Legislation has been introduced to audit the election results from the 13 most populous counties in Texas. Apparently there is some statistical analysis suggesting that around a half-million Biden votes there are "imaginary" (ie, fraudulent).
I don't know, and I didn't hear of any of the usual problems like in the 6 swing states.
But I'd like to know. Let's audit them and see what comes up. Texans, call your representatives.
I confess, on election night and immediately after, I thought Sharpiegate was kind of silly. Even if using markers to mark ballots instead of normal pens was going to lead to some spoiled ballots, surely it was accidental, easily corrected, and unbiased. After all, if all voters get the bad markers, it won't be likely to bias the election, right?
Well, turns out all of those assumptions were wrong. Sharpiegate is real. First, the AZ audit confirmed that some ballots were printed on incorrect paper stock. Most of these were emergency ballots on election day, printed when normal ballots ran out or were not available for a particular voter. Guess what? Sharpies on that normal paper stock, not the correct ballot paper, can bleed through the ballot -- exactly as described in a newsletter from election officials -- and invalid the ballot. Election officials knew about this. Proven, documented, in writing.
How many ballots like this? About 168K. Less than 10% of those would swing the election in AZ to Trump.
OK, but how do we know the results were biased and not just a random sample?
Well, Trump voters are much more inclined to wait until election day to vote. This is due to conflicting messaging from the parties and candidates; it's well established and well know even ahead of the election. And guess what? Maricopa County election official Kelly Dixon (Asst Director of Recruitment and Training) was caught telling her people to hand out ballpoint pens during early voting and markers only on election day. "We NEED to use Markers on Election Day, but for now and through 11/2, hand voters a Ballpoint Pen." Given that markers have known bleed through problems, there can be no purpose for the conflicting directives than to sabotage the Trump vote on election day.
Some of the auditors were not certified when they performed the audit, which isn't a surprise (Maricopa County AZ had the same issue with the same firms), but it looks like some of the documents concerning the scope of work were created months after the audit was supposedly complete and returned with forged dates in response to a FOIA request.
While I don't see forged dates as criminal, exactly, it seems a very odd thing to try to cover up. Unless you are trying to cover up for the idea that no work was actually done when you claimed it had been done.
Why the election machine vendors all of a sudden want to remove batteries from their election machines is suspect. Personally, I suspect that removing batteries could cause configuration information on those machines to be removed, making it difficult to audit the election. And I can see little other reason to request such a thing.
It is likely the Senate will have to take legal action to compel compliance, resulting in a power struggle with the PA SecState. Ultimately, power over elections belongs to the state legislature. However, enforcing that requires political will, which may be difficult to muster. The PA SecState, however, is a singular position and highly motivated to cover up any fraud that occurred on her watch and potentially her complicity.
Crime in Austin has gotten steadily worse over the past five years or so, with homeless encampments and car theft rings operating unmolested by police. Now we're going to see felonies being treated as worth nothing more than a 5 minute timeout?
Biden using military resources to ferry illegal aliens around the country
This is entirely inappropriate. Not only is it clearly off-mission for the military, Biden appears to be engaging in efforts to subvert the law rather than enforce it. The legalities of what a President can order the military to do are tricky, but the secrecy around this police makes it clear that the administration feels vulnerable around it. This is not what the people want.
Honestly I see this as a good reform in general, including for adults. Police should be examples of good behavior, not lying and cheating to close cases. I get that that makes it harder for them to get confessions, but it can also lead to "confessions" that aren't real. And it certainly leads people to lose trust in police and see them as adversaries who are out to get anyone they can, rather than honest investigators who are trying to get the truth.
I'd like to see more behavioral reforms like this one rather than reducing the funding for police departments in order to redirect that funding to liberal political agencies.
Biden nominee says presumption of innocence not required
I take no position on what the regulation requires, except to note that it was issued under Trump to correct problems with due process created under Obama, by that I assume likely does require the presumption of innocence as a part of due process...
I will state that basic standards of justice and decency in America require the presumption of innocence, and that people seeking Senate confirmation for high positions in the federal government are willing to say that they do not is shocking and should be grounds for refusing to confirm her for anything.
Biden Admin directing Big Tech censorship efforts on COVID
It's one thing for Big Tech to decide, on their own, to "fact check" and suppress free speech on a topic. I believe that to be improper, but legally difficult to challenge. Most legal protections for free speech are based around government being the bad actor, with the infamous section 230 of the Communications Decency Act being an outlier. That section extends immunity from lawsuit to companies that decide to be "platforms" for user speech, as distinct from companies that are making editorial decisions about what to publish.
I believe that Big Tech has definitely stepped over the line into making editorial decisions, thus removing those legal protections. Cases are moving through the courts that will likely decide that.