AZ throws a Hail Satan’s Mommy

As evidence of fraud is presented at the #ArizonaHearing, the Secretary of State certifies the election.

That’s a bold move, Cotton. We’ll see how it turns out for them. What evidence of fraud? If you’re on SocialGalactic, you may recall that I wrote this one week ago on November 23rd:

Here is the smoking gun. A single example of an internet packet containing election data being transmitted to a server outside the United States. That’s it. That’s all the evidence that is required to blow apart all the skeptics’ denials.

And what came out in the Arizona hearing today? The testimony of one US Army Colonel Phil Waldron,  a cyber security expert.

SpiderFoot reconnaissance” tool tracked Dominion Voting Systems revealing vulnerabilities, volume-metric traffic & webserver coordinates confirming it was connected to the Internet. Packet Traffic was observed from US TO FRANKFURT.

Specifically, to a Scytl server in Frankfurt Germany. Done. Done, demolished, and dusted.

The Terminator of viruses

The real problem with Covid-19 clearly isn’t its virulence or its lethality so much as its inexorable commitment.

Doctors and nurses in Italy are astounded at the resilience of one Maria Orsingher, a 101-year-old who has lived through the Spanish Flu, the Second World War, and who has now survived Covid-19… three times.

Orsingher first tested positive back in the early days of the pandemic in February. “In February, mother was hospitalized in Sondalo and then also the doctor of the hospital in Sondalo, where she was treated, told us that she had never had such an elderly person come out of the coronavirus in this way, she was breathing alone and not he had a fever,” says daughter Carla.

Having recovered, the centenarian then celebrated her 101st birthday in July. Unfortunately, she was then hospitalized with a fever in September, at which point she tested positive for the disease a second time and underwent treatment for 18 days. Medical staff were amazed at her resilience and told local media the hospitalization was mostly precautionary. 

Alas, the coronavirus came for her one more time, as she tested positive again last Friday. 

Covid vs Sig. Orsingher is the Godzilla vs Mothra of 2020. 

We’re not dealing with geniuses here

It appears that little post-election update Dominion did on its GA servers might not have been thoroughly tested.

Officials in Fulton County, Georgia, said a Dominion Voting Systems mobile server crashed on Sunday, delaying a recount requested by President Trump.

“Technicians from Dominion have been dispatched to resolve the issue,” Fulton County officials said in a statement reported by WXIA-TV, a local NBC affiliate. “The Georgia Secretary of State’s office has also been alerted to the issue and is aware of efforts to resolve the problem.”

Fulton County officials told the outlet that a newly purchased Dominion mobile server crash was to blame. The Washington Examiner reached out to Dominion for comment.

Dominion, a leading voting machine company whose products are used in several states, has been the focus of voter fraud claims by Trump and his allies. Sidney Powell, an attorney from whom the Trump legal team distanced themselves in recent days, has a federal lawsuit alleging widespread voter fraud in Georgia, and she claims that state officials, including Gov. Brian Kemp, were bribed to be part of a conspiracy with Dominion to tilt the election in President-elect Joe Biden’s favor.

This is devolving into pure comedy now.

UPDATE: It keeps getting better. The server didn’t crash. It’s been reported missing.

Georgia to wipe voting machines tomorrow

That’s certainly not at all suspicious… especially when a District Court judge is going to permit them to try erasing the evidence by overturning his previous order (PDF) issued less than an hour earlier to freeze all Dominion voting machines:

Plaintiffs contend that Union County officials have advised that they are going to wipe or reset the voting machines of all data and bring the count back to zero on Monday, November 30.

On this basis, Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order to impound and preserve the voting machines in the State of Georgia, and to prevent any wiping of data. However, Plaintiffs’ request fails because the voting equipment that they seek to impound is in the possession of county election officials. Any injunction the Court issues would extend only to Defendants and those within their control, and Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that county election officials are within Defendants’control.

Defendants cannot serve as a proxy for local election officials against whom the relief should be sought. Jacobson v. Fla. Sec’y of State, 974 F.3d 1236, 1256–58 (11th Cir. 2020). Therefore, to the extent Plaintiffs seek emergency relief to impound and preserve the voting machines, that request is denied.

The GA election officials and the District Court judge are really doubling down here, especially in light of the Federal requirements concerning election data. The criminal penalties for not providing that data must be worse than whatever the machines would reveal. But realistically, I doubt it matters very much, because the Trump administration and the NSA almost certainly have it all already.

Before you get all heated up or start spiraling over this, just stop and think about what’s happening for a second. Do you really think the election officials, or the judges, would be taking the very obvious and very obviously suspicious steps they are taking if they believed they were in a strong position? To me, this looks like a desperate, last ditch, Hail Satan’s Mommy action.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media is reporting that “Sleepy Joe” Biden is heading for the hospital after suffering what may be a fatal ankle injury while playing with his dog this weekend.

UPDATE: The GNews guy who broke the Hunter Biden laptop story, complete with pictures, is now reporting that Joe Biden went to Mitch McConnell and offered to concede the Senate Majority Leader will guarantee that President Trump pardon him and his family. Which visit may account for that sudden ankle injury.

As I previously wrote, we’re not waiting for President Trump to concede. We’re waiting for Joe Biden to concede… while he still can.

UPDATE: My mistake. It appears the GA voting machine wiping is still on for tomorrow. Not that it will do them any good.

UPDATE: Okay, NOW the same District Court Judge has issued a third order. The voting machine wiping is off again.

UPDATE: Looks like someone is going to concede soon.

Biden has “hairline fractures” in his mid-foot and will “likely require a walking boot for several weeks.” 

A walking boot. Quelle surprise. Not even a black eye will save him now.

UPDATE: President Trump tweets “Get well soon!” He knows.

The black magic of corporate tyranny

It has taken a long time, but conservatives are finally beginning to comprehensively reject the idea that corporacracy is capitalism. And Alex Macris contemplates how corpocracy can become a form of legalized tyranny that deftly eludes the constitutional protections previously enjoyed by Americans:

If you’ve read the Parable of the Seasteader, you’ll already know that at sufficient scale the public/private distinction collapses — a private entity of sufficient size can have all the power of a public entity. It is certainly arguable that Facebook and Google have reached such size. Here, however, I want to discuss a different dilemma – government’s use of private entities to regulate freedoms it cannot directly abridge.

We’re going to look at one specific right (the right to free speech) and one specific set of Federal regulations (§ 1604.11) but the pattern I’m describing here has become ubiquitous in our country. Nowadays, almost anything government is forbidden to regulate, it can require corporations to regulate for it. The government has outsourced tyranny. Let’s see how this black magic is performed….

Government cannot regulate your expression of your viewpoint – but corporations can.

Most people understand that the First Amendment does not apply to private actors on their private property. A person or corporation can choose to allow free speech in their home or business, or can choose to regulate free speech, even viewpoints, as they deem. This “exception” to the First Amendment has been the case since the foundation of Anglo-American law, and it is absolutely necessary to protect the rights of property owners.

For instance, if I am running a bicycle shop, I am absolutely permitted to prevent my employees from putting up posters that say “bicycles suck” or telling my customers to “buy a scooter.” Likewise, if I am running a video game news site, I am absolutely permitted to tell my journalists not to write about the beauties of Sistine Chapel instead. And if I invite you to my home to binge-watch Babylon 5, and you express the offensive viewpoint that Star Trek is better, I am altogether within my rights to make you leave.

Admittedly, there have been occasional exceptions to this rule under the so-called state actor doctrine. Most notably, the US Supreme Court ruled in Marsh v Alabama (1946) that the First Amendment fully applied to expressive activities on the company-owned sidewalks and streets of a company-owned town. The precedent of Marsh v Alabama was expanded in Amalgamated Food Employees Union v Logan Valley Plaza (1968) then overturned in Hudgens v NLRB (1976). Since Hudgens, the state actor doctrine has waned in importance, despite numerous conservative efforts to sue online platforms.

We will put aside the so-far toothless Section 230 for a discussion another day. In general, private corporations can regulate the expression of viewpoints, even though government cannot, and that’s the law.

In Fact, Private Abridgment Is Often Required!

What most people don’t understand, however, is that private actor aren’t just free to regulate viewpoint. They are required by government to regulate viewpoints. What a paradox! Government can require a private actor to undertake regulation over speech that the government couldn’t itself take? Yes!

There is more, there is a lot more, there for the reading

A warning, not a concession

 The President issues a veiled warning to the Supreme Court:

President Donald Trump acknowledged his vanishing path to overturning the results of the 2020 election in court on Sunday during his first full interview since losing to President-elect Joe Biden earlier this month.

“Well, the problem is, it’s hard to get into the Supreme Court,” Trump said on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures,” after host Maria Bartiromo asked him when he expected his challenges to make it to the justices. “I’ve got the best Supreme Court advocates, lawyers, that want to argue the case, if it gets there. They said, ‘It’s very hard to get a case up there,’” Trump added. “Can you imagine, Donald Trump, president of the United States, files a case, and I probably can’t get a case.”

Trump said that his cases, which legal experts have described as far-fetched, should make it to the high court, but did not predict that they would.

“It sounds like if you can’t be heard by the Supreme Court, you lose. Do you believe you will win this?” Bartiromo asked at one point.

“We should be heard by the Supreme Court. Something has to be able to get up there, otherwise, what is the Supreme Court?” Trump said.

Apparently neither an obstacle or a path to victory. That sounds a bit like… a splashing sound? And this was an interesting choice of words in the article.

Trump also insisted that he can prove the voting machines were used by Democrats to fraudulently win the election for Biden – but he did not yet offer any solid evidence. 

So, he knows he can prove it, but hasn’t offered any solid evidence – yet. Which means they know he can prove it too. My guess is that they are assuming he will cuck and concede rather than break the system they have corrupted, and the court rulings are essentially one big call of his bluff.

But I think President Trump loves America too much to lay down his arms rather than cross the Rubicon if that’s what is required. And greatness is never achieved without risk.

UPDATE: Some people have been saying that they thought Trump sounded defeated in the interview, or at least lacking in his usual high energy. I suspect he is just frustrated that his enemies are stubbornly pushing him to the point where he has to destroy them instead of simply defeating them. If, as I believe, he knows he is holding all the cards, he finds it hard to believe that they are stupid and stubborn enough to insist on playing through the charade.

But one thing I have learned is that evil is not really stupid. Foolish and short-sighted, yes, but not exactly stupid. It has a certain animal cunning that gives it uncanny insight into the reluctance of its foes to finish it off. Evil doesn’t believe you can’t win, but it very sincerely believes you won’t choose to win, and therefore it will call your every bluff and ignore your every threat and warning, no matter how credible they might be.

This is the weakness of the good man. He wants a civil surrender, he doesn’t want to win a no-quarter war. He is reluctant to accept that the enemy always gets a vote and he doesn’t understand that evil men have always relied upon good men failing to do what they observably have the ability to do. Machiavelli, however, understood this.

Men do not know how to be either entirely wicked or entirely good… they do not know how to employ violent measures which are honourable in themselves, and as a result, remaining undecided, between their own indecision and their ambiguity they are eliminated.

Remember, this is how the president knew from the very start.

Sidney Powell Confirms Rumor Is True: Trump Was Watching The Fraud Happen In Realtime On Election Night From Eisenhower Building SCIF!

This is civil war

If what Gen. McInerney is saying is true, the US is already in a state of civil war:

Lt General Thomas McInerney and Lt General Michael Flynn gave interviews to WVW Broadcasting Network today. It was Flynn’s first interview since his pardon. In stunning testimony, McInerney stated his sources have told him U.S. Army Special Forces, possibly the famed Delta Force, raided the CIA-run server farm in Frankfurt, Germany.

5 soldiers were killed in the ensuing firefight, as well as one CIA paramilitary; the CIA personnel were allegedly flown in from Afghanistan for security, according to related news reports.

It is worth observing that is at least four more fatalities than were suffered by both sides combined at Fort Sumter. Of course, it’s only technically civil war, since the CIA is loyal to the globalists, not to the American nation.

A review of the PA Supreme Court decision

I asked the lawyer who previously reviewed Sidney Powell’s GA filing to look at the recent PA Supreme Court ruling. He graciously consented to share his thoughts, which follow.

So here’s my brief take on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decision. The usual disclaimers in this case are that I do not practice in Pennsylvania State courts, nor is election law my typical case. Nonetheless, several things stand out to me.

Before addressing those issues, let me clarify a few things. Court decisions must be interpreted in light of several factors, not least of which is: 1) what is the court that is issuing the opinion; and 2) what is the relief sought?

In this case, it is a Pennsylvania state court and the plaintiff were seeking an order prohibiting certifying the results of the election. Both of these are significant. It is significant that it is a state court because state courts generally are not viewed as intellectually rigorous as federal courts. Further, federal courts are viewed, rightly or wrongly, as less partisan than state courts. Federal courts also can address federal and state issues while state courts are typically limited to state issues. There are exceptions but I’m not going to go into them now.

The remedy at this point is also significant. Generally speaking, there are two types of remedies: legal and equitable. Legal remedies are usually monetary damages after something has occurred. Equitable remedies are court orders to make someone act in a certain way, either to do something or refrain from doing something. At common law, legal and equitable courts were different. In most US courts, whether federal or state, they are merged.

So the original PA complaint starts by saying, “The amendments to the mail-in voting rules were not lawfully passed. So, this court should not allow mail-in votes that were authorized under those statutes.” There was a flurry of filings and activity at the beginning of this week about that. In the middle of it, the PA Secretary of State ‘certified’ the ballot. Once that was done, the defendants tried to claim that the case was moot, or that there was no need to go further. The trial court said, “No, there are several other things the Secretary of State has to do before the certification is proper so it is not moot.” 

The trial court judge is a Republican. PA as a state allows partisan elections for judges. The PA Supreme Court has 2 Republicans and 5 Democrats. The trial court judge ultimately found that the laws amending the mail-in ballots were not approved according to the rules for modifying PA statutes. So, she said, “You cannot count those votes.” The defendants appealed.

Here is where it gets interesting. At common law, equitable cases had a variety of doctrines and defenses that did not apply for legal remedies. As one example, one who seeks a suit in equity must come with ‘clean hands.’ So if you can show that the plaintiff engaged in illegitimate behavior, you can argue that the plaintiff should not get an equitable decision even if that decision might otherwise be justified.

Another equitable doctrine is ‘laches,’ which means that you have to timely act. It is a defense that essentially says, “Plaintiffs took too long to make their claim.” Note that a laches defense does not address the merits of the underlying argument. It is solely a procedural claim.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court relied upon laches and said, “This law went into effect a year ago and none of the Plaintiffs did anything about it.” The opinion notes that the plaintiffs did nothing upon the law’s passing. The PA Supreme Court says, “They waited until millions cast their vote” so they will not allow the suit to go forward.

However, there is another legal doctrine, one called ‘standing’. Standing simply means that you yourself have to suffered an injury. Think of environmental groups that try to stop the Navy from using sonar to map the ocean floor because the use of sonar damages whales and dolphins. Courts typically say, “Even if you are 100{3aedcb51dac2fbb83a885d32b07950f3050377138d02430f831f0a3ede84357a} right, you aren’t being injured. And you do not have the capacity to sue for the whales and dolphins. You do not have standing to bring suit.” And they then dismiss the suit. No joke. There are several reported decisions about this.

The key to laches it that the delay has to be unreasonable. So if you learn that your city is going to bulldoze a public playground where you take your children, you cannot wait until the playground is razed and they start putting up the apartment complex to file your suit. The PA Supreme Court, without any discussion of the merits, just said, “You’re too late. You lose.” The PA Supreme Court has 5 Dems and 2 Rs. The Rs concurred but said there should be a hearing about the problems with the votes. They essentially said, “Voiding every mail in ballot is too much right now so we would void the trial court order, but we would let the claims go forward and see where that leads.” Put another way, if the evidence shows that X{3aedcb51dac2fbb83a885d32b07950f3050377138d02430f831f0a3ede84357a} of the mail-in ballots were fraudulent, we would not oppose striking those ballots, but we aren’t going to grant a blank check at this stage of the game.”

Realistically, given current standing doctrine, there is no way Plaintiffs could have succeeded if they raised this challenge prior to this election. Any potential injury would be too speculative. That is, if they filed suit in December, 2019, the ruling from the court would have been “Plaintiffs challenge how this became law but Plaintiffs do not allege that they are injured in any way. Some of the Plaintiffs announce their intention to run for office but it is not clear whether they will or if they will succeed in the primaries or if any votes would go their way or not. Because they cannot point to an actual injury, they lack standing to assert these claims. Case dismissed.”

Further, if a law is unconstitutional for whatever reason, it can be challenged at any given time. Constitutionality is like jurisdiction: one does not need to assert it to preserve it. So even if a case is tried and lost, you can raise jurisdiction on appeal and argue for the first time that the lower court had no jurisdiction. Not likely the best way to argue a case, and might have the courts thinking that such an argument is just a Hail Mary that won’t go anywhere, but arguing that the statute is unconstitutional will not be dismissed with a blithe “You’re too late” opinion from the court. 

So where does this leave the Plaintiffs? There is now nothing preventing them from seeking Supreme Court review. This does not mean that the Supreme Court will take it but it does mean that there are enough opinions that the Supreme Court can take it. Will they?

Maybe. It comes from a state Supreme Court on an incomplete record. The trial court had issued an order and was anticipating hearings that would develop evidence. That did not happen and the PA Supreme Court certainly did nothing to develop a factual record. But the trial court did consider the evidence before it (primarily affidavits) and relied upon that evidence to issue an injunction. The Supreme Court could pass on this case. That does not mean they agree with the PA Supreme Court. It could just mean that there is an insufficient factual record for them to adequately rule.

The U.S. Supreme Court could revive the injunction, send it to the trial court with an order for further evidence and delay a final ruling until the evidence is developed so the parties can know which ballots are a real problem and which cannot be verified. The Supreme Court could also issue a ruling that problematic ballots cannot be counted and remand the matter to a trial court to determine what mail-in ballots did not comply with PA laws prior to the enactment of their new mail-in-balloting scheme. 

There is a Third Circuit opinion that denied the Trump campaign’s petitions. That could be appealed as well. It could be that the Third Circuit case and this case are combined with directions on how to handle the PA issues.

Given the number of cases that are pending, I would bet that the USSC would take some type of case if for no other reason that it would give guidelines to lower courts, including appellate courts, for how to decide these cases in the future. In 2000, Bush v Gore was just the state of Florida. Here, we are dealing with Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona and Nevada. Those states have differing election laws and criteria. Realizing the challenging occurring elsewhere, it might be worthwhile for them to take PA now to issue rulings to guide other courts.

And if those other states are still in contention by December 8, those elections could be referred to their state legislatures for the legislature to appoint a board of electors.

I make no claim about what will happen. I know courts prefer to make as narrow ruling as possible, everything else considered. If the USSC can say, “PA’s rules about mail-in-ballots are not legitimate and so those votes cannot be counted,” that is far more limited than throwing out the whole election and they would prefer that if at all possible. Such a ruling could guide any number of states, including GA. Time is rapidly dwindling for courts to make a decision about whether they will decide the dispute or whether they will declare that state elections have not been decided and it goes to the state legislatures.

Until then, nunc pugnamus.

Unconstitutionality has a time limit?

Or so the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declares:

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Saturday rebuffed a long-shot election challenge Saturday from one of President Trump’s top boosters in Congress, balking at his suggestion that it throw out every ballot cast by mail or designate the state’s legislature to decide who won the state.

In a unanimous decision, the justices declared that U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly (R., Butler) and the seven Republican plaintiffs in the suit had waited too long to bring their lawsuit alleging that the 2019 law, passed by the state’s GOP-controlled legislature, which created no-excuse mail voting in the state for the first time was unconstitutional and “illegally implemented.”

Instead of filing it shortly after the passage of the bill, which was required in the statute, they waited until their candidate lost to challenge the mechanism by which some 2.6 million Pennsylvanians voted this year, the court wrote in a terse, three-page order.

I very, very much doubt that this is a surprise to the Trump team. Remember, wait two days…. It’s a bit strange, though. If the law flies in the face of the state constitution, then it presumably continues to do so regardless of when it is formally challenged. Does unconstitutionality really have a time limit?

A Democrat’s view of the GA filing

It is becoming apparent that the average Democrat is not necessarily inclined to buy the media’s Three Monkey approach to the fraud-related lawsuit filings, as this longtime Democrat and state election official’s review of the Powell lawsuit filed in GA indicates.

I’ve finished reviewing the Georgia filing and I have a few comments to share with the socialverse in my capacity as a 30-year registered Democrat, former Oregon state elections official (with policy and admin experience), and former CIO. 

I will not comment on the legal claims because, while I have familiarity with the law and court filings, I’m not a lawyer. I am also going to mostly stay away from alleged behaviors, too, as I wasn’t there and, anyway, they add color but are more open to dispute.

The original intent of the software code (acc’d to affidavits) was to manipulate votes without detection. When you start with one goal in mind, it’s tough to pivot to the opposite goal later—not matter how hard you might try. Not that it seems anyone tried … Absence of secure audit log (to record every action in the software) is so indefensible that I LOL’d when I read it. This fact alone should be enough to negate the results when there is ANY question about fraud because it cannot be proven that fraud DIDN’T occur.

Elections administration. Lawsuit alleges that many procedures required in state law—for good, common sense reasons to ensure the one voter, one ballot rule is adhered to—were not followed, including:

  • Receipt of absentee ballots in their return envelopes was not recorded (this reduces risk of ballot box stuffing, i.e., to ensure that only one real ballot has been submitted by one real voter)
  • Signatures were not verified against voter registration on return envelopes. There might be missing envelopes, too; it wasn’t clear to me in my reading or I missed it.
  • 8/12 Ballot processing is not allowed before Election Day in Georgia; in this election, by rule inconsistent with state law, SecState allowed counties to start 3 weeks early. Absent a rigid accountability processes, this risks double or counterfeit voting. Conducting one election with INTEGRITY is hard enough; when you overlay what is, in effect, a 2nd election (by mail) that has to be reconciled with what happens at the polls … this is very high risk … this “2 concurrent elections” risk was a primary argument for all elections being conducted by mail in Oregon, which was adopted after 20 years of practice with dual polling/mail elections—practice that none of these states whose elections are in question have had … 
  • Observers were not allowed during the original count or the recount. There is no defense for this and intrinsically implies that elections officials had something to hide.

There are other things to pick on, but these I cannot think of a way to defend and probably are sufficient to meet the apparent (according to the lawsuit) standard of “preponderance of the evidence” to “doubt the result.”