Supreme Court Rejects Trump Request To Block Release Of Jan 6 Records
Supreme Court Rejects Trump Request To Block Release Of Jan 6 Records With only Justice Clarence Thomas publicly dissenting, the US Supreme Court ruled against former President Trump, rejecting the former president’s claims of executive privilege and refused to stop the National Archives from turning over four tranches of Trump presidential records to the January…

Arizona Audit Finds Potentially Election-Shifting Numbers Of Illegal Ballots

… A report entitled “Compliance with Election Laws and Procedures,” issued by Senate Audit Liaison Ken Bennett, highlighted several issues, of which two were particularly significant because of the number of votes involved.

First, Bennett excerpted the Arizona statutory provisions governing early ballots. Those provisions require early ballots to be accompanied by a signed affidavit in which the voter declares he is registered in
the appropriate county and has not already voted. The statute further mandates that a voter “make and sign the affidavit,” and directs the
early election board to check the voter’s affidavit.

Significantly, “if the affidavit is insufficient, the vote shall not be allowed.” The secretary of state’s Election Procedures Manual
reinforces this point, stating: “If the early ballot affidavit is not signed, the County Recorder shall not count the ballot.”

What Are The Liar Lefties Up To This Time Of Election Season? | ARLIN REPORT……………….walking this path together

MN Prager Discussion Group

The Real Danger in 2024

Voting rights legislation is admirable. But to protect the integrity of elections, we must first ensure partisans can’t overrule the results.

Alexander H Cohen14 hr ago at Persuasion 1916
A year has now passed since the January 6 Capitol assault failed to prevent the certification of Joe Biden as president of the United States. Donald Trump’s political machine has spent that time busily planning to recapture power in 2024. Much attention has been given to the industrious Republican-led rollback of voting rights in many states. Far less notice has been given to the more insidious ploys to seize control of the certification process itself and thereby de-legitimize the election. Both will affect the outcome in 2024, but the latter presents a potentially fatal blow to our electoral system. While the future of democracy may well be at stake, we are not focusing enough…

View original post 996 more words

‘Dark money’ organization may have helped Biden win — RT USA News

A shadowy non-profit known as the Voter Participation Center
reportedly spent over $100 million ahead of the 2020 presidential
election to attract hundreds of thousands of votes from those considered
likely to support Joe Biden.
The Washington-based group
raised $85 million and spent an even larger amount delivering millions
of mail and digital notifications to voters during 2020, The Hill
reported this week. Accessing the group’s tax filings, the news outlet
noted that last year’s spending dwarfed the $14 million it spent during
the previous election in 2016.

Although the Voter Participation
Center (VPC) does not explicitly campaign for specific candidates, it
targets younger voters, minorities and unmarried women – all of whom
traditionally favor Democrats but typically generate below-average

The group’s CEO Tom Lopach told The Hill it had delivered some 371
million pieces of mail over the 2020 election cycle, urging voters to
register for mail-in voting or to vote early. They also apparently sent
out another 300 million digital messages through ads and emails.

estimated that the group had brought in about 272,000 votes from people
who might not otherwise show up at polling stations – potentially
helping Biden secure his narrow victories in swing states like Arizona,
Wisconsin and Georgia.

Since the group is a registered non-profit,
it is exempt from disclosing the sources of its funds – and Lopach did
not elaborate. He did, however, say the group had “strong support from foundations” and “organizations who believe in voter participation, and private individuals.”

Describing the VPC as being among a “constellation of dark money organizations,” The Hill reported that hundreds of millions of “dark money”
dollars flowed into the 2020 elections, both supporting and attacking
Biden and Donald Trump, as well as prominent congressional candidates.

group OpenSecrets, which tracks dark money in politics, has highlighted
over $30 million in such funding spent during the election. That figure
does not include funds from the VPC and other groups that have not
filed with the IRS – which is how much of the dark money in elections
only becomes publicly identified years later.

American Pravda – Giants Silenced by Pygmies – The Media Suppression of Our Leading Journalists and Scholars – by Ron Unz – 22 Nov 2021 – muunyayo


12,200 WORDS •

Glenn Greenwald andThe Intercept

During the height of the NSA disclosures a few years ago, Glenn Greenwald probably ranked as the world’s most famous journalist, and his entire career had seemed something out of a left-liberal storybook.

Becoming disenchanted with his corporate law career at a top firm, he co-founded a small practice specializing in First Amendment issues, then started a personal blog denouncing the civil liberties violations of the Bush Administration. He gained such recognition for his insightful commentary that he was hired bySalon, the premier leftist webzine, and a couple of years later was recruited by the liberalGuardian, then at the height of its international reputation. His high-profile writings on governmental abuses drew the attention of Edward Snowden, the young NSA whistleblower, who offered him the story of a lifetime, complete with its James Bond flourishes in Hong Kong, and worldwide…

View original post 12,020 more words

Election results may be canceled in Berlin — RT World News

Some voters in Germany’s capital, Berlin, may have to re-cast
their ballots after the country’s federal election czar filed an
official complaint over irregularities in a parliamentary vote held two
months ago.
The election – which saw
Berliners decide the makeup of the German parliament, the Bundestag, as
well as select city representatives – was marred by irregularities at
numerous polling stations, according to the official, Georg Thiel.

the most common problems were ballot shortages and long lines, with
waiting times of up to two hours. In some cases, voters were also seen
casting their ballots past a 6pm cutoff – the time when all polling
stations were supposed to have closed. Thiel, who was tasked with
overseeing elections at federal level, saw all of the above as reason
enough to raise an objection in the German capital, local media reported on Friday.

Thiel identified six Berlin constituencies where irregularities were
allegedly rampant, potentially setting the stage for a re-do election in
the city.

It is now up to a special Bundestag committee to
examine Thiel’s complaint and see if the reported violations ran afoul
of German law or electoral procedures. For the vote to be repeated,
however, at least one of those violations would have to be deemed
serious enough to have affected the distribution of seats in the

The September 26 election saw outgoing Chancellor
Angela Merkel’s conservatives take a historic beating, with the Social
Democrats coming out on top. The Social Democratic Party (SPD) has been
engaged in coalition talks with the Greens and the Free Democratic Party
ever since, with the trio expected to announce a preliminary deal as
early as next week.

The Steele Dossier and the End of Shame In American Politics – JONATHAN TURLEY

The famous philosopher and mathematician Blaise
Pascal once declared that “the only shame is to have none.” The problem
with shame is that it requires a sense of guilt over one’s actions. In
the age of rage, there appear fewer and fewer actions that are beyond
the pale for politics. Take Adam Schiff and the Steele dossier. While even the Washington Post has admitted that it got the Russian collusion story wrong in light of the findings of Special Counsel John Durham,
House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff, D-Calif., is still
insisting that he was absolutely right to promote the discredited Steele
dossier. Schiff’s interview on NBC’s Meet the Press may be the final proof of the death of shame in American politics.

Schiff was one of the greatest promoters of the Steele dossier
despite access to briefings casting doubt about Steele and the
underlying claims. However, Schiff recently has attempted to defend
himself by claiming that Steele was a respected former spy and that he
was lied to by a Russian source.

Schiff told host Chuck Todd:

“I don’t regret saying that we should
investigate claims of someone who, frankly, was a well-respected British
intelligence officer. And we couldn’t have known, of course, years ago
that we would learn years later that someone who is a primary source
lied to him. [Igor] Danchenko lied to Christopher Steele and then lied
to the FBI. He should be prosecuted. He is being prosecuted. And I’ll
tell you this, if he’s convicted, he should not be pardoned the way
Donald Trump pardoned people who lied to FBI agents, like Roger Stone
and Mike Flynn. There ought to be the same standard in terms of
prosecuting the liars. But I don’t think there ought to be any pardon,
no matter which way the lies cut.”

Schiff’s spin is enough to cause permanent vertigo.

Some of us have spent years being pummeled for questioning the
obvious problems with the Steele dossier, including the long-denied
connection to the Clinton campaign. Schiff was the main voice swatting
down such criticism and his endorsements were treated as dispositive for
media from MSNBC to the Washington Post. After all, he was the chair of
the House Intelligence Committee and assured the public that our
criticisms were meritless and the dossier was corroborated.

Schiff’s spin, however, continues to deny the obvious about the Russian collusion scandal.

First, many would guffaw at the claim that Steele was and remains a
“well-respected British intelligence officer.” Soon after the dossier
was shopped to the FBI, British intelligence flagged credibility problems with Steele.
The FBI severed Steele as an asset. Even his own sources told the FBI
that Steele wildly exaggerated information and distorted intelligence.
Most recently, Steele went public with a laughable claim
that Michael Cohen, Trump’s former counsel, was lying to protect Trump
despite spending years trying to get Trump charged criminally.

Second, Schiff ignored repeated contradictions in Steele’s dossier as
well as evidence that the dossier was paid for and promoted by the
Clinton campaign. In 2017, even fired FBI agent Peter Strzok
admitted that “we are unaware of ANY Trump advisors engaging in
conversations with Russian intelligence officials” and “Steele may not
be in a position to judge the reliability of his subsource network.”
Schiff would have had access to some of this intelligence. Indeed, while
the Clinton campaign was denying that it funded the dossier, American intelligence knew that that was a lie. Indeed, until the Durham indictments, Schiff continued to defend the Russian collusion investigation and the Steele dossier.

Third, Schiff attempts to portray the sole problem with the Steele
dossier as Russian analyst Igor Danchenko. That is simply not true.
Schiff was long aware that there were allegations of misleading or false
information given by the FBI to the secret court. Indeed, the first
Durham conviction was of Kevin Clinesmith, the former FBI agent who
pleaded guilty. Schiff was aware that President
Barack Obama was briefed in 2017 that Hillary Clinton was allegedly
planning to manufacture a Russian collusion scandal — just days before the start of the Russian investigation. The dossier was riddled with disproven allegations.

Fourth, Schiff states that he merely sought to investigate
allegations. However, Schiff was one of the most active members fueling
the Russian collusion allegations. Indeed, when the Mueller
investigation found no proof of Russian collusion, Schiff immediately
went public to claim that he had evidence of collusion in his committee
files. It was meant to keep the scandal alive. Schiff has never produced his promised evidence of collusion.

While Schiff insists that he was just doing his due diligence in
pushing for an investigation, the claim is not only undermined by his
refusal to acknowledge obvious flaws in the dossier for years but his
opposition to the investigation by John Durham. Indeed, while Schiff
insists that he is glad to see people like Danchenko prosecuted, he opposed the continuation of this and other investigations.

Schiff told MSNBC
that ongoing investigations would constitute “tearing down our
democracy” and would serve as a way to “delegitimize” a president.
Schiff denounced the Durham investigation as a “politically motivated” effort and resisted demands from Trump to issue a report before the election. Schiff raised the termination of the Durham investigation by Attorney General Garland before
Durham could issue any indictments or reports. He added “The
appointment is not consistent with the language of the statute that he’s
relying on and can be rescinded, I think, by the next attorney general.
I would presume the next attorney general will look to see if there is
any merit to the work that John Durham is doing.”

So Schiff is now heralding indictments by Durham despite the fact
that, if he had gotten his way, there would have been no Durham and no

The Russian collusion scandal was not some harmless political ploy.
Lives were destroyed. Carter Page, who was never charged with a single
crime, was labeled a Russian agent and pilloried
across networks and print media. A fortune was spent on investigations
by Congress, two special counsels, and inspectors general
investigations. Hundreds of people faced questioning and many spent
their savings on legal representation. A presidency was derailed,
agencies like the Justice Department and the FBI were whiplashed by
scandal, and Congress dropped a myriad of other issues to focus on
various investigations.

In the wake of those costs, Schiff offers little more than a shrug.

Many have long marveled at the incapacity for shame in politicians.
That missing emotion was most famously captured by lawyer Joseph Welch
in the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954: “Have you no shame, sir, at long
last? Have you no shame?” The answer is that we now live in a post-shame
era where the only shame is yielding to the impulses of decency or
decorum. The Russian collusion scandal served its purpose and Adam
Schiff would be the first say that there is no shame in that.

TikTok users offered $300 to produce anti-ScoMo content for Labor campaign | The Wentworth Report

TikTok users offered $300 to produce anti-ScoMo content for Labor campaign. By Cam Wilson.

A marketing firm claiming to work for the Labor Party is offering to pay TikTok users to post anti-Scott Morrison sponsored content.

Crikey has obtained an email and campaign brief from Vocal Media, a small US-based based influencer marketing agency that has worked with other left-leaning political and non-for-profit organisations.

The email was sent to a TikTok user — this author — with the subject line “Paid TikTok Opportunity: Australian Labor Party”. The email offers $300 to make and post a TikTok video “based on the overarching theme of ‘Scott Morrison is too slow and always late’.”

A linked document titled “Australian Labor x VOCAL Creative Brief” lays out the goals for the creator: “This campaign aims to help shift the political discourse on TikTok […] …

(The brief is at the link).

Once they share a proof of concept, the agency will approve it and ask for a draft. Once that’s approved, Vocal Media will tell them when to post and pay them.

Unlabelled paid content on social media tires to get around true and tried election rules:

Nowhere does the brief discuss making a political authorisation or disclosing that this content is sponsored. Failure to authorise political content is a breach of election laws and can result in a penalty for up to $26,640 for an individual according to the Australian Electoral Commission.

Videos criticising or satirising the prime minister have racked up tens of millions of views on hashtags like #scomo and #scottmorrison. That includes content from the Australian Labor Party’s official TikTok account, which has 47,700 followers.

In the lead-up to last year’s US election, social media influencers on platforms like TikTok and Instagram were paid to produce political content.

While the federal government has paid influencers to produce sponsored content in the past, this is the first reported time that an Australian political party has reportedly offered to pay influencers to produce political material.

Consumer beware.

We all know which side of politics is going to benefit most from this.

Justified Shooting or Fair Game? Shooter of Ashli Babbitt Makes Shocking Admission – JONATHAN TURLEY

Here is my column in The Hill
on the recent interview of Lt. Michael Byrd who was the hitherto
unnamed Capitol Hill officer who shot Ashli Babbitt on January 6th. The
interview was notable in an admission that Byrd made about what he
actually saw . . . and what he did not see.

Here is the column:

“That’s my job.” Those three words summed up a controversial
interview this week with the long-unnamed officer who shot and killed
Ashli Babbitt on Jan. 6. Shortly after being cleared by the Capitol
Police in the shooting, Lt. Michael Byrd went public in an NBC interview, insisting that he “saved countless lives” by shooting the unarmed protester.

I have long expressed doubt over the Babbitt shooting, which directly
contradicted standards on the use of lethal force by law enforcement.
But what was breathtaking about Byrd’s interview was that he confirmed
the worst suspicions about the shooting and raised serious questions
over the incident reviews by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and, most recently, the Capitol Police.

Babbitt, 35, was an Air Force veteran and ardent supporter of former President Trump.
She came to Washington to protest the certification of the presidential
Electoral College results and stormed into the Capitol when security
lines collapsed. She had no criminal record but clearly engaged in
criminal conduct that day by entering Capitol and disobeying police
commands. The question, however, has been why this unarmed trespasser
deserved to die.

When protesters rushed to the House chamber, police barricaded the
chamber’s doors; Capitol Police were on both sides, with officers
standing directly behind Babbitt. Babbitt and others began to force
their way through, and Babbitt started to climb through a broken
window. That is when Byrd killed her.

At the time, some of us familiar with the rules governing police use of force raised concerns over
the shooting. Those concerns were heightened by the DOJ’s bizarre
review and report, which stated the governing standards but then seemed
to brush them aside to clear Byrd.

The DOJ report did not read like any post-shooting review I have read as a criminal defense attorney or law professor. The DOJ statement notably
does not say that the shooting was clearly justified. Instead, it
stressed that “prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer
used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer
did so ‘willfully.’” It seemed simply to shrug and say that the DOJ did
not believe it could prove “a bad purpose to disregard the law” and
that “evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic,
misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the
high level of intent.”

While the Supreme Court, in cases such as Graham v. Connor,
has said that courts must consider “the facts and circumstances of each
particular case,” it has emphasized that lethal force must be used only
against someone who is “an immediate threat to the safety of the
officers or others, and … is actively resisting arrest or attempting to
evade arrest by flight.” Particularly with armed assailants, the standard governing “imminent harm” recognizes that these decisions must often be made in the most chaotic and brief encounters.

Under these standards, police officers should not shoot unarmed
suspects or rioters without a clear threat to themselves or fellow
officers. That even applies to armed suspects who fail to obey orders.
Indeed, Huntsville police officer William “Ben” Darby recently
was convicted for killing a suicidal man holding a gun to his own head.
Despite being cleared by a police review board, Darby was prosecuted,
found guilty and sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though Darby said
he feared for the safety of himself and fellow officers. Yet law
professors and experts who have praised such prosecutions in the past
have been conspicuously silent over the shooting of an unarmed woman who
had officers in front of and behind her on Jan. 6.

Byrd went public soon after the Capitol Police declared “no further action will be taken” in the case. He proceeded to demolish the two official reviews that cleared him.

Byrd described how he was “trapped” with other officers as “the
chants got louder” with what “sounded like hundreds of people outside of
that door.” He said he yelled for all of the protesters to stop: “I
tried to wait as long as I could. I hoped and prayed no one tried to
enter through those doors. But their failure to comply required me to
take the appropriate action to save the lives of members of Congress and
myself and my fellow officers.”

Byrd could just as well have hit the officers behind Babbitt, who was shot while struggling to squeeze through the window.

Of all of the lines from Byrd, this one stands out: “I could not
fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions
are.” So, Byrd admitted he did not see a weapon or an immediate threat
from Babbitt beyond her trying to enter through the
window. Nevertheless, Byrd boasted, “I know that day I saved countless
lives.” He ignored that Babbitt was the one person killed during the riot. (Two protesters died of natural causes and a third from an amphetamine overdose; one police officer died the next day from natural causes, and four officers have committed suicide since
then.) No other officers facing similar threats shot anyone in any
other part of the Capitol, even those who were attacked by rioters armed
with clubs or other objects.

Legal experts and the media have avoided the obvious implications of the two reviews in
the Babbitt shooting. Under this standard, hundreds of rioters could
have been gunned down on Jan. 6 — and officers in cities such as Seattle
or Portland, Ore., could have killed hundreds of violent protesters who
tried to burn courthouses, took over city halls or occupied police
stations during last summer’s widespread rioting. In all of those
protests, a small number of activists from both political extremes
showed up prepared for violence and pushed others to riot. Many violent
protesters wear backpacks but officers are not allowed to just shoot
them in case they contain bombs or other devices.

According to the DOJ’s Byrd review, officers in those cities would
not have been required to see a weapon in order to use lethal force in
defending buildings. Just as Byrd was apparently authorized to shoot
Babbitt as the first person through the window, he presumably could have
shot the next ten or more persons. Likewise, in cities like Portland,
police could have shot dozens protesters trying to take over police
stations and courthouses, including many wearing backpacks.

Politico reported that
Byrd previously was subjected to a disciplinary review when he left his
Glock 22 service weapon in a bathroom in the Capitol Visitor Center
complex. He reportedly told other officers that his rank as a lieutenant
and his role as commander of the House chambers section would protect
him and that he expected to “be treated differently.”

In the Babbitt shooting, the different treatment seems driven more by
the identity of the person shot than the shooter. Babbitt is considered
by many to be fair game because she was labeled an “insurrectionist.”
To describe her shooting as unjustified would be to invite accusations
of supporting sedition or insurrection. Thus, it is not enough to
condemn her actions (as most of us have done); you must not question her

Like many, I condemned the Jan. 6 riot (along with those who fueled the unhinged anger that led to the violence) as the desecration of our Capitol and our constitutional process. But that doesn’t mean rioting should be treated as a license for the use of lethal
force, particularly against unarmed suspects. The “job” of officers, to
which Byrd referred, often demands a courage and restraint that few of
us could muster. As shown by every other officer that day, it is a job
that is often defined by abstinence from rather than application of
lethal force. It was the rest of the force who refrained from using
lethal force, despite being attacked, that were the extraordinary
embodiments of the principles governing their profession.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law
at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.