Electoral College officially confirms Joe Biden’s victory despite GOP picking ‘alternate’ electors to challenge the results
With 270 votes needed to win the presidential contest, Biden received 306 electoral votes while Trump received 232 electoral votes.
The official count of the electoral ballots will be conducted on Jan. 6 in a joint session in Congress.
While the official count of the Electoral College will likely end any legal challenge by the Trump campaign, Republicans are attempting to keep their chances alive by picking “alternate” electors from contested state and sending their ballots to Congress.
Meanwhile:
Read Newsmax: Audit Finds Mich. County's Dominion Voting Was Rigged to Create Fraud
A forensic audit of the presidential vote tally by Dominion Voting Systems software used in Antrim County, Michigan, showed a more than 68% error rate, with auditors claiming the system intentionally creates the errors so the machine can have them "adjudicated" – allowing individuals to change the result.
The error rate is astounding considering the Federal Election Commission allows a maximum error rate of just 0.0008 percent for computerized voting systems.
"We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results," the audit report prepared by Allied Security Operations Group read.
"The system intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors. The electronic ballots are then transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit trail."
+++
An LTE from a dear friend and fellow memo reader:
Domestically we can expect a wave of illegal immigrants who will be eligible for benefits including healthcare. That is a great idea as our federal debt approaches $28 trillion. And expect your energy bill to shoot up due to green policies. The good news is that if you make under $400,000 your taxes won't go up. Reminds me of, "You can keep your doctor".
So, Georgia, what do we do? Vote for Perdue and Loeffler in January. That will help to keep the country from going completely off the rails. G--
Thank You, Bill Barr
The Attorney General was the right man for the job in hyper-partisan times.
By The Editorial Board
Mr. Barr had already
been AG once so he didn’t need the title. He took the job in a Washington
marked by no-limits partisanship knowing that he would be criticized no matter
what he did. But he wanted to clean up a Justice Department that he rightly
knew had been tainted by a corrupt FBI under James Comey and political
appointees in both parties who lacked the courage or tenacity to take
responsibility for hard prosecutorial judgments.
His achievements
included navigating the end of the Robert Mueller probe while protecting the
office of the Presidency from unconstitutional conclusions about obstruction of
justice. Future Presidents of both parties will thank him.
He was willing to endure
media and Democratic smears by taking fresh looks at old investigations. This
included hiring U.S. Attorney John Durham to examine how the FBI could decide
to investigate the 2016 Trump campaign as a Russian front. His release of
documents has helped to show the FBI probe began in partisan scheming and
unlawful practices, and Mr. Durham is staying on the job and may have more to
report and indictments.
Mr. Barr also had the
guts to ask another U.S. Attorney, Jeffrey Jensen, to re-examine Mr. Mueller’s
prosecution of Michael Flynn. That probe turned up more malpractice and a decision
to dismiss charges that never should have been brought. Mr. Barr used the
lessons of these misguided probes to impose new rules and limits on political
investigations.
We disagreed with Mr.
Barr on the weak antitrust case against Google. But he has been a champion of
free speech and religious liberty when both are under attack by progressives.
His interventions on Covid-19 restrictions against houses of worship supported
lawsuits that have been vindicated at the Supreme Court and forced governors to
consider the First Amendment’s limit on their power.
Perhaps Mr. Barr’s
greatest contribution was speaking truth to Mr. Trump, who wanted his
tormentors prosecuted whether or not the evidence warranted. This resistance
chafed on Mr. Trump as Mr. Barr’s tenure went on, and especially when Mr.
Durham declined to bring indictments or leak evidence before the presidential
election. This was the right decision and shows Mr. Barr’s adherence to
principle.
Mr. Barr recently said
publicly that his investigators had not found enough evidence of voter fraud to
overturn the presidential election, which was true but infuriated Mr. Trump.
These run-ins influenced Mr. Barr’s decision to leave early. As has so often
been the case with this President and his advisers, Mr. Trump never appreciated
all that Mr. Barr did for his Presidency and the country.
And:
A Special Counsel Christmas for Hunter Biden
How a Joe Biden Justice Department could investigate Biden’s son.
Will Hunter Biden wake up to a special counsel in his Christmas stocking?
By William Mc Gurn
News reports say President Trump wants his attorney general to name one. The law says a special counsel is warranted in a criminal investigation when leaving it to the Justice Department presents “a conflict of interest.” It’s hard to imagine a more unambiguous conflict of interest than the one Hunter Biden presents: A Joe Biden Justice Department investigating his son over conduct that might also implicate the sitting president.
Even so, a special counsel is a bad idea.
Two weeks ago, Mr. Barr announced that in October he’d appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham as special counsel for the investigation into the origins of the FBI’s Russia-collusion probe. He did so to ensure Mr. Durham could finish his investigation regardless of the election outcome.
Alas, each time we give in to claims that the circumstances in this or that particular case must trump our normal skepticism about special counsels, it only invites calls for more. Now we are hearing them for Hunter Biden. David Rivkin, a constitutional lawyer who has served in the Justice Department and White House Counsel’s Office, explains the risks of not naming one:
“Given Bill Barr’s decision—properly driven by DOJ policies, to proceed extra cautiously with the Biden investigation during the election season—the failure to move forward vigorously with this investigation now would result in immunity for all involved. This would mean that running for President and winning effectively puts that person and his family above the law
Advocates for a special counsel also have a point when they ask why any attorney general investigating serious allegations against the son of a man who will soon be president shouldn’t use every tool at his disposal.
It isn’t a popular view, but the counterargument is that the special counsel’s insulation from the president’s normal executive authority still raises some of the same constitutional objections Justice Antonin Scalia raised in his magnificent 1988 dissent from in Morrison v. Olson. In that decision the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the now-expired law that allowed for the appointment of independent counsels.
The travesty of Bob Mueller’s appointment is a perfect expression of the dangers that remain even in its watered-down, special counsel successor. The Mueller investigation became an obsessive pursuit of its quarry, went on far longer than it should have, and strayed well beyond its original purpose. But unless the target is a Democrat, those on the left rarely take such complaints seriously. So Trump supporters might well ask where the concerns for constitutional norms and niceties were when their man was in the crosshairs?
The Bidens haven’t exactly made a good defense of themselves, either. At the last presidential debate, Joe Biden flatly told the American people Hunter hadn’t made any money in China. Sen. Ron Johnson, whose Homeland Security Committee is investigating the young Mr. Biden’s overseas dealings, is blunt: “Joe Biden has been caught in repeated lies over Biden Inc.”
Now that Mr. Biden has been elected president, surely it’s even more imperative the American people learn exactly what Hunter was trading, as well as what his father knew and when he knew it. Still, a special counsel isn’t the only way to get those answers.
If Joe Biden wishes to avoid beginning his presidency with a special counsel hanging over his administration, he could announce he will keep the U.S. attorney now leading the investigation into Hunter until he’s finished the job. Then he could promise the full cooperation of the Biden Justice Department.
This U.S. attorney wouldn’t enjoy all the privileges of a special counsel. Even so, like a special prosecutor—but without the infringements on the president’s proper authority—his appointment would make it harder for the incoming Biden administration to squelch the investigation. Allowing the current investigation to play out this way would further help restore the public’s confidence that Justice can be depended on to apply the law fairly and without favor.
It wouldn’t please all those demanding a special counsel. But unless the Bidens truly have something to hide—and Hunter insists an objective review will find he handled his affairs “legally and appropriately”—keeping the existing U.S. attorney on would guarantee the “objective review” he says he wants. And letting a Republican-appointed federal prosecutor complete this investigation would be an excellent way for Hunter’s father to show he’s serious about his pledge to look beyond party lines for ways to come together in the interests of our country.
A woman was at her
hairdresser's getting her hair styled for a trip to Rome with her husband. She
mentioned the trip to the hairdresser, who responded:
Rome? Why would
anyone want to go there? It's crowded and dirty. You're crazy to go to Rome.
So, how are you getting there?”
"We're taking United” was the reply. "We got a great rate!”
“United?" exclaimed the hairdresser. " That's a terrible airline. Their planes are old, their flight attendants are ugly, and they're always late. So, where are you staying in Rome?”
"We'll be at this exclusive little place over on Rome's Tiber River called Taste.”
"Don't go any further. I know that place. Everybody thinks it's gonna be something special and exclusive, but it's really a dump.”
"We're going to go to see the Vatican and maybe get to see the Pope.”
"That's rich," laughed the hairdresser. ”You and a million other people trying to see him. He'll look the size of an ant. Boy, good luck on this lousy trip of yours. You're going to need it.”
A month later, the woman again came in for a hairdo. The hairdresser asked her about her trip to Rome.
"It was wonderful," explained the woman, "not only were we on time in one of United’s brand new planes, but it was overbooked, and they bumped us up to first class. The food and wine were wonderful, and we had a handsome 28-year-old steward who waited on us hand and foot.
And the Taste hotel was great! They'd just finished a $5 million remodeling, and now it's a jewel, the finest hotel in the city. They, too, were overbooked, so they apologized and gave us their owner's suite at no extra charge!”
"Well," muttered the hairdresser, "that's all well and good, but I know you didn't get to see the Pope.”
"Actually, we were quite lucky, because as we toured the Vatican, a Swiss Guard tapped me on the shoulder, and explained that the Pope likes to meet some of the visitors, and if I'd be so kind as to step into his private room and wait, the Pope would personally greet us.
Sure enough, five minutes later, the Pope walked through the door and shook my hand! I knelt down and he spoke a few words to me.”
"Oh, really! What'd he say?”
He said: "Who f----- up your hair?"
+++
No comments:
Post a Comment