Biden's handlers are ballsy, I'll give them that. S.Ct. swats down idea that ordinary burdens of voting are discrimination under VRA, even if fewer minority voters will undertake the burdens to vote. Senate rejects H.R. 1. But Biden's folks have a pen. 1/federalregister.gov/documents/2021…
4/ And all while scream "Jim Crow 2 . 0". This isn't going to end well. We need more voting integrity, not less. No one who exercises ordinary burdens of voting is unable to vote. thefederalist.com/2021/07/26/why…
5/ But thens of thousdands of legal voters are disenfrancished because gov't does not protect against illegal voting. thefederalist.com/2021/07/12/ign…
2/ Key parts are here. It is easy to miss the significance of the DOJ's threat because it uses Cyber Ninjas (a private organization) in discussing intimidation, but the analysis would be no different if the state were doing the investigation.
3/ Well guess what: Georgia (if properly investigating the 10,300+ voters who likely cast illegal ballots) would be doing something similar to Cyber Ninjas. thefederalist.com/2021/07/16/geo…
THREAD: CDC is ensuring vaccine-hesitant or vaccine-opposed will remain that way w/ this nonsense (as reported by @nytimes. Purported reason for reversal is "reports of rising breakfthrough infections w/ the Delta variant." But "reports" is not science. 1/
2/ What is science is this study showing Pfizer 88% effective against Delta variant. Times' article referenced only May study on effectiveness of vaccine. foxbusiness.com/markets/pfizer…
3/ So reversing course based on "not science" while ignoring "science" is going to make Americans less likely to believe anything CDCs says, especially since Fauci already told us he tells Americans what he thinks we can handle, i.e., % need for herd immunity.
THREADETTE: Retweeting this not to point a finger, but because it is a great set-up question to make my point. Read this "FactCheck" article that at its heart is fact-checking my reporting of Mark Davis's evidence. 1/factcheck.org/2021/07/more-t…
2/ Note how "FactCheck" sets up the question they are supposedly fact checking? Not how long it takes to get to the real substantive question re the 10,300-plus illegal votes? Note how FaceCheck actually CONFIRMS the illegality of the votes at issue.
3/ And then note how when it comes to fact checking Davis' analysis and my reporting, there is no fact check, but reprinting the spin from SOS & experts. But by that point in the article, anyone who doesn't know what is going on is already blinded by the orange man mad narrative
THREAD: While my piece today @FDRLST might not be breaking or seem exciting, there are several VERY significant points to date the Right (including lawyers--I know b/c I hadn't considered 2 aspect until recently), have overlooked re election integrity.1/ thefederalist.com/2021/07/12/ign…
2/ Piece is re disenfranchisement & stresses something ignored while Dems & their pets in press present red state’s integrity laws disenfranchise voters: Disenfranchisement occurs 2 ways—voters prevented from voting OR legal voters votes canceled by illegal or fraudulent votes.
3/ Here, imp. to stress BOTH illegal & fraudulent votes disenfranchise legal voters. Left’s talking point that no evidence of wide-spread voter fraud is misdirection for several reasons (more on that next).
I've dug into GA election law more to see where @MattBraynard pulled point 1. Statute is clear you must live in county to vote in county, whether for national or local election w/ 30 day safe harbor. 1/
2/ Provisional voting law does not change that: law.justia.com/codes/georgia/… It does speak of out of precinct voting which prior to 2021 amendments, were allowed. BUT it does not make an illegal vote in old county legal. It appears GA counted provisional ballots in 2020.
3/ But those were in the wrong precinct, not in wrong county per all the reporting. That is entirely different issue than my article & data. ajc.com/politics/georg…
Thanks to my follower who tagged me on this so I could respond to @MattBraynard. I am open to being corrected on the law, but I cited the expressed provisions that make out of county voting illegal. Please provide statutory support for your provisional ballot claim. 1/
2/ Second, calling Mark Davis "an unqualified, incompetent individual who knows how to use EXCEL or whatever," speaks poorly of you. Davis has testified in 5 cases as an expert which is only allowed if a court find him qualified. And he did't run some Excel spreadsheet.
3/ Also, I didn't just "pick it up." I spent hours drilling Davis and seeking responses from SOS and analyzing data and law myself.