Damn right I have a phone! I have 2! I have my smartphone (iPhone 6) which tells me in a text message when I need to pick up my prescriptions, and a landline to talk to people without all that break-up noise of the damned smartphone! AT&T cell service sux ass!
Does your phone play vids? This presentation is worthy of a look by citizens concerned that elections are fair and accountable. Dinesh D'Souza's 2000 Mules full movie (FREE, and no registration required): https://www.documentarymania.com/player.php?title=2000+Mules
It probably plays vids, but I don't CARE! I can't see the damned screen without my glasses, and why would I do that anyway when I can watch it on my 30" whatever monitor/PC combo, and not need glasses!?! Go on, keep eating your popcorn! I own some ConAgra stock!
The article article sheds some light on how some precincts, not just in Wisconsin, were able to record perfect, 100% voter turnouts. These precincts are most often associated with high density inner city locations that historically had much lower turnouts than 2020. Perhaps not by coincidence, these precincts voted blue. Some precincts achieved even higher “Voter” turnout performances of up to 400%. Is it possible some people became over zealous? For the Democrats. To win an election at any cost? Because winning elections is more important to Democrats than Democracy? For those who want to do their own election fraud research, the news aggregator’s search engine I used is on realclearpolitics.com: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/search/?q=election+fraud. This site also has articles Leftists would enjoy. https://legis.wisconsin.gov/assembly/22/brandtjen/media/1552/osc-second-interim-report.pdf https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/0...espread-election-fraud-in-2020-nursing-homes/ Wisconsin Special Counsel Finds ‘Widespread Election Fraud’ In 2020 Nursing Homes BY: MARGOT CLEVELAND MARCH 03, 2022 9 MIN READ Special Counsel Michael Gableman vetted more than 90 nursing homes in five different counties and concluded there was ‘widespread election fraud.’ “Rampant fraud and abuse occurred statewide at Wisconsin’s nursing homes and other residential care facilities,” according to the Office of Special Counsel’s second interim report filed on March 1 with the Wisconsin Assembly. That conclusion represents but one of the key findings of election irregularities detailed in the nearly 150-page report—a report that also confirms the conclusion of the Racine County Sheriff’s office last fall that fraud occurred at nursing homes in Wisconsin. Special Counsel Michael Gableman, the retired state Supreme Court justice appointed by the Wisconsin Assembly to investigate integrity concerns about the 2020 election, vetted more than 90 nursing homes in five different counties before concluding there was “widespread election fraud at Wisconsin nursing homes in November of 2020.” According to the report, nursing home staff and administrators illegally handled absentee ballots, illegally assisted with “marking” residents’ ballots, illegally “witnessed” the voting, and possibly included forgery of the elderly residents’ signatures. Under Wisconsin law, these violations of the election code constitute fraud. This Local Investigation Led to the Special Counsel The fraud uncovered by the special counsel’s office mirrored that revealed late last year by the Racine County Sheriff’s office. This local investigation led to the broader special counsel investigation. In the Racine County case, the sheriff’s office received a complaint of potential violations of state election law occurring at the Ridgewood Care residential facility. After conducting a thorough investigation of the complaint, Racine County Sheriff Christopher Schmaling held a press conference on October 28, 20221, in which lead investigator Sgt. Michael Luell methodically presented his findings. As Luell explained during an hour-long press conference, Section 6.875 of the Wisconsin election code provides the “exclusive means” of absentee voting in residential care facilities. That law requires local municipalities to dispatch two special voting deputies, or “SVDs,” to such facilities. Under the election code, those SVDs must personally deliver ballots to any residents of the facility who wish to vote and then witness the voting process. By law, only a relative or a SVD may assist the voter in the process, and after the ballot is completed, the SVD must seal the ballot envelope and deliver it to the elections clerk. The Ridgewood Care Center in Racine County violated every one of those mandates, Luell explained, with the Wisconsin Election Commission (WEC) holding blame for the blatant disregard of state election law taking place at residential facilities because the commission had directed municipalities not to “use the Special Voting Deputy process to service residents in care facilities,” and to instead “transmit absentee ballots to those voters by mail.” Based on the WEC’s illegal directive, Luell detailed how further violations of the election code occurred at the Ridgewood Care Center, with staffers improperly completing portions of the absentee ballots, mishandling and not securing ballots, and discussing the elections and candidates with the residents beyond merely reading them the ballots. District Attorney Refuses to Prosecute Less than a week after his press conference, the Racine County Sheriff’s Office announced it had forwarded its conclusions to District Attorney Patricia Hanson and had recommended election fraud charges be filed against five members of the WEC, including two felony counts. The most serious felony charges referred to Hanson alleged that the five commissioners violated Wisconsin Statute 946.12(2), entitled “Misconduct in Public Office,” and Wisconsin Statute 12.13(2)(b)7, “Election Fraud –Election Official Assisting with Violations.” The misdemeanors referred to the county DA recommended charges against the WEC for being a party to the crimes of illegal receipt of ballots and the solicitation of assistance in completing the ballots. After reviewing the referral for several months, in February Hanson announced she would not be filing criminal charges against the five WEC members because she lacked jurisdiction over the commissioners. Hanson explained in her letter announcing her decision that because the commissioners do not live in Racine County and did not issue the allegedly illegal directive doing away with SVD, she lacked the authority to prosecute the commissioners. Hanson then exercised her prosecutorial discretion to decline to charge the Ridgewood Care Center employees, explaining that “it would be unfair for me to expect that these health care professionals would better understand the election laws in Wisconsin than the Wisconsin Election Commission.” Following Hanson’s announcement, Luell spoke “with the four district attorneys in the home counties of the five commissioners.” “I have forwarded the materials from my files to each office and recommended charges that appear to fit the facts,” Luell told The Journal Times in an email. Those prosecutors could still file charges against the WEC members or reportedly appoint Hanson as a special prosecutor. Racine’s Fraud Wasn’t Isolated At All Luell’s referral to the other prosecutors concerns only the Ridgewood Care Center. But as Sheriff Schmaling stressed during his late October 2021 press conference, Racine County is just “one of 72 counties,” and “Ridgewood is one of 11 facilities within our county.” “There are literally hundreds and hundreds of these facilities throughout the entire state of Wisconsin,” Schmaling continued: “We would be foolish to think for a moment that this integrity issue, this violation of the statute, occurred to just this small group of people at one care facility in one county in the entire state.” Tuesday’s second interim report by Special Counsel Gableman confirms Schmaling’s intuition, establishing that the problem at Ridgewood was not isolated. Rather, “rampant fraud and abuse occurred statewide at Wisconsin’s nursing homes and other residential care facilities in relation to absentee voting at these facilities,” Gableman reported. The illegalities seen at Ridgewood in Racine County were repeated at more than 90 other nursing homes in five counties vetted by the special counsel’s team. The fraud and abuse, Gableman concluded in his report, resulted ultimately from the unlawful acts of WEC’s members and its staff. The special counsel stressed that, despite the clear mandates of Wisconsin law that SVDs be used at residential facilities, the WEC on June 24, 2020 “directed clerks not to send SVDs to facilities, and to instead mail ballots to voters in those facilities,” then further stated that “the regular rules for absentee voting by mail will apply to ballots sent by mail to care facility voter.” The report then detailed, as the Racine County sheriff had, how that directive constituted fraud under the Wisconsin Election Code. Not Accidental Or Technical Errors Further, the special counsel’s report showed that fraud found was not merely “technical” fraud but resulted in ballots cast and votes counted contrary to the intent of the nursing home residents. The “improbably high voting rates” alone creates a strong inference of fraud, but the special counsel also gathered evidence of fraud, such as suspected forgeries of residents’ signatures and situations in which the residents who “cast” a vote had been adjudicated mentally incompetent, meaning they no longer had a legal right to vote. Other residents, while not adjudicated mentally incompetent, “were unaware of their surroundings, with whom they are speaking at any given time, or what year it is.” The special counsel’s report also condemned the WEC for attempting to justify its illegal conduct by claiming it wanted to ensure seniors were not disenfranchised during Covid. “In no way was WEC’s mandating illegal activity a ‘solution’ to ‘disenfranchisement’ and to suggest that WEC’s actions were a good faith effort at doing so ignores the facts and the law,” Gableman wrote. To the contrary, the report continued: “It is ‘disenfranchisement’ when electors are pressured to fill out ballots they did not wish to or in a way they don’t desire or even understand. It is ‘disenfranchisement’ when ballots are illegally cast on behalf of persons who have had their right to vote taken away by the courts of this State due to their mental incompetence.” Someone Else Voted For Her, But Who? The report backed up these conclusions with specifics, such as the case of Resident D. Resident D lived in a facility in Brown County, Wisconsin. Her family took Resident D to vote at her assigned polling location, but when she presented herself to vote on election day, the election workers informed her she had already voted. After questioning from her family, Resident D recalled someone at the nursing home had talked with her about voting, but she denied voting at the residential facility. Nonetheless, records from 2020 show Resident D cast an absentee ballot. Because a ballot had already been cast in her name, Resident D was disenfranchised, and she was far from alone given the findings of the special counsel’s report. Those findings were limited because, while the special counsel’s staff “spent significant time and resources investigating the fraud and abuse that occurred at Wisconsin’s nursing homes,” the special counsel’s audit was limited in scope. To fully understand the significance of the fraud, Gableman concluded, “a state-wide, complete audit of all absentee votes from all facilities” required to use SVDs is necessary. Well Within the Election’s Margin of Error With about 92,000 people in Wisconsin who reside in these facilities, the failure of Wisconsin election officials “to prevent wards and incapacitated persons from voting in the 2020 Presidential election” casts “doubt on the election result,” according to the report. Those 2020 general election results showed the midwestern state breaking by 20,682 votes to Joe Biden. Whether the state Assembly will direct Gableman to conduct a further audit of the nursing homes is unclear, but what appears clear is that Wisconsin’s Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul is unlikely to do so, as he rejected calls by the Racine County Sheriff’s Office to launch an investigation. Instead, Kaul called the southeastern county’s investigation “a publicity stunt.” While Democrats and their media mouthpieces will likely paint Gableman’s report in the same light, Wisconsinites might soon make them care by ousting Kaul this November when he is up for re-election. State legislators up for re-election this fall may also find that their constituents care about election integrity even if they don’t. Margot Cleveland is The Federalist's senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.
Nice headline. You did not provide a link to the article. No problem. I will provide it and post the whole article. I will refrain from commenting on this article for about 24 hours to allow other posters to read and comment on it before replying. In the meantime, is there anything else you wish to add? Now back to the article I posted. The evidence cited by a Wisconsin district attorney is compelling. 100% nursing home voter participation? How likely is that without a nursing home staff member attempting to influence votes or filling out ballots themselves without bonafide voter authorization? How confident are you in weighting evidence? Several in Texas were charged for election fraud, including a woman who worked at a nursing home. A single incident may not make a difference, but enough of them may suggest coordination. Especially if the methodologies of the fraudsters are very similar: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.go...ho-pleads-guilty-26-felony-counts-voter-fraud https://www.texasattorneygeneral.go...arrested-widespread-vote-harvesting-and-fraud Your AP article below: https://apnews.com/article/2022-mid...presidential-16d90c311d35d28b9b5a4024e6fb880c Judge: Wisconsin probe found ‘absolutely no’ election fraud By SCOTT BAUERJuly 28, 2022 MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A Wisconsin judge said Thursday that a Republican-ordered, taxpayer-funded investigation into the 2020 election found “absolutely no evidence of election fraud,” but did reveal contempt for the state’s open records law by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and a former state Supreme Court justice he hired. Dane County Circuit Judge Valerie Bailey-Rihn awarded about $98,000 in attorneys’ fees to the liberal watchdog group American Oversight, bringing an end in circuit court to one of four lawsuits the group filed. Vos’s attorney, Ron Stadler, said he was recommending that Vos appeal the ruling. The fees will be paid by taxpayers, which is why the judge said she was not also awarding additional punitive damages against Vos. Costs to taxpayers for the investigation, including ongoing legal fees, have exceeded $1 million. “I think the people of the state of Wisconsin have been punished enough for this case,” Bailey-Rihn said. “I don’t think it does anyone any good to have punitive damages placed on the innocent people of this state.” All of American Oversight’s lawsuits stem from records requests it made to Vos and Michael Gableman, a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice hired by Vos in June 2021 to investigate the 2020 presidential election won by President Joe Biden. Vos ordered the investigation under pressure from election loser Donald Trump, who continues to falsely claim there was widespread fraud in Wisconsin and that Biden’s win should be decertified, which is impossible and which Vos has repeatedly refused to support. Even Gableman’s attorney said decertification was “pointless.” Biden’s victory by nearly 21,000 votes has withstood recounts, multiple state and federal lawsuits, an audit by the nonpartisan Legislative Audit Bureau and a review by a conservative activist law firm, the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. An Associated Press review of Wisconsin and other battleground states also found far too little fraud to have tipped the election for Trump. Vos and Gableman have suffered a series of defeats at the circuit court level in the American Oversight lawsuits. Along the way, both were found to be in contempt for refusing to comply with court orders to turn over records. Bailey-Rihn, presiding over her last hearing before retiring, expressed frustration Thursday. “This has been a long and torturous process to get here,” she said. “The reality is, whatever records there were, they were either destroyed or they weren’t kept. The problem for this court is no one knows when those records were destroyed.” State law requires lawmakers like Vos to retain records after an open records request for them has been filed. They can, and do, delete records if there is no pending open records request. Gableman testified in another case that he routinely deleted records that he thought were not a part of the investigation. That resulted in American Oversight filing a fourth lawsuit alleging those deletions were against the law. That case, along with two others, is still pending. A judge next month was to consider whether Gableman had fulfilled requirements to vacate an earlier contempt order for not turning over records. And in another case, Vos faced an Aug. 4 deadline to turn over additional records requested by American Oversight. “This whole case has been about trying to shine a light on government,” Bailey-Rihn said. What it revealed, she said, was that in the early days of Gableman’s probe, he was being paid $11,000 a month by taxpayers “to sit in the New Berlin library to learn about election law because he knows nothing about election law.” “We’re all citizens of this state and this country, and we want our elections to be fair and not tainted by any sort of election fraud,” the judge said. “We have absolutely found out from this case there was absolutely no evidence of election fraud.” She said Vos and others have shown they believe they have no obligation to comply with the state open records law, they don’t understand it, they don’t follow the attorney general’s guidance and they leave it to people who aren’t trained on the law to deal with it. “That’s one thing the citizens of this state have learned to their detriment,” Bailey-Rihn said.