Showing posts with label @sbalich @danproft @willcountynews1 #deepstate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label @sbalich @danproft @willcountynews1 #deepstate. Show all posts

Saturday, November 24, 2018

Voter Fraud Undermines the Votes of Black Americans

Derrick Hollie /  



We often hear people complain that their votes don’t count, and recent election results have many questioning our voting process.
Indeed, without effective safeguards, the civil rights movement’s goal of making everybody’s vote count may never be achieved.
White authorities in the Jim Crow South used tactics ranging from poll taxes to ballot destruction to lynching to keep blacks from participating in the political process. Efforts to limit and hijack votes still exist, but they are much more subtle.
When a vote is cast in someone else’s name—dead or alive—the votes of others are diminished. When an illegal immigrant or a restricted felon votes, the votes of others are similarly compromised.
Voter fraud may lack the intimidation and violence employed in the past, but it still minimizes the ability of all people to participate in the process and determine how they are to be governed.
Those in poor and minority communities are particularly at risk because they are frequent victims of voter fraud. Anthony DeFiglio, a Democratic committeeman in Troy, New York, said, “The people who are targeted live in low-income housing and there is a sense that they are a lot less likely to ask questions. What appears as a huge conspiracy to nonpolitical persons is really a normal political tactic.”
DeFiglio should know. He pled guilty to voter fraud himself.
Project Veritas has shown just how easy it is to obtain a ballot without proof of identity. The Department of Justice recently indicted 19 legal and illegal foreign nationals for voting in the 2016 election, and this year, the California Department of Motor Vehicles accidentally registered approximately 1,500 people to vote—including noncitizens.
In 2013, a poll worker pled guilty to voting in place of her comatose sister in three previous elections. And Al Franken’s 312-vote Senate victory in 2008 is tainted by the fact that 1,099 convicted felons voted illegally in that election.
And that’s just scratching the surface. The Heritage Foundation’s Voter Fraud Database chronicles many types of election fraud across the United States along with findings and convictions.
As part of its “Blueprint for a Better Deal for Black America,” the Project 21 black leadership network offers a robust set of recommendations for protecting black self-determination.
Project 21 calls for voter identification requirements and proof of citizenship. It recommends regular cleaning of voter lists to remove people who have moved or died, and purging lists of voters who haven’t voted in six years (ignoring three federal election cycles). It also suggests limiting mailed ballots to those who request them, as well as prosecuting those who target black communities in voter fraud schemes.
“Today’s voter suppression doesn’t come from men wearing hoods,” says Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper. “It comes through voter dilution due to phony voters on the rolls—convicts, illegals, and ghosts. The effect is the same—bona fide black citizens have their votes cancelled or drowned out.”
With a critical election looming, there’s plenty of talk about the importance of voting. But the focus is always about getting to the polls—not being prepared with documentation. This seems almost intentional. It’s also demeaning.
The lead plaintiff in a 2012 case that the ACLU and NAACP brought against Pennsylvania’s voter ID law was 93-year-old black woman named Viviette Applewhite. Her ID had been stolen, and she was unable to obtain a copy of her birth certificate. Her attorneys argued that under these circumstances, the voter ID law kept her from voting.
The court upheld the voter ID law, but the next day, Applewhite easily got a free identification issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Taking her circumstances into consideration, state employees who reportedly didn’t know who she was accepted an old Medicare card and Department of Public Welfare document as enough proof of her identity.
Applewhite reportedly visited nine countries and 48 states in her 93 years. In 2012, she could have never visited a 10th country without showing proper identification, nor could she likely enter a courthouse to have her case heard. The fact that the ACLU and NAACP fought to keep her at an overall disadvantage is not a civil rights achievement.
Having won the right to vote with the 15th Amendment, and having it secured by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and other legislation, blacks need to have their votes count. Protections such as ID requirements and clean voter rolls are key to this assurance.

Saturday, November 17, 2018

Judge Accuses State Department of Making ‘False Statements’ on Clinton Emails





From the Daily Signal  by

Kevin Mooney 
State Department officials opposed to disclosing more of Hillary Clinton’s emails as secretary of state made “false statements” and filed “false affidavits” in a related lawsuit, a federal judge said during a court hearing in Washington earlier this month.
U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ordered the hearing after a legal watchdog asked the court to obtain testimony under oath from current and former State Department officials, including Clinton and former aide Cheryl Mills.
If Lamberth agrees with Judicial Watch, Clinton and others would have to testify under oath and answer questions about how the department processed the organization’s Freedom of Information Act requests, and how it conducted its search for emails Clinton sent and received over a private email server.
Mills was Clinton’s chief of staff and counselor when she was secretary of state from Jan. 21, 2009, to Jan. 31, 2013, and worked on her presidential campaigns.
The State Department had asked Lamberth to issue a summary judgment that would have closed the case and ended any more inquiries into Clinton emails that have not been disclosed.
The judge refused and explained during the Oct. 12 hearing why he had granted limited discovery of relevant facts in March 2016:
The case started with a motion for summary judgment here and which I denied and allowed limited discovery, because it was clear to me that at the time that I ruled initially that false statements were made to me by career State Department officials. And it became more clear through discovery that the information that I was provided was clearly false regarding the adequacy of the search and this–what we now know turned out to be the secretary’s email system.
I don’t know the details of what kind of IG [inspector general] inquiry there was into why these career officials at the State Department would have filed false affidavits with me. I don’t know the details of why the Justice Department lawyers did not know false affidavits were being filed with me. But I was very relieved that I did not accept them, and that I allowed limited discovery into what had happened.
The full transcript of the hearing is available here.
Judicial Watch, a Washington-based nonprofit that describes itself as promoting “integrity, transparency, and accountability in government,” filed its FOIA lawsuit in July 2014 after the State Department declined to respond to a May 2014 request in which Judicial Watch asked for:
Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to [U.N.] Ambassador [Susan] Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency.
Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americansdied in the terrorist attacks on the consulate and a nearby CIA annex in Benghazi.
This same Judicial Watch lawsuit seeking information about the Benghazi attacks led to the discovery in 2015 of the private email server Clinton used while conducting official business as secretary of state.
The FBI uncovered 72,000 documents as part of its 2016 investigation into Clinton’s use of the private email server, which became an issue in the Democratic nominee’s presidential race with Republican nominee Donald Trump.
Judicial Watch obtained documents containing Clinton emails in response to a FOIA lawsuit it filed May 6, 2015, after the State Department did not respond to an earlier request.
U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg ordered the State Department to complete processing of the remaining Clinton documents by Sept. 28.
A State Department spokesperson told The Daily Signal that “all remaining” nonexempt records were posted to the department’s website Oct. 1 and 4 in compliance with court orders.
But Judicial Watch continues to press for additional disclosure of Clinton emails, and State Department officials continue to resist that.
“President Trump should ask why his State Department is still refusing to answer basic questions about the Clinton email scandal,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in an Oct. 17 press release. “Hillary Clinton’s and the State Department’s email coverup abused the FOIA, the courts, and the American people’s right to know.”
During an earlier hearing Oct. 11 in U.S. District Court, the watchdog group reported on the estimated number of Clinton documents the State Department continues to withhold.
Lamberth engaged in a testy exchange with Robert Prince, the Department of Justice lawyer representing State Department officials. The judge accused State Department officials of “doublespeak” and told Prince that he was playing the same “word games” as Clinton:
Lamberth: The State Department told me that it had produced all the records when it moved for summary judgment and you filed that motion. That was not true when that motion was filed.
Prince: At that time, we had produced all—
Lamberth: It was not true.
Prince: Yes, it was—well, Your Honor, it might be that our search could be found to be inadequate, but that declaration was absolutely true.
Lamberth: It was not true. It was a lie.
Prince: It was not a lie, Your Honor.
Lamberth: What—that’s doublespeak …
Prince: There’s strong precedent saying that items not in State’s possession do not need to be searched.
Lamberth: And that’s because the secretary [of state] was doing this on a private server? So it wasn’t in State’s possession?
Prince: No—
Lamberth: So you’re playing the same word game she played?
Prince: Absolutely not, Your Honor. I am not playing that.
In the hearing, Lamberth also said he was “dumbfounded” to learn in a report from the Department of Justice’s inspector general that Mills, Clinton’s former chief of staff, was granted immunity and permitted to accompany Clinton to an FBI interview about her using the private email server to conduct official business.
“I had myself found that Cheryl Mills had committed perjury and lied under oath in a published opinion I had issued in a Judicial Watch case where I found her unworthy of belief,” Lamberth said. “And I was quite shocked to find out she had been given immunity in—by the Justice Department in the Hillary Clinton email case.”
“So I did not know that until I read the IG report and learned that, and that she had accompanied the secretary to her interview,” the judge said.
The Daily Signal requested comment from the State Department and Justice Department about the Oct. 12 hearing and Lamberth’s accusations.
In an email message, a State Department spokesperson told The Daily signal on background that the agency can’t comment on ongoing litigation. The Justice Department also declined to comment.
In a related development, Judicial Watch obtained additional documents in response to a September 2018 Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
The group said these documents show that “a significant number” of the 340,000 emails found on the laptop of former Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., were between Clinton and her longtime aide, Huma Abedin. Weiner is Abedin’s estranged husband.

Monday, November 5, 2018