Please read the Affidavit by Zachary Larsen, an attorney and former Assistant Attorney General in the State of Michigan. On 3 November he visited 20-30 precincts and was able to confirm that the election process was being conducted according to law.
Next day, 4th Nov, Larsen visited the TCF Center, Detroit. He found that the process for maintaining secrecy, requiring 4 separate officials for each mail-in ballot, was not being followed. On the contrary officials were peeking into the envelopes to observe the ballots:
It appeared that officials might be discriminating between ballots according to which way the voter had voted:
Another challenger had observed that ballots were being processed without confirmation that the voter was eligible to vote, and Larsen agreed to observe at her table while she went for lunch:
His observation was that *most* ballots did *not* match to an eligible voter, but were nevertheless processed:
He moved closer to take a closer look, but was prevented by an official, ostensibly on covid-19 grounds. According to Larsen, he was within his rights according to the rules:
A Democratic challenger had been allowed to stand at a comparable distance:
After a protracted confrontation, he agreed to move to another table. He then went for a lunch break but was not allowed back in.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
#ElectronicVotingSecurity An early (2007) evaluation of electronic voting security, 'EVEREST', was conducted on behalf of the State of Ohio by 3 teams, 2 from universities, one private sector cybersecurity.
Thread on the #GrenfellCoverup. By a grotesque post-Grenfell reinterpretation of the Approved Document guidance, the government has been seeking to evade its responsibility for the fire and put the blame on others. Labour, who share approximately equal responsibility from 1/
their time in government, especially from 1999-2010, are complicit in the cover-up. The essence of the matter is that combustible cladding on high rise was always allowed in the national building regulations from their inception in 1965 until 18 June 2017, 4 days after Grenfell,
when @dawes_melanie, Permanent Secretary at @mhclg, in a letter to Local Authority and Housing Association Chief Executives, claimed that Building Regulations guidance required the ACM core to be of 'limited combustibility': assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…
Back in December 2017, with the aid of a useful graphic, Michel Barnier explained that under a UK-EU FTA, the UK would have 'regulatory autonomy' - which is to say that we will not be bound to follow any EU rules and regulations.
He pointed out the UK's red lines: no ECJ jurisdiction, no free movement, no substantial ongoing financial contribution, independent trade policy, and regulatory autonomy, and observed that neither the EEA-EFTA, nor the Swiss, nor the Ukraine, nor the Turkey model were compatible
with them. They were however compatible with an FTA of the type of the CETA and EU-Korea FTAs.
Under these FTAs, Canada and Korea (that is, South Korea) do not generally bind themselves to adopt or conform to a EU laws and regulations.
Farage claimed Wednesday that Barnier said the FTA negotiations will continue 3 years beyond end 2020. In fact it was @Nigel_Farage himself in the European Parliament who said they will take 3 years. Barnier, in response, corrected him. Thread:
A thread on the transition, and the difference between a withdrawal period extension, and a transition period extension.
The three extensions to the withdrawal period were granted under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union: 1/
There is no limit on the length of extension which can be agreed, nor is there any explicit limit on the number of extensions granted.
At the end of the withdrawal period, the EU Treaties 'cease to apply', which means in effect that the former Member State has left the Union. 2/
The Withdrawal Agreement, however, provides for a 'Transition period', which starts when the agreement comes into force, and ends on 31 December 2020: 3/
Farage proposes another Article 50 extension to 30 June 2020. The plan seems to be to negotiate a CETA type FTA during this period, to come into force on 1 July 2020. As an alternative, the UK and EU could agree to follow GATT Article 24 (!) telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/…
@KTHopkins has just asked whether @Nigel_Farage has taken some sort of psycho-active substance. Potential problems with his plan:
1) Will the EU grant an extension to 30 June for this purpose?
2) Will they be overjoyed to jettison the Withdrawal Agreement?
In particular,
3) What is his plan for the Irish border?
4) Is he cancelling the financial payment that the UK (probably wrongly) agreed to? Will the EU be fine with that?
5) Does he realise that all FTAs are GATT Article 24 agreements?
And so on. Oh and incidentally, Tusk's offer of an FTA