11
PorchLightOn 11 points ago +13 / -2

I've never liked Hannity. I don't watch him.

That said, this article is from a site that leans left, quoting a letter from the Jan 6th committee to Ivanka Trump. It mentions a five point plan that Hannity sent to Trump. It only lists the first one, and cuts the second point off in mid-sentence.

Just saying, we're reacting here to an edited excerpt that the Jan 6th committee is choosing to share. We know who they are. They want to divide everyone on the right and undermine Trump's support.

Letter they sent to Ivanka is here, Hannity excerpts on p. 7: https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/2022-1-20.BGT%20Letter%20to%20Ivanka%20Trump%20-%20Cover%20Letter%20and%20Enclosures_Redacted%202.pdf

I've never liked Hannity. I don't watch him. I do watch what the left feeds us.

1
PorchLightOn 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thanks, that's another layer deeper into insidious deception than I was thinking. I can see your point about that vulnerability.

1
PorchLightOn 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's a really good point. The voter would need to have some proof that linked to their ballot...but wouldn't the unique ballot ID in gunteh's proposal (retained by the voter) be the proof required to substantiate their claims?

Somebody a lot smarter than me is going to have to design this system, and figure out how to make it mostly villain-proof. The more reading I try to do about this, the more I keep returning to paper ballots, one day of voting, no machines, and fingers dipped in purple ink.

1
PorchLightOn 1 point ago +1 / -0

I remember now, and thanks for jogging my memory. And I can see your point about other ways to alter big numbers of ballots behind the curtain, regardless of what the voter is shown. Being able to track and remove the ballots that arrived in problem envelopes would be a huge improvement.

But also... if it was easy in every state for voters to see that their vote wasn't recorded correctly, the election officials would have the wrath of the public on their hands. Given absolute proof that their votes had been screwed with, even a small number of outraged citizens could make the lives of their legislators pretty unbearable. I sure would. After 2020, I wouldn't underestimate the reaction from those who felt they'd been robbed again.

Even if we can't have a way for citizens to see which candidates they voted for, on a ballot review, there ought to be a way to force states to let people easily look up their method of voting and date of voting. So if I voted in person on the 3rd, but it showed I voted by mail a week earlier, I could see it. Or if I voted, but no vote was recorded in my name, I could see it. Some states have the ability to provide some of this information online, others don't. That seems like a legit starting point, and it wouldn't require a redesign of the ballot system.

13
PorchLightOn 13 points ago +13 / -0

Chickens don't like cold weather. In Arizona, chicken farms sometimes spontaneously combust from trying to keep the chickens warm.

5
PorchLightOn 5 points ago +5 / -0

I thought it was odd that the AG would be involved in this process too...but if it's correct that the third IT professional has any connection to American Oversight, Brnovich actually did us a favor by nixing that one.

I think the special master, John Shadegg, should be embarrassed trying to pass off anyone connected to that litigation group as an independent IT professional for a supposedly unbiased third party review of the router info.

It makes me wonder how bad the first two choices are, as you said. The fix may well be in, already, and some people thought that from the moment they saw John Shadegg was chosen. I keep hoping, but...it's not looking good.

5
PorchLightOn 5 points ago +5 / -0

She's not stupid. She's just not on our team. Like a lot of uniparty RINOs, she likes the appearance of doing the right thing for the people, but when push comes to shove, her real colors shine through. So frustrating.

4
PorchLightOn 4 points ago +4 / -0

Yes! Nick did a good job, and he used a lot fewer swear words than I would have.

The only thing I think he left out was John Shadegg trying to hire an IT guy with connections to American Oversight (and Shadegg was Fann's choice to be special master.) What more proof do we need, of Shadegg's intentions in this stupid agreement, as well as Karen Fann's.

I have to admit my blood pressure was over the top with her very first comment. Asked what she hoped to accomplish in this legislative session, all she said was she "hoped to get out with the least amount of blood as possible." That's a terrible answer for someone who's already announced she won't run again, and whose family has benefited financially from this idiotic MCBOS agreement. I guess I should give her credit for being honest?

There are over two dozen election integrity bills to be discussed in this legislative session, submitted by many different lawmakers. She could have mentioned some of those bills, but I think she just has her eye on the glowing EXIT sign.

4
PorchLightOn 4 points ago +4 / -0

You're right, the litigation group connected to the third IT candidate is American Oversight. That's the group that sued the AZ Senate and Cyber Ninjas, starting back in May of 2021, leading to the release of audit records by the Senate. And, because he wouldn't release his own company's records, leading to the $50K per day fine for Doug Logan. American Oversight is suing every almost audit in the country, demanding they release all of their records, including Gableman's investigation in WI. They exist to obliterate Trump and to make audits impossible.

In short, if John Shadegg, the "special master," really thought it was a good idea to hire an IT guy with connections to American Oversight, he's a brain dead RINO, and Fann chose him for this role. It's really completely damning of both Shadegg and Fann, in my opinion, and it convinces me this whole stupid agreement has been nothing but a complete sham from the start.

I'm a little overheated, I guess it shows.

1
PorchLightOn 1 point ago +1 / -0

Good question about O'Donnell (or others) republishing the raw data after they've purchased it; I don't know. I found a spreadsheet that lists specific information about accessing voter registration lists in each state, and it says WI law doesn't impose any restrictions on the use of data, as long as it's non-commercial.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QFidvrRNy3o3jOwLGxFtEyQBkF8PPslUClf0L6Om8xo/edit#gid=0

The difference in costs per state is fascinating. Some states have no fee, and many have a small cost. Only a handful of states charge as much or more than Wisconsin. Looks like Alabama may be the highest; they charge $.01 per record, and that comes out to over $36K.

2
PorchLightOn 2 points ago +2 / -0

Thanks for this. The only good thing I can think of is, the RINOs are being increasingly identified. I don't know if it's happening fast enough, but it would be even worse if these people were all still able to hide, pretending to represent the wishes of the people.

Videos like this can also convince people to send donations to support the MAGA candidates in other states.

1
PorchLightOn 1 point ago +1 / -0

I appreciate your thoughts on what O'Donnell reported! I agree about his strong background. I have no background in this stuff, but the database seems purposefully chaotic. I guess I can understand how the mess was created, if separate county databases were dumped into one, in 2006. But I suspect the Uniparty elected officials in power in WI have discovered a benefit to leaving it in a complete mess for the last 16 years.

The screechy negative woman in black would be Dem Representative Lisa Subeck, from Madison. http://www.lisasubeck.com/about-1.html Wouldn't you think she'd care about the state of the voter rolls, for the sake of her state? Of course not.

I just figured out that Jeffrey O'Donnell posts on Telegram as ALoneRaccoon, and I found his website, with a written report of what he presented on Dec 8. I'm really sorry I didn't have this before; I could have saved you time watching annoying videos. These hearings are a real pain to wade through.

https://magaraccoon.com/docs/wisconsin1.pdf

https://magaraccoon.com/docs/wisconsin2.pdf

I think the WEC is pretty embattled right now. They're the same six people that have criminal charges filed against them by the Racine County Sheriff, for illegally suspending the WI special voting deputy rule ("due to Covid.") Normally the state sends officials to care facilities to help residents vote, but in 2020 the WEC decided that employees and administrators of nursing homes would have to "help" elderly residents fill out their ballots, and mail them in. Including Alzheimer's patients. Families were horrified to learn how their parents were "assisted" in voting.

And, the same six people that were responsible for deciding on their own to advise WI clerks to install illegal ballot drop boxes, even though state law does not allow for them. A judge in Waukesha just ruled that can't happen again, until the legislature writes it into law.

Knowing that, I'm not a bit surprised that they're happy to maintain a voter database in a manner that allows someone to randomly insert phantom voters, with very little risk those fake voters could be easily detected.

Rep Brandtjen is doing a good job of outing the fraud. She and Rep. Ramthun care about election integrity. Ramthun just went public with the info that Republican Speaker Robin Vos was actually behind the approval of the illegal drop boxes. In revenge, Vos just stripped Ramthun of all of his staff. Revenge of the RINOs!

2
PorchLightOn 2 points ago +2 / -0

One of ID.me's products is a system to track proof of vaccinations and test results for your organization: https://www.id.me/business/vaccine-id

With Vaccine ID, businesses can track which employees are cleared to enter the workplace and individuals can gain access to the places that matter to them.

2
PorchLightOn 2 points ago +2 / -0

Thanks for writing that out. I think u/ThurstonHowell3rd offered a similar idea in one of Professor Oak's audit threads, a while back.

I read your comment a bunch of times, and there seems to be an illogical part of my brain that keeps telling me there's no way to design a system that assigns an ID to my ballot that couldn't be misused by bad guys with endless dollars. (But I also have a feeling I need to calm down, and think the process through slowly a few more times.)

I do think even a brilliant and relatively foolproof system will be hard to sell to the general public, at this point. So even if it's technically simple (to people whose brains are better oiled than mine) it would be an interesting challenge to persuade voters who now feel like everything presented to them is some kind of pre-rigged game.

That's really a horrible consequence of election fraud. We lose our votes, and we lose our faith, all at the same time. Ironic that loss of faith might keep us more vulnerable to fraud, if we reject truly good ideas. I'll going to do more reading about this.

3
PorchLightOn 3 points ago +3 / -0

I completely agree about the need for constant, increased pressure. It is a tall order to get elected officials to do anything.

I'd love to see a system that allows people to review their own physical ballot after the election. I can't figure out how this can be done with our current system, though, because of the tradition of the secret vote. Once your vote leaves the envelope, it can't ever be traced back to you. Maybe it's time to change that system?

5
PorchLightOn 5 points ago +5 / -0

Regarding why this info may be surfacing, canvassing can be done by anyone that wants to get organized and do it (no legal permission required from anyone.) So I'm guessing we're seeing results from smallish groups of citizens that are fed up with the fraud, and canvassing in their own area. I'd take it as a good sign that public awareness of the fraud is growing. The pushback is going to have to come from the people (it's obvious most AZ legislators aren't interested in taking serious action.)

6
PorchLightOn 6 points ago +6 / -0

I'm trying to find out which group did this latest canvassing, to see if they've published any kind of a written report.

From the clip: Epshteyn is saying the canvassers knocked on 750 doors, and got 350 opens (talked to the residents.)

Of those 350 opens, 38% of the interviews turned up information from the residents that didn't match the info on the voter rolls.

For example, the residents are shown as having voted in the Pima county voter 2020 records, but the residents say they did not vote.

Or, the residents are asked if "John Brown" lives at this address, and they say no, they don't know John Brown. But John Brown is on the rolls as having voted, from that same address, in 2020.

I'd like to see the report to get more detail. Another category could be, there's a prior resident from that address still on the voter rolls. Or, maybe the resident said they voted in person, but the voter roll shows they voted by mail.

1
PorchLightOn 1 point ago +1 / -0

You're so right, I had completely forgotten about that stupid lawsuit over replacing the election equipment. I think my brain is starting to erase one lawsuit from my memory, for every new one I have to absorb. I was never cut out to remember this legal stuff!

You're probably right about this being another way to funnel more money to Dominion, and to give Fann another pretend reason for slamming the door on getting the router/log info to Ben Cotton. I haven't seen any info that the process with Shadegg ever went anywhere...seems to have fallen out of existence, I guess.

3
PorchLightOn 3 points ago +3 / -0

I took these notes from listening to the three hour video of the Rep. Brandtjen's hearing; testimony by Jeff O'Donnell, Jay Valentine, and John Eastman.

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx7zhjCbN20

If that video gets pulled down, it's also in Moseder's Locals group (I think you need a free Locals account) https://exposure.locals.com/post/1570480/1-19-22-campaign-and-elections-committee-jeff-odonnell-jay-valentine-dan-eastman?cid=3238918

This is the second appearance for O'Donnell at a hearing, with his findings about the oddities of the WI voter registration database. I think the info he presented in his first December 8 appearance was more organized. Might be a better starting point. I'll go find that video and edit this post with another link.

Edit: Here's a link to O'Donnell's original testimony on Dec 8. The first part of the video I linked above is mostly his response to the rebuttal statements by WEC (his Dec 8 comments caused a bit of a stir, so they modified their website.) O'Donnell starts talking at about 23 minutes in: https://rumble.com/vqg2vd-assembly-committee-on-campaigns-and-elections-12-8-2021.html

And here's the WEC explanation for some of the issues raised by O'Donnell on Dec 8: https://elections.wi.gov/faq/2020

2
PorchLightOn 2 points ago +2 / -0

Welcome, fren! I stumbled on this group right after Trump won in 2016 (looking for ammo to argue with lefties.) You couldn't pry me away from this smart and funny of patriots. It was such a relief to find this place.

Not a spring chicken either, and we juggle health issues. NM is changing for the worse, so we'll see. Be of good cheer, and take good care of yourself. Since I don't have grandkids of my own, I will think of yours when I go cast my votes later this year. I think we're in a tough spot, but I'm still banking on the American people in the long haul. Lots of them feel like we do.

5
PorchLightOn 5 points ago +5 / -0

Wisconsin voter ID numbers aren't all the same length. Some are 7,8, or 9 characters long. Supposedly they're "alphanumeric", but some are all numbers; some consist of a single letter; some are punctuation; some are dates.

They're not sequential. So somebody who registered to vote in Wisconsin in 1980 might come after someone who registered to vote in 2020. Also, for the ones that are numerical, there are big gaps with no voters assigned to available numbers.

The analysts said all of this makes the database impossible to audit. It's somewhat searchable (you can find Bob Smith at a certain address, etc) but it's almost impossible to do many kinds of normal database sorts.

Wisconsin (like some states) doesn't ever remove voters from the voter rolls. They just make them inactive, instead of active. So one has to wonder, how hard is it to toggle people between active, and inactive?

There are voters with multiple voter ID numbers. The difference might be one letter in the name, with everything else (registration date, address, birthdate, etc) the same. And in 2020, many of these people voted with both voter ID numbers. Same thing with hyphenated names, or maiden/married names. More than one voter ID number, and in the Nov 2020 election, both voted.

There are hundreds of thousands of people with default voter registration dates like the year 1900, with no effort to correct or update these records.

The WEC says the database is this way because the state didn't have a unified voter registration database until 2006; individual counties all kept their information in different manners. But even newly created voter IDs don't have the same number of characters. Nobody can explain to the data analysts why this is.

The WEC refers to this as a "coded database" and implies it's not a problem, because their people understand how it works. The attorney and analysts say they've never seen another state with a database like this one, and they say outside auditors need to be brought in to fix the problems.

9
PorchLightOn 9 points ago +9 / -0

Marcus Dee streamed the whole 3 hour meeting on Youtube yesterday. It's still up, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx7zhjCbN20

You can also watch it in his Locals group (I think you need a free Locals account) https://exposure.locals.com/post/1570480/1-19-22-campaign-and-elections-committee-jeff-odonnell-jay-valentine-dan-eastman?cid=3238918

Rep Janel Brandtjen chairs the WI Campaigns and Elections Committee, and she invited two data analysts and an attorney to testify about their findings, after examining the WI voter registration database.

Jay Valentine, Jeff O'Donnell, and John Eastman all made presentations. The state of Wisconsin charges $12,500 to get a copy of the voter registration database. Eastman's clients paid a total of $46K to get access to that and other databases, including the absentee ballots cast database, so they could do an analysis. The Wisconsin Election Commission doesn't want anyone seeing what a dumpster fire their database is.

view more: Next ›