« Eric Swalwell and the Dragon Lady | Main | Why Has the FBI now Decided to Stop Lying About Its Investigation of Seth Rich? by Larry C Johnson »

09 December 2020


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


You left out the $100 million in donations to the democratic stronghold governments (only) ballot harvesting inititiative by Zuckerberg and Chan via an NGO. They did zero to help rural voting. I wonder why.


"polling place rentals, poll workers, personal protective equipment and other election administration costs"
What were the terms of their contracts/donations? Better keep that secret too.




20 million plus government employees, many who who slept in 2016, due to the polling numbers for Clinton, showed up this time in 2020. And brought friends and relatives.

Don't forget Trump won in 2016 by only a 40,000 or so voting advantage in key voting precincts in several states. Tipping only a few key precinct areas can tip and election.

This does not take away the massive reports of election fraud, but it is a sobering reality check that you only have to steal a few strategic votes and still win. Our election process needs serious reform. None of this should be happening in a modern state.

We cannot survive as a nation when elections can be stolen - particularly by the same party members who now count the votes. Corrupt ab initiio.


Coming together, Biden style:

..."Former Secretary of State John Kerry, tapped as climate change czar in a Biden administration, said on Tuesday that the nation has taken “a great step forward” in fighting for democracy “by rejecting the Orange Menace, and moving forward with a new presidency.”...... (CNS News)

Makes my blood boil.


Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks on C Span Washington Journal, Dec 9 2020


Splendidly articulate Take No Prisoners declaration of the varieties of fraud deployed in this election, and also baked into the election system.

Brooks made at least two major claims:
1. By rule, it is for Congress (and not the Courts) to control the "means, manner, methods and the time -- one day -- of federal elections.

2. Even as Brooks praised as a model Alabama's requirement that persons present ID to vote, he criticized the 1993 National Voter Registration Act that makes it illegal for registrars to demand proof of citizenship.

"Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws to allow unauthorized immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses. These states—California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington—issue a license if an applicant provides certain documentation, such as a foreign birth certificate, foreign passport, or consular card and evidence of current residency in the state. " https://www.ncsl.org/research/immigration/states-offering-driver-s-licenses-to-immigrants.aspx

exiled off mainstreet

Those are just the minimum most provable fraud figures. The true extent of the fraud was far greater and extended to many other places. Unfortunately, the article accurately states the situation at hand.



You're beating a dead horse. Government employees don't vote monolithicly any more than UAW members, much to Debbie Dingell's chagrin.

What bill did Rep. Brooks propose to overturn the 1993 legislation?


You write "We cannot survive as a nation when elections can be stolen..." The election was stolen, and we survive? I mean, we Survive.

Mark Gaughan

It will stand.


University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck comments on Texas AG Paxton's lawsuit that seeks to overturn popular vote outcomes in four battleground states that Trump lost. The suit seeks to exploit the fact that the Supreme Court does have jurisdiction to hear disputes between states, but it does not automatically hear such complaints, and in this case, it won’t. The high court already declined to hear a somewhat less crazy lawsuit seeking to overturn results in Pennsylvania.

“The central argument here is that we should let the election be decided by unelected judges and partisan state legislators, rather than the 150 million Americans who cast legitimate ballots,” Vladeck told me. “That would be the end of democracy as we know it.”


Robert Barnes has looked at his home state of Tennesse and found even there there were anomalous results, demographically similar counties where Trump was get two or three point swing but the neighbouring county swung the other way, everywhere this happened there were large number of mail in votes.


Barbara Ann

Larry (I assume you are the post's author, you are not tagged as such)

YouTube (Google) are in the van of the propaganda effort. Get this:

Yesterday was the safe harbor deadline for the U.S. Presidential election and enough states have certified their election results to determine a President-elect. Given that, we will start removing any piece of content uploaded today (or anytime after) that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, in line with our approach towards historical U.S. Presidential elections.
I pray those who credit Trump with a last ditch plan to pull off a turnaround are right. This has nothing to do with my fondness for the man (much less the GOP) and everything to do with the prospects for free speech should the Globalist/Big Tech machine regain control - in the form of a tame and utterly corrupt Democrat government.

The non sequitur in Google's logic that an arbitrary deadline justifies merciless censorship is truly breathtaking. Just imagine what they'll be like once executive power is transferred.

IMO this battle goes far beyond party politics and is an existential one for those who value individual liberties. Trump should have taken action on the section 230 indemnity for Big Tech censors long ago. This example shows the utter contempt Big Tech has for anyone who challenges their power - viz. Trump's recent tweets on the subject. I just cannot see how the power of this unholy alliance will be successfully challenged after January 20th. Another Trump will simply not be allowed to rise.



Barbara Ann,

It get's better. They are actively suppressing all videos that mention the election being contested. (CTH has a copy of there email warning, as do many other sites.). I and a number of others have had posts about it that featured Sidney Powell or Lin Wood deleted by Facebook (My 100 connections must be a real threat).

"This example shows the utter contempt Big Tech has for anyone who challenges their power"

They are part of the color revolution. They are going after Covid "deniers" next, and the woke allies will be deplatforming and de-employing those who don't comply in short order.


SCOTUS will hide under their bench.
Does anyone think that there are 5 justices with the guts to stand up in the face of the swamp and say "NO?"


Yes to all of this. And if we standby and meekly allow the coup to succeed, then we will have betrayed our heritage and all the brave men and women who preceded us, many of whom gave their lives to defend the principles of freedom and liberty. Our obligation, as citizens, is to pick up the flag and sally forth in defense of honor, righteousness, and the rule of law. DC has been a cesspool of corruption for decades, but now the DOJ/FBI has abandoned it's seminal role as protectors of the rule of law and fled the field of battle as cowards and eunuchs. It is now up to the citizens of this country to rise up and re-establish Constitutional governance by force of arms if necessary. It is 1776 redux and we are the new minutemen.



Yes. Otherwise buy more ammo while you still can.

blue peacock

Does anyone think that there are 5 justices with the guts to stand up in the face of the swamp and say "NO?"

What's an easier choice? Have Trump cry on Twitter or have Antifa riot and the media go all hysterical on SCOTUS?

blue peacock

"Another Trump will simply not be allowed to rise."

Barbara Ann,

Yet they do, if history is any guide. The next Trump will be far more ruthless and significantly more competent. You may not like that Trump as he will likely be an authoritarian either from the left or right. The new new Pravda will be the channel.

Jefferson, Madison, et al were an aberration and unique in history. The primacy of the natural rights of individuals in general is a concept with few backers worldwide today. A powerful state & oligarchies is what most societies veer towards as power inevitably concentrates.

Contemporary Americans show no burning desire to protect liberty as envisaged couple centuries ago with a Lockean philosophical framework.


Why on Dec. 9 that Google's You-Tube 'decided' to start 'scrubbing'/'denying' videos of 'election fraud'?

Is You-Tube now following orders of the CCP and their Communist Anti-Trumper buddies as far as acting as a self-imposed 'Censor' of all things that the CCP and their co-horts do not like?


srw quoted Vladeck: "“The central argument here is that we should let the election be decided by unelected judges and partisan state legislators, rather than the 150 million Americans who cast legitimate ballots,” Vladeck told me. “That would be the end of democracy as we know it.”

As I understand Paxton's case, Vladeck is incorrect:
Supreme Court is mandated to settle disputes between / among states.
The suit is not to demand that Supremes decide who won the election nor to negate any election but rather to order states to comply with Constitutional law that requires electors to be selected by the states's legislatures rather than the not-so-Constitutional practice that has become habitual, that the Secretary of each State selects Electors.

If the Supremes settle the dispute between states by merely demanding that States comply with US Constitution and require Legislators to select electors, Supremes will be 'off the hook' but will have, effectively, delivered the election into Republican hands, since Republicans control legislatures in the target states.

It is unlikely that those legislators would select Democratic electors -- not if they wish to be re-elected by the Republicans who put them in office initially.



I'm sure at the very least it is their H1B visa holding employees that are doing their best, right along with the ones at FB and Google.


Hilary Clinton prescient-sounding, but curious very public advice to Biden ..... on election day- ........."don't concede even if it looks like you are losing on election night, because after all the votes are counted you will win".

Was she in the know all along, or was she just uttering her own wishful thinking? Why did she need to make this public comment, when she must have a direct private line to the Biden team..


srw, you have no proof that all votes were "legitimately cast orcounted" ballots. That is not a given, and an odd premise to rely on at this stage of the game. Particularly when PA defied a direct SCOTUS order to segregate questionable ballots cast.

Voters are disenfranchised when illegal votes are cast, and the subsequent election is allowed to stand Voters are not disenfranchised when sham elections are thrown out.

SCOTUS in this current case can set guidelines for election legitimacy based upon on US Constitutional grounds, even though state legislators are tasked with creating their own election rules under those guiding principles. Right to vote is sacred to the US constitution and that means only one thing- the right to cast and count only a legal vote

Almost legal, kind of legal, within the margin of error legal , too late to matter legal is not legal. I do not want my legal vote diluted or enhanced by illegal votes. I would feel relieved if a sham election was over-turned. The last thing I would think is I was "disenfranchised". Only those voting for the sham election "winner" would feel disenfranchised.

On its face, no vote counting computer system can be allowed when its software is exclusively proprietary, and not 100% open to public scrutiny and independent assessment. That was a major constitutional fail to even engage the Dominion vote counting systems.

If state election laws do not pass ultimate SCOTUS constitutional guideline scrutiny, then those states may not participate in federal elections. It appears offending states bypassed their own state constitutions and allowed non-legislative agents create election law ad hoc. There is no place under the US Constitution for that to happen either.

So in this way, SCOTUS does not "pick the president". It merely weeds out the offending parties who ran sham elections. Sham elections should not pick "winners" either. The Constitution provides alternate methods of selecting a president, in anticipation of the failed more direct voting process.

SCOTUS will simply kick the process down one of those alternate routes. Eg: VP refusing to accept electors credentials, final selection in the House ... etc.

As the California Supreme Court recently ruled - there are no "covid exceptions" to the state constitution that allows anyone other than the legislature to create election law.

SCOTUS will set forth standards for constitutionally sound election processes - none of them will allow acceptance of any illegal votes - there is no presumption any vote cast is legal, until proven illegal.

The presumption is sufficient safeguards are demonstrably in place so that only legal votes are cast and counted. If that entry level threshold fails, then any subsequent cast votes also fail. The standard is a fair election; not a perfect election. A single illegal vote undermines election fairness. Why would you argue in its favor?


July 24, 2020. Trump administration evicts Chinese embassy in Houston as a hub for spying. Any connection to Bank of China fronted Dominion election software "sales" to corrupt US election officials?

Barbara Ann

blue peacock

You are absolutely right about the lack of desire among the majority to get off their a**es and actually defend the hard-won freedoms many take for granted today. Humanity has been blown off course in the last few decades and landed on the shores of a strange land. In this place Big Tech supplies us all with the 21st century equivalent of the lotus flower and the masses now care for little else besides staring at their tiny portal into the world of delights therein. Unless someone breaks the spell we'll never leave.

Potential challengers will arise, but we are now well into the age of the omniscient Big Tech enabled security state - something Jefferson & Madison never had to contend with. Trump somehow got through and they will not make the same mistake again.

2024? No chance. They may let him have a media outlet on some small scale, in order to keep the Deplorables distracted, but after Jan 20th any talk of revolution anywhere will be immediately detected and shut down.

FB blocks Larry's posts now, in a few months I'd be surprised if we are able to have this discussion at all. And what use is the 2A without the means to communicate and organize? No, the revolutionary window closes in a few short weeks, I expect for a very long time. It is important this is understood.

“There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always— do not forget this, Winston— always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.”

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad