In his 31-page decision, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond said there were at least six grounds that required him to reject the Green Party’s lawsuit, which had been opposed by Trump, the Pennsylvania Republican Party and the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office.
Suspicion of a hacked Pennsylvania election “borders on the irrational,” wrote Diamond, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, a Republican.
“Most importantly, there is no credible evidence that any `hack’ occurred, and compelling evidence that Pennsylvania’s voting system was not in any way compromised,” Diamond wrote. He also said the lawsuit suffered from a lack of standing, potentially the lack of federal jurisdiction and an “unexplained, highly prejudicial” wait before filing last week’s lawsuit, four weeks after the Nov. 8 election.
“[Georgia’s GOP Secretary of State] Brian Kemp issued a letter to [Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh] Johnson on Thursday after the state’s third-party cybersecurity provider detected an IP address from the agency’s Southwest D.C. office trying to penetrate the state’s firewall. According to the letter, the attempt was unsuccessful.
The attempt took place on Nov. 15, a few days after the presidential election. The office of the Georgia Secretary of State is responsible for overseeing the state’s elections.
‘At no time has my office agreed to or permitted DHS to conduct penetration testing or security scans of our network,’ Kemp wrote in the letter, which was also sent to the state’s federal representatives and senators. ‘Moreover, your department has not contacted my office since this unsuccessful incident to alert us of any security event that would require testing or scanning of our network. This is especially odd and concerning since I serve on the Election Cyber Security Working Group that your office created.'”
Secretary Kemp’s letter can be found here.
Penetration testing (or pen testing) is the deliberate act of attempting to find breaches in a computer system, network or application, typically as a means to determine how secure that system is. Such testing is considered deliberate because, under normal circumstances, a security specialist or company sets up a predetermined plan for how they’re going to test a client’s infrastructure.
In the Secretary’s letter, he states that since he’s already a part of DHS’s Election Infrastructure Cybersecurity Working Group, the incident should have been communicated to him, if it was a legitimate test.
As he further points out, unauthorized access is not permitted:
“…Under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1030, attempting to gain access or exceeding authorized access to protected computer systems is illegal.”
He then goes on to raise specific questions of Secretary Johnson:
- Did your Department in fact conduct this unauthorized scan?
- If so, who on your staff authorized this scan?
- Did your Department conduct this type of scan against any other states’ systems without authorization?
- If so, which states were scanned by DHS without authorization?
The letter was copied to a number of US House and Senate members.
“While a number of high-level choices have yet to be made, including Secretary of State, Trump’s is more than half-way toward completing his selection process, having filled 11 of the 20 positions that require Senate approval.”
“This strange storm of what appears to be dust, cloud and rain did NOT cross the border fence into Israel. It sat like a barrier between ISIS and Israel.”
“Because there is no basis for this court to ignore the Michigan court’s ruling and make an independent judgment regarding what the Michigan Legislature intended by the term ‘aggrieved,’ plaintiffs have not shown an entitlement to a recount under Michigan’s statutory scheme,” [United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Judge Mark A. Goldsmith] wrote.
“The issues that plaintiffs raise are serious indeed,” Judge Goldsmith said. “The vulnerability of our system of voting poses the threat of a potentially devastating attack on the integrity of our election system. But invoking a court’s aid to remedy that problem in the manner plaintiffs have chosen — seeking a recount as an audit of the election to test whether the vulnerability led to actual compromise of the voting system — has never been endorsed by any court and would require, at a minimum, evidence of significant fraud or mistake — and not speculative fear of them. Such evidence has not been presented here.”
Tuesday, December 13 is the deadline that States must meet in order to finalize any issues with legitimate Elector appointments so that Certificates of Ascertainment can be subsequently signed on Monday, December 19.
“We are three states away from calling for a Constitutional Convention. It’s something I’ve always been opposed to, …. But I’ll say because, for the second time in sixteen years, people the American voters elected did not become president. Rational people, not the fringe, are now talking about whether states could be separated from the U.S., whether we should have a Constitutional Convention. And I think as time goes on that is apt to become more the case unless we here can figure an answer to preventing the majority from being ruled by the minority.”
The Electoral College was a compromise by the Founders to make sure that smaller States had a say in how Presidents got elected. While it is true that some States get more populous than others, it’s similarly true that allowing large States to disproportionately control who becomes President is just as much of a risk against the nation as the allegation that somehow small States are interfering with bigger States.
As one Founding Father essentially stated, we don’t have the most perfect form of government, just the least imperfect. And until someone or some group can do better than what we have now, it’s still the fairest and most individually protective of all forms of government yet conceived.
Section 11b of the Voting Rights Act (52 U.S.C. §10307) makes it a crime for anyone to “intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote.” While this has been applied in the past to ordinary, everyday voters in federal elections, the language does not limit it only to such voters. …
Texas does not require its Electors to vote the same way as its own popular vote winner.
Elector threatens to widen the Electoral College’s historical greater than 99% vote as originally pledged:
Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party’s candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.
Source: Elector is a client of an alleged left-wing PR firm.
“Full duplex” allows both up and downloading at full speeds. This is regarding the new DOCSIS 3.1 standard that’ll be coming to a cable company near you.
Convention of States: GOP Now Controls 33 of the 34 Required State Legislatures to Initiate an Article 5 Constitutional Convention
“I am thrilled to nominate Dr. Ben Carson as our next Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Ben Carson has a brilliant mind and is passionate about strengthening communities and families within those communities. We have talked at length about my urban renewal agenda and our message of economic revival, very much including our inner cities. Ben shares my optimism about the future of our country and is part of ensuring that this is a Presidency representing all Americans. He is a tough competitor and never gives up.”
“I am honored to accept the opportunity to serve our country in the Trump administration,” said Dr. Carson. “I feel that I can make a significant contribution particularly by strengthening communities that are most in need. We have much work to do in enhancing every aspect of our nation and ensuring that our nation’s housing needs are met.”
The decision came two days before a court hearing was scheduled in the case. Saturday’s court filing to withdraw the case said the #Green Party-backed voters who filed the case “are regular citizens of ordinary means” and cannot afford the $1 million bond ordered by the court by 5 p.m. Monday. However, Green Party-backed efforts to force recounts and analyze election software in scattered precincts were continuing.
The state’s top elections official, Secretary of State Pedro Cortes, a Democrat, has said there was no evidence of any sort of cyberattacks or irregularities in the election. Any recount would change few votes, Cortes predicted.
Where is #Jill Stein‘s cash?
WI GOP Rep. Sean Duffy Says Dems Stalling Wisconsin Recount to Prevent State Electoral Vote Certification
President-Elect Donald Trump supporters move in all three States — Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin — to prevent or halt recounts.
Currently only Wisconsin is being recounted. Pro-Trump groups Great America PAC and Stop Hillary PAC along with voter Ronald R. Johnson went to federal court late Thursday to stop the recount. They claim Wisconsin is violating Bush v. Gore because (1) the alleged lack of uniform standards can’t determine legitimate votes and (2) may violate due process rights if recount doesn’t allow the State’s electoral vote to be represented in DC.
Michigan was deadlocked over a Trump objection of a recount and how it would be done, meaning the recount would commence Tuesday or Wednesday. The State’s GOP attorney general is appealing to the State’s Court of Appeals and State Supreme Court.
Pennsylvania will hear Jill Stein’s recount push on Monday. Republican lawyers objecting because, among other things, a recount could jeopardize the State’s electoral vote representation. Updated vote totals in the State now show Trump over Clinton by 49,000 instead of 71,000, or a lead of 0.81%, still over the automatic recount threshold of 0.5%.
Jill Stein continues to argue irregularities with no evidence of such.
This after some claimed Donald Trump would do the same if he lost the 2016 election.
The White House denies, instead claiming he’s “interested in changing the ways people consume info.”
Yet, both Electors speaking in this op-ed are from the blue States of Colorado and Washington, respectively. That means their respective States won’t be submitting a Republican Certificate of Ascertainment to DC.