knowledge or consent, their names and addresses were used again and again to make multiple political contributions.

From the personal interviews with the donors, investigators learned that very few, if any, of the donations attributed to their names are paid with their own credit cards.

Many have said that their monthly credit card statements show no unusual charges.

It's the practice of most credit card companies to immediately notify the cardholder if suspicious activities are spotted on the customer's account.

The donors interviewed by Election Watch report receiving no such notifications.

The Election Watch complaint states that large, well-organized political fundraising organizations not only serve as conduits for contributions but also act as credit card processors.

Entities such as ActBlue for Democrats and WinRed for Republicans may legally choose to not verify credit cards, pre-paid credit cards, debit cards, virtual cards, overseas cards, and gift cards that are used in millions of transactions. //

nonprodigal
1 day ago
We live in a nation that once had Judeo-Christian values. People could be trusted to tell the truth and be honest, that’s why we never painted people’s thumbs purple after they voted. As our nation becomes increasingly godless, those values are disappearing but the unscrupulous among us are taking advantage of the fact that our system of laws never assumed that the majority of the populace are lawbreakers. We are witnessing what John Adams warned about when he said our Constitution “was written for a religious and moral people”. We are no longer such a people. We should expect that the demise of our country will occur and any hope of avoiding it is foolish thinking. The premise that one reaps what they sow can never be repealed.