Here's the lawsuit in PDF form. I've read it. It's clearly written as far as legal proceedings go. The exhibits "will follow", which is disappointing, but they are quoted throughout the document and it's possible to glean some idea of what they will contain.
Notable things: Powell touches on most of the issues we have heard of already for the election in GA. The fake water main break is there. The changes to election procedures by Raffenberger are there. She alleges a number of different sources of fraudulent or illegal ballots and puts numbers to them. Any one win would be enough to overturn the results by itself (with maybe one smaller exception). And, yes, the claims about Dominion are there, though somewhat toned down.
We should expect affidavits from many of the GA poll watchers we have already seen or heard from. In addition, Powell's "secret affiant" from Venezuela is mentioned but not named. She does have a separate named affidavit to the Venezuelan connection, so it's not just one anonymous (to us) person. She also has a "military intel" affiant who claims to have examined the Dominion systems and alleges that they both could be and have been improperly accessed by foreign sources.
This may be the head of the Kraken, but we still haven't seen the tentacles.
If you've been wondering exactly what is in that affidavit, follow the link above for a summary and a copy of the whole thing. The thing that is missing, at least for me, is clear evidence this technique was actually used in the US. There's enough here to start an investigation, but not enough to prove that this is how fraud was done. (There is plenty of statistical proof of fraud, but that is relatively independent of methodology).
There's some question of exactly what it blocks, but granting the injunction is usually a positive sign for the chances of the case on the merits. The case alleges that mail in voting changes violate the PA state constitution.
Those assuming Trump has no chance may need to start reevaluating things.
Dominion printed ballots deliberately indistinguishable from hand-marked ballots
That's from Eric Coomer, an official with Dominion Voting Systems who allegedly has strong political views favoring Antifa. He said the above during a sales pitch. So let me translate that for you.
His ballot-marking-device is deliberately indistinguishable from a hand-marked ballot. There's no way to tell a printed ballot from a hand-marked one, and this is a deliberate design decision. The claim is it preserves "anonymity" for disabled voters. The reality, in my opinion, is that it makes it difficult to separate printed ballots from hand-filled ones.
This also offers a possible motive for insisting election-day voters in Arizona use Sharpies. The printed ballot marks are designed to resemble Sharpie marks. This would make it that much harder to distinguish printed ballots from hand-filled ones.
Sidney Powell says first lawsuit will be filed Wednesday in Georgia
Hopefully, we'll finally see what she's got, or at least more of it. The fact that she is planning to file first in Georgia against what sounds like election official defendants suggests we might learn about the bribes she has alleged were paid to family members in return for the Dominion voting system contract.
Two different theories is accurate enough, but it doesn't reduce the sting much compared to explanations based around campaign financing.
I think Rudy wants to stick to theories he has solid evidence for. He recognizes Powell has what sounds like a wild and crazy conspiracy theory. Maybe she has evidence for it, maybe not -- but if not, best his own more grounded cases not be considered guilty by association.
I consider this quite reasonable. Powell has had excellent sources in the intel community in the past and remains closely associated with Flynn, who also does. She may be on to something. But without solid evidence to present, which may be complicated by law enforcement activity and classification issues, it may be difficult to prove on the very compressed timeline we're on now.
What's going on between the Trump Campaign and Sidney Powell?
This covers most of the obvious possibilities. The idea that Powell's funding needs to be separate from the campaign's funding for legal reasons makes the most sense.
It's also possible that there's a credibility issue with Powell's claims that wasn't readily apparent. I speculated that perhaps there was in fact a raid on a server facility in Germany connected to her allegations about CIA manipulating elections from there, and the raid turned up nothing, so the Trump campaign cut her loose.
As with so much else, there's no way to know what is true. We'll have to wait and see.
There appears to be good statistical evidence for the computer problems. Less currently known direct evidence for it, but the statistics alone make a good case if looked at closely rather than dismissed.
Not surprised to see lower courts and Obama judges dismissing cases. I would like to see a better look from the Trump legal team, though. I understand things are rushed, but I see a lot of unforced errors.
It's possible to lose a good legal case through incompetent lawyering.
Affidavit from Dominion contractor alleges widespread double counting
This is a sworn affidavit from Melissa Carone, who witnessed a variety of fraudulent practices while working IT support. Her affidavit alleges batches of ballots being counted multiple times and a suspicious delivery from vans during the night shift that coincided with the 100,000 Biden ballot surge.
We got one recount already, but it just counted all the ballots a second time, without enforcing new safeguards that the original count lacked. To get a second one, with proper safeguards, Trump will likely need a court order.
Long story short, many batches of "found" votes in the hand recount had a much higher percentage of votes for Trump than the official batches. Why the difference? Were the batches in the "normal" process manipulated in some way?
Obviously we don't know yet -- but this is yet another oddity that suggests some form of manipulation.
Everywhere you look, there are red flags of fraud. Some of it -- lots of it -- was certainly done with physical ballots. Some of it may have been done electronically. But we just need to prove enough fraud to swing the election, however we get there.
GA governor comes out in support of signature audit
Public pressure works.
Mind you, I'm not sure if an audit is useful after the results have been certified. Maybe the legislature can still change the elector slate if the audit finds problems.
Also important: there are allegations in some places that the signature envelopes on ballots have been discarded and destroyed (presumably improperly as they are supposed to be retained). I think some of those reports came from Georgia. That may make it impossible to verify signatures. Do those ballots get discarded or discounted?
Remember what the Dems did in 2016 after Trump won
Those arguing for Trump to concede in order to provide a smooth transition have forgotten everything about 2016, 2017, 2018, and even 2019. The coup attempts were continuous and based on the flimsiest of evidence.
There are three boxes to which a free man can go when seeking to remain free.
He begins with the soap box -- advocating for retaining his liberty, using the 1st Amendment to protect his ability to speak. The media's bias (especially following the final capitulation of Fox News), combined with Big Tech's censorship of the internet, and pervasive cancel culture, have created a situation where speech is no longer free.
If speech alone is insufficient, he moves to the ballot box, voting for leaders who will correct the situation. While this may not resolve the problem immediately, so long as leaders are chosen by popular vote in free and fair elections there remains hope.
The presidential race in 2020 appears to have demonstrated that the ballot box is no longer free or fair.
That only leaves one box left. Pray we need not open it.
... but when you have enough anecdotal evidence of random individuals looking up their past addresses and finding out they voted there, you start to wonder if maybe this is a lot more widespread than just a few isolated incidents.
It's interesting to speculate about what their motives are for this change. Did their push for election security in 2017 (after Trump's victory, broadly blamed on Russian interference that was not connected to hacked voting machines) provide the impetuous for a switch in voting machine technology to something with known vulnerabilities to abuse?
Evidence of voting machine intervention in the ballot count post-pause
Take Gateway Pundit with a grain of salt, but if their analysis is true (and it is supported by independent sources for some states) this is solid evidence of machine manipulation of vote totals after the "intervention" that hypothetically occurred during the pause in counting.
Assuming this email (pictured at the link) is genuine, it sets up the same two-tiered voting system argument used in PA and other states. Especially if one or the other type of pen can be shown to perform differently.
Remember, the claim is that 1) Sharpies are more likely to result in spoiled ballots via bleed-through, 2) poll workers are accused of not letting voters cure spoiled ballots, or encouraging them to discard the spoiled ballot errors, and 3) voters on election day are more likely to be Trump voters.
That makes a difference in marking device on election day suspicious.
Sidney and Rudy and Lin keep claiming they have strong evidence that will win in court. So far, we've seen a lot of affidavits alleging various problems, but we haven't seen smoking gun evidence of hackery with the voting machines. We've seen evidence it can be done, evidence the system was designed to allow that, even some suggestive evidence that something was done overnight in key states, and statistical analysis pointing to an algorithm applied after that shutdown. But will that be enough?
Michigan elections board initially refuses to certify
It had nothing to do with race and everything to do with poll books that didn't match reported results. I am disappointed that the Republican representatives caved to the baseless accusation of racism.
Proving widespread election fraud by electronic means
Proof of fraud is coming in from many different angles. In this case, it's simply physically impossible for the voting machines in use to process ballots as fast as they supposedly did in the election results.
I agree there were some oddities in Virginia, but Biden seemed to take a lead much earlier and without the same kind of suspicious pause. My gut feeling is that Biden didn't need fraud on a massive scale to take Virginia. Maybe Trump really won there, maybe not, but Trump's chances in other states seem much better.
Georgia lawsuit challenges election rules, seeks to block certification
What we are seeing here is an issue that is very similar to the PA lawsuit likely headed to the Supreme Court. The allegation is that the Georgia legislature set the rules for the election, which were then changed due to a legal agreement (consent decree) between (executive branch) election officials and the Democratic Party of Georgia, and that this rule change makes the whole election invalid and uncertifiable. If the election in Georgia can't be certified, it's up to the legislature to decide what to do regarding that state's electoral slate. Georgia is a red state, so presumably Trump would have an advantage there.
Similar issues have been alleged in Michigan and Wisconsin, so I think we are starting to see a theme.
Large scale signature verification by relative amateurs has always been sketchy. For a small number of absentee votes where signatures can be scrutinized closely, it may be effective (at least at flagging obvious problems), and the number of votes at risk is small. Relying on it for a large scale situation like mass absentee voting it nuts.
Lin Wood says evidence of voting machine fraud is coming
Lin Wood is representing the President, and he's a successful fighter. If he says there is irrefutable evidence of election fraud at the voting machine level sufficient to change the outcome of the election, I'd be inclined to give him credit.
I think it's harder for humans to cheat during a hand recount than it is to electronically switch thousands of votes. For that reason, it may be worth doing the hand recount. But I don't trust Raffenberger.
This makes at least three states with massive overnight Biden vote dumps: Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia. PA also had a massive vote dump, but it appears to have trickled in via absentee ballots over about a week.
Two Michigan State Senators ask for audit before certification of results
It's unclear exactly how much fraud an audit would catch. A hand recount would eliminate machine errors on the large scale that has been alleged, while introducing smaller-scale errors. Fraudulent mail-in ballots would be trickier, especially if already removed from envelopes that bear signature verification information. However, given the red flags in Michigan, a complete audit by hand is the minimum standard necessary to certify the results.
Federal-only voters in Arizona enough to swing the election
So, if you are in Arizona illegally, you can register to vote using a Motor-Voter form that does not require proof of citizenship, but you can only vote in federal races. I'd rather have proof of citizenship for all voters -- it seems like other states are even more vulnerable to people using the same federal forms. But it does provide a way to guesstimate how many people in Arizona voted while maybe not being citizens.
Trump signed legislation making election hacking a federal crime
This one adds several points of credibility to claims that the voting systems were electronically hacked using Hammer and Scorecard, and that Trump knew it was coming and let it happen as a sting operation. I remain skeptical about such claims, but due to their nature we will simply need to wait and see.
Lawsuit alleges two-tiered voting system in Pennsylvania
The two-tiered system argument calls back to the winning argument in Bush v Gore, where in that case different counties had wildly different standards for vote counting rather than a single uniform standard statewide. This situation is somewhat different as mail-in ballots are inherently different from in person ballots, but they are also clearly being held to different standards. For example, in person ballots have to be voted by election day, while mail in ballots are allowed up to three days after election day even without postmarks; in person ballots have signature verification but mail in ballots do not.
It's unclear exactly what the remedy will be should the Trump campaign win, but a win does seem likely.
This video of Dominion Voting systems whistleblower Melissa Coron is disturbing. I will note at the outset that it doesn't seem to have much to do with the "gltiches" that appear to have mysteriously flipped votes; it's just an IT worker who happened to be at the polls and witnessed irregularities similar to those that have been reported in other affidavits (and yes, she has filed one of those as well).
Among other allegations: stacks of ballots run through repeatedly, mysterious vans with Biden ballots at 4am, ballots run without observers from both parties present...
The real questions are how much fraud, did it change the results, can it be proven in court, and what is the remedy?
So, talking about the 2020 Presidential race...
How much fraud? Did it change the results?
Statistical evidence suggests hundreds of thousands of votes across 6 battleground states. In those states, Trump had substantial leads on election night, and that lead evaporated overnight as reports claimed tens of thousands of Biden-only ballots arrived in various states. Absentee ballot issues in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, and Michigan had voting machine irregularities that flipped several races. Georgia had a race outcome change in favor of the CFIA candidate when a mysterious thumb drive marked "provisional ballots" was counted as if it was filled with real ballots. In Arizona, some ballots were rejected and the voting machines were not certified by the Republican party representative. Tens of thousands of votes that only went to Biden and did not vote for any down-ballot races. Many errors that all seemed to go in the same direction.
Based on the above, I feel confident there was a lot of fraud and that it changed the outcome of the election.
Can it be proven in court? No idea. We have a lot of affidavits about questionable activity, but mostly on a small scale. There are legal issues about Pennsylvania's absentee ballots, but also claims that the USPS backdated ballots received after the deadline in PA and other states. In other states, absentee ballots had their security envelopes removed, preventing those ballots from being audited for voter eligibility or signature verification.
I suspect we can't prove enough individual fraud to overturn the results. That's part of the point of denying observers, hiding vote counting, and massively expanding absentee voting which inherently has fewer protections. But we may well be able to prove the systematic fraud case.
What is the remedy?
I suspect the only remedy we're going to get is a suggestion to the legislature that the election was corrupt and please assign the state's electors themselves. If we get that in enough states, we win. But the optics of rejecting an election, even a fraudulent one, are awful. I would not view that as a sure thing even after if the courts suggest it.
What to expect from the Trump team's legal challenges
He does a good job explaining the important statements made by Rudy and Sidney this weekend. Bottom line: both Trump attorneys believe they have evidence of election fraud (ie, manipulated counting totals, not individual votes). They say they can't talk about the exact evidence yet, but they have it, and more is coming in all the time. Rudy says he can prove votes were manipulated in Michigan. Prove with witnesses. Sidney says they have identified the exact algorithm that was used.
I take it from this that someone in the Trump orbit, probably law enforcement, has significant evidence regarding election fraud and is in the process of collecting more. The lawyers have been told what is known and what is being collected but do not themselves have access to it yet, because they are outside of government. This suggests the evidence and operations are classified.
I have been skeptical about rumors of an operation in Germany to seize servers related to Dominion and/or Scytl. It now appears we have limited independent confirmation that something did indeed happen.
Sidney Power describes Dominion's ability to change election results
She's describing a sworn affidavit that indicates the system was designed to corrupt elections in Venezuela for Hugo Chavez, and that it can be used to do so secretly and in a way that is difficult to detect. The machines all report to a central control room which shows the results in realtime.
The affidavit describes how, when these live results showed the desired candidate was losing despite the machine settings, the operators had to "turn off the internet" for an hour or two to update the machines. After the update, the desired candidate was back in the lead and the election was smoothly stolen.
This bears a very disturbing similarity to what happened in our own election. Counting in (at least) Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia shut down for a few hours late at night, with Trump firmly in the lead, and when counting resumed there were large bumps in Biden's vote totals sufficient to catch him up. Pennsylvania had an existing long delay planned out for absentee ballots; Nevada and Arizona also paused or delayed counting but had less obvious issues, perhaps because those states were closer to begin with.
Notably absent from this particular affidavit as Sidney read from it on the air was any direct knowledge that this kind of manipulation took place during this election. The individual was familiar with the how the software operated and how it could be used to fake elections. (That, in and of itself, raises interesting questions about involvement with Venezuela under Chavez). The symptoms matched. But they didn't claim to be in the control room watching our elections.
Hopefully, if the right servers are seized and examined, we can find logs tracking the manipulations. Powell and the President may already have that information, and simply be formatting it for release to the public.
However, from this affidavit, it is clear that there is strong circumstantial evidence linking those several-hour pauses and subsequent adjusted vote totals that we observed to the expected behavior of an election being adjusted in those locations using this same software. And we know those locations are using the same software.
There are rumors -- not yet strongly confirmed, but coming from multiple sources -- that a site in or near Frankfurt, Germany related to this software has been raided by US law enforcement to preserve evidence.
I think Trump's hand is a lot stronger than most people realize.
I watched the whole hour-plus. They have something interesting, but not proof of fraud. It comes in two parts: the fact that Dominion Voting Systems has a "weighted election" feature, combined with an analysis of four Michigan counties that suggests it was used in three of them.
It should be easy to check the system settings to see if the weighted election feature was used. It would be expensive, but procedurally simple, to recount by hand all of those ballots.
If Trump is tweeting this out, I give it a little more credibility. Trump likely knows more about this issue than we do at this point.
Sworn affidavit alleges fabricated proof of residence data in Nevada
So what actually happened here?
Voters were allowed to file (possibly provisional?) ballots in Nevada despite not having proof of residence. By itself this might be legal. But it is additionally alleged that the ballots were filed with the DMV appointment number in place of an actual license identification number.
Is that legal? I don't know, but it seems suspicious, especially if the ballots were not provisional ballots.. After all, making an appointment with the DMV to apply for a driver's license is not actually having one.
More importantly, the same individual alleges he witnessed two individuals filling out multiple ballots inside a Biden campaign van, and other individuals tried to block his ability to observe this.
Wisconsin invalid votes may be identifiable by use of red pen?
The red pen detail is new (to me). And it is devastating if the clerks actually followed it. It means those illegal mail-in ballots can be identified and removed from the count.
Mail-in votes can be assumed to go substantially more towards Biden than Trump (Trump's voters were heavily encouraged to vote in person). Wisconsin had nearly two million people register to vote absentee who then returned their ballots, leaving about 1700000 registered voters to vote in person. Trump is only 20,000 votes behind Biden in Wisconsin. If even 1% of those 2M absentee ballots are discarded, you're at the 20,000 votes you need.
Now, since some people in those discarded ballots would have also voted for Trump, you'd need more than that, depending on the exact ratio. But there are other irregularities in Wisconsin, too.
Illegal voter registration rates may have affected the election
If you live in any of the swing states here, that goes triple for you. Demand your state legislators fix the problems, clean up the rolls, and if it proves necessary, assign the state's electors to Trump directly.
Tens of thousands of PA ballots returned earlier than sent date
Ballots returned before they were sent? There seems no logical explanation for that other than fraud. Combined with the other questionable ballots, that's over a hundred thousand potentially illegal ballots. Those ballots alone exceed Biden's lead in PA.
There are actually at least two PA lawsuits. One began before the election and deals with ballot return deadlines. The other focuses on conduct during the election itself. I will be calling out the claims in the second lawsuit below that I see as most important.
"Also in Michigan, a city Democratic worker was so shocked that she's come over to us and told us the whole story about how they were preparing to cheat going back to September, how they knew they would need to make up a lot of numbers, the backup plans they had to get more phony ballots in..."
I certainly haven't seen that one on the news yet, not even my non-media sources.
Something in the pipelines about Dominion Voting Systems?
It's clear that Dominion has financial ties to other countries. That doesn't prove fraud. It's certainly a reason to look closely before using them. At this point, it seems like it would be more important to prove that fraud happened rather than speculate on foreign interference.
If the election was indeed a sting operation with secret ballot watermarks, CISA was the agency tasked with setting it up. If people are being fired from their, either they were targets of the sting or failed miserably to carry it out. If there was no sting, then they failed miserably to protect the election from fraud.
I don't know what to make of the turnover here, but it's definitely curious.
Provisional ballots doesn't quite capture it. They were allowed to file ballots after going to a DMV official located in the same parking lot and making an appointment to obtain identification. The ID number from that appointment was then used with the provisional ballot. In other words, the ballot was filed as if proper ID had been presented even if the appointment never took place and ID was never issued.
The same author has a follow-up looking closely at Wisconsin. Comparing Biden's turnout performance to Obama, there are just a few counties where Biden miraculously improved on Obama's turnout numbers by double digit percentages (20% in at least one case). But in most other counties, Biden underperformed compared to Obama's turnout.
Take the Gateway Pundit stuff with a grain of salt when he doesn't link to a source (and sometimes even when he does), but we've seen vote flips due to "glitches" in WI before. They should all be checked against the physically tabulated ballots.
Voting irregularities in Michigan by a poll challenger
An important element in evaluating claims that The Hammer and Scorecard were used to adjust election results is his claim that every computer he saw, with the exception of he poll books, were internet connected. If I was running an election with electronic voting, I'd want everything air-gapped for security messages.
I am a software guy; it's what I do for a living. I don't work with election systems, though. What Silicon Greybeard is describing here is... mostly correct, but doesn't quite tell the whole story. I'm going to try to fill in the gaps.
What he's describing is the most basic level of "glitch", something that happens in a hardware failure or a very basic programming failure. Maybe memory is corrupted, network packets get lost, an electrical surge. Those issues can happen, but they are relatively rare in modern computer systems and applications.
We agree that that's almost certainly not what we are seeing in this case. The computer itself almost certainly did not screw this up.
That leaves us with two possibilities: malfeasance or innocent human error.
I believe malfeasance is a serious possibility, but we don't YET have enough detail to eliminate innocent human error. Suppose for example that the voting software in question has human input in how ballots are generated. (It HAS to have some degree of human input, of course, but how much and how exactly it works is unknown). Could a human accidentally transpose identifiers for Biden or Trump so ballots cast for one go to the other? Yes, it could be done, and depending on how the software works, it might not be obvious. Database software often uses random identifiers for cases like this, eg:
45989832458: Biden 32498398983: Trump
That prevents issues that could arise from two people named Biden or two people named Trump, but does make it hard to spot if they get transposed. The transposition could be deliberate and it could also be accidental.
If it only shows up in one precinct, gets corrected, and never shows up again... fine.
If it shows up twice or more... that's malfeasance.
Voting software firms linked to Pelosi, Clinton, Feinstein
This isn't evidence of fraud, by itself, but given the other evidence we already have of problems with this software during the election -- including updates the night before the election in some cases -- it's worth noting for future reference.
I'm not sure this plan is perfect, but it's the beginning of a conversation that needs to be had. More importantly than the exact details, though, is that the people who think they are in charge of running elections need to be broken. Because they ignored the rules, deliberately and with forethought, this time around. It doesn't matter what the rules are if there are no consequences for breaking them.
This appears to explain the North Carolina delay, and the large number of outstanding absentee ballots makes it harder to project a winner from election day results. Does not mean shenanigans are not occurring in the meantime, of course.
Censorship of Trump's communications to the people continues
The falsity of Trump's charges remains to be seen, but there is substantial evidence of fraud already available and more being discovered every day.
Censoring Trump's accusations of fraud is an attempt to prevent them from being investigated.
Let me remind you: Until January 20th, Trump is still the President. The election has not been decided. Allegations about election irregularities have been made and need to be adjudicated. Treating Trump as illegitimate is extremely dangerous.
It's a last resort because it looks frankly undemocratic for state legislatures to step in and assign their own electors. But if the elections in the remaining states are so corrupted that valid totals cannot be determined, then legislatures may need to fix it, and assigning Presidential electors may end up as the least damaging way to do so.
Pennsylvania House Speaker calls for full audit before certification
The rate of rejected mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania this year is almost 30 times lower than 2016. That doesn't prove fraud, but combined with other allegations, particularly the defiance of a Supreme Court order, it's certainly suspicious.
Workers instructed to backdate ballots in Michigan
They are calling it a clerical error and saying the ballots were actually received before the deadline and not marked. That could be true. And it could be exactly what a vote fraud operator would say when he was caught.
Now that they are marked, who can prove otherwise?
Sidney Powell claims evidence of manual changes to vote totals
Sidney Powell alleges that up to 3% of the vote totals were changed using specific software packages ("Hammer" and "Scorecard") in MI and possibly other areas. That speaks to not just the validity of the results but, even more importantly, to intentionality. What Sidney Powell is describing does not sound accidental, and she is not just making baseless allegations. She speaks of putting what she has into court filings, so this information should be part of a case soon.
We also have separate confirmation of FBI opening an investigation. (Not that any of the FBI's investigations have resulted in anything yet).
Yesterday, I watched the ABC News election special. They would do a segment, then state that whatever Trump or his campaign had said was "without evidence". Over and over and over again. "Without evidence." "So far baseless." "Inflammatory rhetoric."
I've seen the videos. I've followed the links the Facebook and Twitter have banned. And I'm saving choice examples locally.
There is evidence.
They are afraid this could inspire "fringe elements" to "do something."
It could inspire the American people to take back their electoral system.
Below the fold is a collection of evidence of vote fraud in the 2020 election.
I'm going to add several qualifiers here.
First, there is a difference between evidence of fraud at a high level, and evidence of fraud in an individual vote. We can look at the election and its various processes and see red flags (and a followup article) of fraud in the totals. But correcting for fraud requires identifying and excluding specific fraudulent votes, or whole categories of votes where procedures were not followed correctly.
We have every single one of those signs. So keep them in mind as you look through the evidence below.
Third, Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) recently offered a good principle for these moments. Call it the 95% rule. For every given incident that seems questionable, 95% of them (as a rough approximation) will have some valid, reasonable explanation. 5% will be real concerns where actual vote fraud happened. We can't readily know which are which. We have to investigate them all to find out.
Fourth, Joe Biden announced before the election that he had built the largest vote fraud organization in the history of American politics. We should believe him.
The situation certainly looks bleak right now, but remember that we are at the beginning of a process. With so many red flags popping up, and the Democrats apparently going all-in on fraud, there is hope that audits can identify and correct the fraudulent votes.
Remember Florida in 2000 and Bush v Gore? They do too. They know that having one court case in one state where everything rides on the outcome is a recipe for disaster. That's why they froze counting in GA, NC, PA very early on. Those states were frozen to make it look like Trump lost by a significant margin in more than one state. But that's only an illusion, and it will be dispelled when you realize that the states currently outstanding are those they had to freeze because Trump was going to win.
This is clever. Facebook, Twitter, etc, may be protected by section 230 for being (allegedly) platforms instead of publishers. But guess what? Those fact-checking orgs? They are not platforms, they are clearly making editorial decisions which Facebook has outsourced to them, and... they are liable for them.
Suing the fact-checkers seems like a viable line of attack, and those who have been unfairly censored should consider it.
If Trump finds himself with nothing to do on January 21st, filing some court paperwork might relieve the boredom.
Sdetting aside the outcome of the Presidential race, the GOP had a pretty good election. They held the Senate, probably, and gained seats in the House. It wasn't a wave for either side. If anything, it tilted significantly towards the Republicans, especially when you take into account control of state legislatures.
So what are the odds that such a result happens and the Republican presidential candidate loses? Particularly to a candidate like Biden, who is, let's be honest, uninspiring at best. Even Democrats admit Trump helped rather than hurt his party.
So let me get this straight. If you think an election was corrupt, and you want to organize your fellow citizens to look into that corruption and stop it, Facebook and Twitter (at least) will disappear you from the internet. Because having an opinion about the corrupt nature of our electoral system is unacceptable and dangerous and cannot be permitted? Even if 360,000 people agreed with you enough to join the group?
It's unclear if this is the same individual featured in the Project Veritas video. However, I understand the Veritas video to refer to a postmark (time sent) rather than a time received, and the worker to be a postal worker rather than an election worker. I get the feeling we are dealing with at least two whistleblowers in Detroit.
Project Veritas also has multiple whistleblowers in PA and at least one in NV. And let's not forget they already "stung" Ilhan Omar in Minnesota earlier this year; her election fraud scheme was exposed, but I haven't seen any reports of arrests.
These twice-daily sweeps have been ordered by Judge Sullivan, the same judge presiding over the Michael Flynn case, whose political and personal bias have by now been well established. The sweeps themselves, while troubling, are not necessarily illegal. That a judge ordered them preemptively for political reasons is questionable. That such sweeps continue days after the election, allowing more and more ballots to be found and intermingled with legitimate ballots, is very problematic.
After all, why would multiple sweeps be needed here? If they are in the mail system by the deadline, wouldn't they be found in the first sweep? If they are not found in the first sweep but ARE found in a later sweep... doesn't that mean they were likely added in between those sweeps?
132,000 ineligible votes in GA due to change of address flags
When you file a change of address, that record can be matched against the voter registration list in the state you are leaving, and used to clean the list so you can't vote in both your new state and your old state.
Of course, for whatever reason, those lists often aren't actually cleaned, because those out of state voters are great for filing fake ballots.
Of course, if you actually audit the results of the election carefully, this can be detected.
Since ballots are generally anonymous once cast, this may be hard to adjudicate, but 132,000 ballots is easily enough to swing the current 10K difference between the candidates.
I read this article, thought it was interesting, but wasn't going to post it, until I got to the last line in the article.
What the hell, Georgia GOP? If this is legal, get off your ass and help your voters! If it's not legal, start filing lawsuits! I've seen reports later suggesting this practice is illegal, but that isn't stopping the Dems apparently.
Some will say that it's an intense election so of course more people turned out, and this area is historically a high turnout area. But historically high turnout could also easily indicate an existing voter fraud operation that shifted into high gear for this election cycle.
Poll watcher alleges ballot counting fraud in Detroit
This is going to the courts. I don't like it, but the amount of fraud makes it absolutely necessary. The Democrats intended the amount of fraud to be breathtaking in order to present a clear win for Biden, but instead, it has merely exposed the extent of their will to power.
Nevada whistleblower says ballot signatures were not verified
Can't really attach hard numbers of votes potentially affected to this claim, but it sounds like enough to start an investigation. If this was systematic, it could be a big deal. And the whistleblower sent an affidavit to DOJ about it, which makes it evidence.
If it's just this one guy, we're talking about a small number of ballots. But if it's not just this one guy...
Barr authorizes DOJ, FBI to look into election issues
At this point, I have no faith in any investigations Barr authorizes. He has till January 20th to change my mind. However, shipwreckedcrew (who has worked as a US Attorney) thinks Barr's letter actually authorized field offices to start full grand jury investigations on voter fraud without going through DOJ HQ.
He was allegedly involved in the IRS Tea Party targeting scandal. And if he's going to refuse to get involved in investigating serious allegations of irregularities in elections when that's his job, then he's undoubtedly a NeverTrump Resistance type who is better off out than in.
And he was probably blocking investigations from being opened, which Barr's letter prevented him from doing. Hence he resigned in a snit. And, maybe, the various field offices are now unleashed to pursue vote fraud?
Precedent for redoing an election for federal office
A new election would be almost a worst-case scenario, resulting in even more chaos and disruption. Much better to use nuclear electors. But perhaps such an election could be held quickly and limited to states with massive fraud allegations (and evidence backing them up).
US Attorney in Philadelphia launches voter fraud investigation
People are starting to look into this. While I've been less than impressed with Barr's results so far, at least the process is starting, and if Biden does take office, it's going to be a real embarrassment to shut these investigations down.
I am sympathetic to officials being "unable to explain" how these large blocks of votes showed up. They weren't there. But that such large blocks of votes represent obvious fraud should be indisputable.
I've seen videos and mathematical analysis that is very suspicious and indicative of fraud, but I haven't yet seen proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I look forward to seeing that proof -- in court, as the fraudsters are tried and convicted.
We'll have to wait for the final count and get some idea of how many were hindered by this before we know how significant it is, but if they don't assert their legal rights to challenge the election they will lose them. So assert now, and fight hard to find out the truth.
It's funny how all of the social distancing regulations and behaviors segue so very, very smoothly into vote fraud. Mail in ballots, observers needing to look through binoculars to watch ballot counting, even campaign ads inside polling stations printed on masks.
There is no why beyond the will to power. That is where the Democrats have brought themselves. The party apparatchiks learned that they could put any dried-up old bint before the American people and be competitive, so they decided that they could rely on vote fraud rather than the will of the people to overcome Trump.
The delays in PA, GA, NC were just to buy time to print enough ballots to flip those states and whatever else they could.
When those workers come back to start counting again, there will mysteriously be fresh boxes of ballots to count with the ink still dry.
The problem with recounts is that they don't usually change results, because they are counting the fraudulent ballots as well as the valid ones.
What we need is a recount that can detect and eliminate invalid ballots, even if they have been fraudulently back-dated. A Supreme Court ruling doesn't help us if the Democrats have managed to back-date their extra ballots to appear to comply with the election deadline, as we know they were doing in Philadelphia thanks to Project Veritas.
Right now, we're looking at at least two states with massive voter fraud issues, Michigan and Wisconsin. Pennsylvania is pending, but I'm expecting trouble there too. There are allegations in Arizona and rumblings in Georgia. What's our way out? Recounts don't do much when the allegation is that votes were improperly added to the vote stream rather than improperly counted. One possibility is a state by state revote by judicial order following a determination that fraud occurred in large enough amounts to change the results. If all the states needing revotes coordinated to hold them on the same day before the electoral college deadline, it might work.
The state legislatures can change the procedures at any time before the deadline, and there is no requirement in the Constitution that the results match an election. Such requirements exist in state laws, which the legislature can change. There is precedent for this; Florida nearly did it in 2000.
Changing that, even temporarily, would be extremely controversial and is unlikely to actually occur without dramatic evidence of voter fraud. Which we have, from a high level view. The possibility provides a way out of this scenario without redoing the whole election. Individual state legislatures can assign their own electors after a careful investigation shows that fraud indelibly tainted the election. Such electors would only impact the presidential race, where most of the fraud is expected to have occurred, keeping the change to a minimum.
Crucially, the elector slate need not be approved by the governor or the courts, since the power is held specifically by the legislature.
Michigan: House is Republican, Senate is Democrat. Wisconsin: Senate and House held by Republicans. Arizona: Senate and House held by Republicans. Nevada: Senate and House held by Democrats. Georgia: Senate and House held by Republicans. North Carolina: Senate and House held by Republicans.
There are possibilities here given the election chaos. I'm assuming a split legislature will never agree to do such a thing. The most obvious candidate is Wisconsin, where massive voter fraud appears to have taken place and the legislature is unified Republican. The remaining states are either held by Democrats at least in part, or simply don't yet have detailed allegations of voter fraud to consider such a dramatic option.
But let's keep it in mind. It may be the least-harmful way to overcome an unfortunately quite precedented attempt to steal the White House by fraud.
A new hope -- can we audit the 2020 election results?
The internet in general appears to be treating this as a conspiracy theory. So did I, at first. I had one thing that made me look a little closer: the blue-checkmark Twitter verification on someone who claimed to be associated with Trump's 2020 campaign and an ex-intel guy. This is someone who at least claims to be in a position to know, and who Twitter has verified (which doesn't mean much, but is a step above a random conspiracy guy). Then I made the mistake of looking it up on Snopes. Snopes rates it "false". Snopes is a damn fool in this case. The link above goes to my analysis of the issue. Short version: there is a federal agency working with states on election security that can include such things as watermarks on paper ballots; its existence is confirmed by Snopes itself in the article and reinforced by a Washington Post article from the week before the election. That part is absolutely real. I don't know what specific security measures are in place in the swing states we are dealing with now, but I'm confident DHS/CISA know, and that we will find out shortly.
Why did election day play out the way it did? Specifically, why did counting mysteriously stop so early in North Carolina and Georgia? Simple: because those are two of the three states the New York Times identified as needle states that would set the trend for the rest of the election. The third was Florida, and Florida was an absolute blowout for Trump. He won by 400,000 votes there, and they still delayed calling it as long as possible.
North Carolina and Georgia were the Democratic stop-loss states. Avoid calling those and you can keep the Trump win in check. And that's exactly what they did and are still doing. That's how we can tell that the current scenario, with data driven from private internal polling, is a planned contingency rather than an organic result.
The Dems planned on cheating on WI and MI. They were ready. They had everything in place.
They planned their cheating in PA by a different method -- keep counting for three days with new ballots flooding in, as many as necessary. That puts a freeze on the results and gives them time to work in other states. The Supreme Court might sort it out later, but they couldn't plan for that; RGB and her replacement Amy happened too late in the game. They expected Roberts to flip and give them a win; instead they got a tie, just enough to delay the results.
They thought they had Arizona in the bag. Which is interesting, because it's usually red. But a couple things were different there. Cindy McCain, wife of Arizona's most famous and least trustworthy Senator, endorsed Biden. Along with some early numerical "mistakes", that gave Fox News and its Dem-donating decision desk manager an excuse to color the state blue very early and depress Republican turnout. Whether the Sharpie question was preplanned or accidental, it certainly helped too. I think it took a big effort and a few honest media outlets to claw Arizona back from that bad early call.
Nevada being so close was a surprise. I don't think they planned on cheating very hard there. But it mysteriously froze too when even its 6 votes might put Trump over 270.
Funny how the states Trump needs to win -- all of them -- froze their counts on election night and are mysteriously waiting for something to happen before they finish counting.
They are waiting for the Democrats, or the Deep State, or whoever is running this fucking game to decide how they are going to fraud it.
I think Trump can win this one, despite the fraud. All he has to do is hold his lead in PA, GA, NC, and AK and then win one of NV, AZ, MI, WI. He should fight, even in court in MI and WI, and I think he will.
But the early freeze in NC and GA combined with the New York Times "needle states" points to a plan to me.
Look, it's great that he's putting a team together to get revenge for the election. Maybe he can call them the Re-vengers? Or something like that. Sidney Powell seems like a good choice. Rudy's not shy. Not really a fan of Bondi, though. But what's really worrying me is that he's only putting the team together NOW when they should have been in place before the election, waiting with baited breath.
It's clearly possible, and it would be enough to win the election if he can also take NC, GA, and PA. Unfortunately GA and PA now have small Biden leads. However, both of those states may be saved by the Supreme Court; both had election day deadlines that appear to have been ignored. If Arizona comes through, GA and PA can probably be saved.
The Supreme Court's decision in PA was not final, but does allow for ballots without postmarks to be counted up to three days after the election and kept segregated pending a final decision.
This decision -- opposed by the three conservative justices and flipped by Roberts, with Barrett not yet participating -- means that election law decisions will not be made until after the election. The Supreme Court (led by Roberts) is punting the political football and hoping they are not required to make a decision, when instead they should be taking a clear stand before the election to avoid appearances of deciding the election politically after the people have voted.
Separately, Twitter should be ... ashamed is not strong enough. Twitter has abandoned all pretense of neutrality if a tweet as basic and correct as Trump's can be censored.
One of the things you can do, if you have a large batch of ballots in a central location to be illegally postmarked, is... lose some of them. Or, add some to the pile. And to minimize knowledge of the scheme, you corrupt a postal supervisor and get him to give his postal employees a plausible, feel-good story about just making sure all the accidentally unpostmarked ballots get counted in the end.
This is a large-scale vote fraud operation. In Michigan, which may well decide who occupies the White House for the next four years.
If Trump's lawyers can't make a lot of hay from this, he needs new lawyers.
The sanctity of the secret ballot is an excellent argument against mail-in balloting, which has become vastly more popular nationally because of the pandemic, and is very popular among corrupt Democrat officials in blue states because it keeps them in power.
Even among families and households, there are political disagreements between spouses, parents, children, siblings. And there are often dramatic power dynamics even between adults. Mail-in balloting -- especially as a default option when not under emergency conditions -- allows for that pressure to be applied in any number of ways that should be anathema to a democratic republic.
People should be able to vote their ballot in secret, because they may not feel safe voting it publicly. Even if they are only among family.
Key points: "We were winning, and then they suddenly stopped counting."
Trump promised to bring lawsuits to stop Democrats "finding" new votes to the Supreme Court. He's likely to be successful there, even without Roberts, thanks to new Justice Amy Coney Barrett. However, the legal fight will likely play out in front of riots and mob violence.
I think Trump will win. But the Democrats are going to force this into a repeat of 2000's Bush v Gore Supreme Court decision and add riots on top of it.
They say that some elections are independent elections, where you try to convince the people in the middle to vote for you, and others are base elections, where you try to turn out more of your core supporters than the other guy.
The Democrats have a third type of election, where you run a replaceable figurehead and focus on turning out illegal aliens, ballot harvestors, criminals, and cemetaries while suppressing the votes of normal people with riots and pandemics.
Bloomberg under investigation for vote-buying in Florida
The plan appears to have been for Bloomberg to pay the fines of felons, who would then be able to vote, presumably for Democrats. In Florida, felons can vote thanks to a recent ballot initiative (arguably deceptively worded), but only after they have paid their fines.
Problem: Giving felons money so they can vote is pretty much buying their votes. That's illegal.
After trying to make the second debate completely virtual, and failing when Trump rejected it, the biased and incompletent debate commission has decided that they will control candidates microphones so they can forcefully mute them, and change the topic away from foreign policy to protect Biden from the evidence found in his son's laptop. Oh, and the third debate moderator's family has paid thousands of dollars to Democrats, including Biden.
Lack of dated postmarks with prepaid postage could spell election problems
Will this be a big problem? I don't know. But the number of states setting post-election-day deadlines for mailed ballots suggests that the Dems in those states think they can do something with those extra days.
Assuming the Senate actually goes into recess, this seems like a good idea. We really do not want a Supreme Court tied 4-4 during election season. It does open things up to some legal risks; recess appointments have been challenged on various grounds and Congress has been less than willing to admit it is in recess in recent years, precisely to block such appointments. It would also risk reducing the urgency of a permanent confirmation vote.
But the payoff of a full court that can resolve election issues decisively may spare us from a terrible drawn-out election season of rioting and endlessly "discovered" ballots.
If the Senate does not promptly confirm Trump's nominee permanently, Trump should make the recess appointment so the court can function in the meantime.
More details about Brennan's anti-Trump task force
One member was alleged to be Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a Hillary Clinton donor and colleague of "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella who was later an important figure in the failed plot to impeach Trump.
Brennan allegedly ignored evidence Putin actually favored Clinton. Analysts reported feeling political pressure to back Brennan despite weak underlying intelligence.
Durham is allegedly using a 50 page report produced by the House Intel Committee (before Schiff took over; Schiff promptly buried it) as a roadmap. This should make Brennan nervous despite his lawyer nervously interjecting that Durham promised he wasn't actually a suspect yet.
Worth noting: generally, Durham's team has not leaked. When we see leaks like this mentioning Durham, it's usually from the other side trying to control the narrative or slow-drip damaging revelations.
Treasury whistleblower: Obama admin used Treasury to spy on Flynn, others
Including Congress, Manafort, senior staff on the Trump campaign, and Trump family members. At some point it has to become obvious that only the White House could be coordinating all these agencies, and that the targeting must be political. In fact the whistleblower says having a political predicate was routine.
It's now clear that Obama treated the United States exactly as a third-world dictator would.
He's doing it by executive order, which I find a bit questionable, but I don't know if he has that authority under Kentucky law. Clearly he thinks he does.
As a policy matter this is a complex topic. As a political matter, the Democrats are clearly implementing this policy for electoral purposes, the same way they encourage illegal immigration and resist voter id laws. Any state they take temporary control of, they immediately seek to strengthen their hold on.
Even California is being forced to admit they have a voter fraud problem.
Politics -- voting and elections -- are a system that controls billions of dollars in public funds that is ripe for the taking. Of course the unscrupulous will look for ways to cheat. We need to take reasonable measures to secure our elections systems (voter id being one of them, and cleaning the voter rolls being another). Until we do, politicians will find ways to game the system.
Will Trump be charged with campaign finance violations?
Andy McCarthy thinks so. I don't, but mostly because DOJ policy forbids indicting a sitting president. I think Mueller will write a report saying he would have indicted Trump if Trump was not the president. He will then pass it off to Congress and invite them to consider impeachment.
Will they? The Democrats just took the House. Of course they will at least consider it. They have the votes to do it if everyone votes straight party. They can even afford to lose quite a few weak seats if they want to try to protect them. On the other hand, trying to get Trump removed from the Senate is a political non-starter, needing 67 votes when they have only 47 or so. So, to the extent that they try to impeach, they will use it as a political weapon to damage his reelection chances.
Should they? Using very weak campaign finance charges combined with even weaker lying about sex and/or lying about Moscow hotel deals, all taking place before Trump became president, none of which at this point appears to involve Trump directly but merely his campaign, to try to remove a president is facially absurd. So far there's basically no proven personal nexus to Trump's actions; campaign finance violations are usually cured by fines not felonies; Trump has the "I trusted my lawyer to do it legally" defense; Cohen's cooperation and credibility have been destroyed by his admissions of lying and the violation of attorney-client privilege. You couldn't get a conviction in an ordinary court after the necessary cross-examination and tossing out of the tainted evidence.
Historically, lots of presidents have had various affairs, including payoffs, without facing impeachment. Clinton did face impeachment for lying about it, but not removed... and his impeachment was considered one of the biggest political mistakes in modern history. (I supported it, but mostly because of all the other crap he had done, ie, Waco, etc). Edwards, as a candidate in the primary, was charged with campaign finance violations for paying off his mistress in a similar but not identical scheme. He was not convicted, as I recall.
Mark Levin has convincingly argued that using personal money to make such payoffs is both legal and necessary as they are not "campaign expenses", which would negate any disclosure requirements. (Edwards used money from supporters to make the payoffs; the exact financial structure of Trump's payoffs is unknown).
As a layman, all I can tell you is that campaign finance laws are a legal morass that appears to be impossible to avoid violating. Politicians are regularly caught up in violations and pay fines. I can't recall any of them being removed from office over the matter.
What follows is my own summary of key information from the interview, but I urge you to listen to the whole interview at a minimum.
George was working (unknowingly) for an CIA-FBI front group. His employers set up the meeting with Mifsud (the supposed Russian agent) in a facility in Rome used to train western intelligence agents. The person who set up the meeting is the FBI's chief legal counsel in the UK. The people introducing Mifsud's companion as "Putin's niece" (she's not) were Director-level positions at the center, meaning they are all in the scheme.
George speculates (based on two news sources contacting him to ask about it) that there was a FISA warrant on him. That would be an explosive bombshell revelation, because we have only heard about the FISA warrant on Carter Page so far.
George describes traveling to Israel and being arrested and interrogated about social media campaign influence in the US. "Arrested" is perhaps an understatement; he said he was afraid for his life. (These were the people who gave him $10K intended to entrap him on returning to the US; George also suspects the bills were marked).
George describes a number of people offering him money and introducing him to women ("honeytraps"). One of them offered him $30K/mo and an office in New York... if he worked simultaneously for the Trump administration. That guy set up a lot of behavioral red flags and was recording the conversation. Papadopoulos refused the offer.
One of the honeytraps is named "Azra Turk" (a Turkish national). George suspects she is a CIA or western intelligence asset rather than FBI, which would also expand the scandal.
George describes a number of times when he was probably recorded, at least one in a meeting with Halper, and refuses to cooperate and asks to be left alone.
George describes his meeting with Australian ambassador Downer. It also included Downer's "girlfriend" an Australian intelligence officer. It was not a chance meeting, it was orchestrated. And George thinks that conversation was being recorded, and says emails did not come up during that conversation at all. George says that is false. George also says neither of the participants were drunk (one drink each) and that it was not a friendly meeting.
George says there was someone inside the Trump campaign acting as a confidential source and probably feeding information out to the FBI. Congress knows who they are. Hopefully the rest of the world will find out soon as the truth of this whole operation comes out.
California registering huge numbrs of illegal voters
So why the big effort? Well, there's no presidential race this time around, but House Intel Committee chair Devin Nunes is from California, one of their rare rural seats. They would love to make him stop investigating their party's abuse of the FBI in 2016.
Power Line on Trump on the Hunter and Collins indictments
I don't have a lot to add to this piece, except that I no longer trust the DOJ to act without political bias in these matters. I imagine that's true for Trump as well as anyone else who has been following SpyGate. And it's not just Spygate; Obama got to 60 votes in the Senate in part due to the FBI framing a sitting Republican Senator. I didn't know the guy, but we don't use trumped-up charges to win elections in this country, and this is twice in my own memory the FBI has been caught doing it.
If he's right, it's not the first time Halper engaged in a little election meddling on both sides. And there are some very large payments from government accounts to him. It looks very much like the intelligence community is for hire and willingly takes money to help decide elections. That's a bigger scandal than even I expected.
Yes, elections. He apparently has close ties to the Bush family, which has surprisingly amiable relations with the Clintons. There are indications he meddled in the Reagan-Carter race, in the other direction, perhaps explained by his connection to the Bushes (George Bush Sr was Reagan's VP candidate). And if he'll do it twice, why wouldn't he or others do it much more often than that?
The claims from the intelligence community that revealing his name would jeopardize his life seems absurd and self-serving. Unless, you know, they think someone would object to him fixing elections for the intelligence community rather violently.
Patterico is working himself into a lather over a detail...
Patterico is not quite a NeverTrump guy. He's a California lawyer (prosecutor) who is usually intellectually honest and doesn't much like Trump. I'm cool with that, because usually he has good reasons for not liking Trump. This time, I'm not quite as onboard with his reasoning. He's talking about the Nunes memo.
While Patterico is right that this admission does mildly weaken the point of the memo, it is far from fatal. Disclosing to the FISA court that the Trump dossier was put together by an unspecified political entity is a far cry from disclosing that the dossier was put together by the candidate running against him, her political party, and the political party of the sitting President who runs the surveillance apparatus that the FISA applications seeks to use. It also makes a difference when the surveillance request is not against Trump (remember, reports are they tried for a warrant that mentioned Trump and got rejected) but against a temporary unpaid volunteer member of the Trump campaign, Carter Page. Does surveillance against Carter Page raise red flags of political interference? Not really... unless you realize that authorizing Title I surveillance of Page will retroactively authorize surveillance of everyone on the Trump campaign he has been in contact with. Did the FISA application disclose that Page was a Trump campaign member and that authorizing surveillance of Page would expose the entire Trump campaign to the same surveillance authority? No? Oh, I see.
Oh, and the FISA application described Page as, essentially, a Russian spy. In actuality, it appears Page was an undercover FBI agent or informant who was cooperating with the FBI in exposing Russian spies. Was that disclosed? No?
Well, they might not get the warrant.
Did they disclose in the renewals that Steele had been terminated as a source? That he had very strong political motivations and was shopping his "research" to media outlets, including the outlets they had previously cited as corroboration? No? Why not?
But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it was all disclosed properly and the Nunes memo was wrong to leave that out.
Why the FUCK did the FBI and DOJ request the FISA warrant? Why the FUCK did the FISA court authorize the warrant?
Saying "Gosh, it was all disclosed properly.." does not make the scandal go away. The FBI is still corrupt. The only thing that does is make the FISA court either corrupt, complicit, or incompetent. And before you say "Just one judge!", the FBI reportedly went to four separate judges, once each, to get the warrant and renew it. So four separate judges all saw this warrant request and approved it. If everything was disclosed, they are all implicated.
But I do agree with Patterico on one thing.
Release the Documentation. Let's see the FISA applications. Bring it all into the sunlight.
Claim: DOJ may have told FISA court of political origins of dossier
I rate this claim bullshit. Why bullshit? Because "ample disclosure of relevant, material facts" is just a way of claiming the court was informed without acting saying that the court was told that Hillary or the DNC funded the dossier. Because, you know, they can't claim that, because it isn't true.
There's a vast difference between saying, as the memo suggests, that the research into the Trump dossier was funded by "a US person" and saying that it was funded by "Hillary Clinton and her party organization who is running against Trump in the presidential election". A "US person" could be anyone, and while there are a lot of people who might have motive to research Trump in the hopes of finding something negative about him to damage his changes of winning the election, most of them have no particular motive to make things up, and even if they had such a motive, they lacked the media access to make a lie stick. Only someone with the resources of a national political party could reasonably expect to make something up and sell it to the media for long enough to swing an election.
So, yes, it makes a big difference whether you tell them the identity of the US Person funding the dossier. And also, you know, whether you tell the court that the source of the dossier is personally biased against Trump, is in fact self-admittedly "desperate" to ensure Trump does not win the election, and has been terminated from his position with the FBI over his partisan bias and contacts with the news media trying to publicize this.
So no, saying it was funded by a "US person" is not enough, not even if you also mention a political entity.
DOJ IG recovers missing text messages between Page and Strzok
Well, they sure didn't stay missing long, did they? As this incident should remind us, when the government wants to recover text messages, they can generally recover the text messages. When they don't want to recover the text messages, as with the case of the Lois Lerner IRS scandal, it's a cover up.
And speaking of coverups, I feel that I should point out that the IG had to use "forensic tools" to recover those missing text messages. That means someone tried to delete them, probably Page and Strzok themselves, which speaks to consciousness of guilt.
UPDATE: I meant to point out that the notification does not say "all" messages were recovered, which potentially leaves some wiggle room. We don't know how many messages were actually recovered, out of how many total.
The Clinton campaign and the DNC both paid Perkins-Coie for legal services. Perkins-Coie paid Fusion GPS for the Trump dossier. Perkins-Coie was basically used as a cutout to avoid the payments showing up in campaign finance reports. The Russian businessman linked to the Kremlin used similar legal cutouts. The dossier compiled by Steele quoted Russian intelligence sources extensively (they may have been paid; that issue is still unclear). And by "Russian intelligence sources" I mean "sources who work in Russian intelligence agencies". And the dossier, of course, was used to try to smear Trump during the election and potentially to justify using our own intelligence agencies to spy on Trump's campaign.
There's a lot of Russian collusion to influence the election there, but I don't see Trump being involved in it as anything more than the victim of a particularly nasty smear campaign and multiple felonies.