Category Archives: Law

Over 432,000 Votes Removed From Trump in Pennsylvania, Data Scientists Say

This data analysis certainly seems to be believable enough to warrant additional work, verification, exploration.  I do not understand how it can be said that “all the claims of voting irregularities are baseless”.  People making statements to this effect are doing so without any facts to back up their statements.  To restore trust in the process, the vote count irregularities need to be addressed.  mrossol

The Epoch Times – January 4, 2021

Pennsylvania election data shows that over 432,000 votes were removed from President Donald Trump during the November election, data scientists say.

According to an analysis by the Data Integrity Group, obtained exclusively by The Epoch Times, votes for Trump—from both Election Day and mail-in ballots—were removed from the totals in at least 15 counties.

Time-series election data shows Trump’s votes decrementing in various counties at numerous time points instead of increasing as would be expected under normal circumstances.

The group said that Election Day vote removals happened during the vote tabulation process in at least 15 counties, including Lehigh County, Chester County, Allegheny County, Armstrong County, Westmoreland County, Northhampton County, Delaware County, Montgomery County, Lackawanna County, Dauphin County, Pike County, Carbon County, Washington County, Erie County, and Luzerne County.

Meanwhile, absentee vote removals happened in Allegheny County, Chester County, and Lehigh County.

At least 432,116 votes—213,707 election day votes and 218,409 absentee votes—were removed in total.

“There were vote movements across all candidates. However, we did not see the same type of negative decrements to any of the [other] candidates that we saw with President Trump’s tallies, and they happened repeatedly with no explanation,” Lynda McLaughlin, a member of the group, told The Epoch Times.

The Pennsylvania Secretary of State’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times.

Pennsylvania Trump votes
Pennsylvania data shows Trump’s votes decrementing at various time points in Allegheny County (L) and Chester County (R), the Data Integrity Group says. (Screenshot)

The Data Integrity Group is a group of scientists, engineers, and machine learning experts who have been working together to check whether or not there was manipulation of data in the 2020 general election.

The group’s lineup of data scientists includes Justin Mealey and Dave Lobue.

Mealey is a nine-year veteran of the U.S. Navy, where he worked as an electronic warfare technician, cryptologic technician, and Arabic linguist. He worked at the NSA as a mission manager for Levant/North Africa and later worked as a CIA contractor at the National Counter-Terrorism Center.

Lobue has 12 years of experience in data science and machine learning across financial services, telecommunications, and research consulting industries. He currently specializes in artificial intelligence applications.

Data scientists from the group have analyzed the election data for several states including Arizona and Georgia.

In their analysis of Georgia’s election data, the group said it found that more than 30,000 votes had been removed from Trump’s tally, and another 12,173 votes were switched to Biden.

The group didn’t name any state official, county official, or related voting machine manufacturers for wrongdoing.

However, the group urged the state to authorize forensic audits to uphold election integrity and said it is irresponsible to certify the results before the alleged errors and anomalies are explained.

“The bottom line is the errors were made. Data confirms these errors and it shouldn’t matter if they were machine or human, they’re still errors and deserve a second review and thorough analysis with forensic audits to find the answers,” the group said.

Pennsylvania’s electors cast their votes for Biden and Kamala Harris as president-elect and vice president-elect on Dec. 14, 2020.

State-certified results show Biden won the Keystone State by 80,555 votes.

Edison Admits One Error in Vote Switching

During the vote tabulation process, the results, which are commonly known as tabulated results, are sent to the secretary of state’s office. The data is then also shared with the media via Edison Research.

Errors could be made in several steps in the election result reporting process.

Though it’s unclear what caused the errors that were flagged by the Data Integrity Group, Edison Research did admit a reporting error that happened separately.

In a widely-circulated video clip of CNN’s live election night broadcast, 19,958 votes were seen being switched from Trump to Biden in 30 seconds.

Rob Farman, executive vice president at Edison, admitted that the “switching” stemmed from a brief reporting error from Edison Research.

He told The Associated Press that a state feed from Armstrong, Pennsylvania, first showed the correct values of 24,233 votes for Trump and 4,275 for Biden, but a team member had mistakenly entered them backward—4,275 for Trump and 24,233 for Biden. Farman said the company’s quality control team discovered the error and corrected it that night.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-over-432000-votes-removed-from-trump-in-pennsylvania-data-scientists-say_3642202.html?utm_source=news&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-01-04-1

Share

FLYNN PARDONED!

FBI and DOJ. Disgraceful. Abuse of power. A politicized judge. The American movement toward the “banana republic”  style of government by the left should concern every American. mrossol

WSJ. 11/26/2020

President Trump’s decision Wednesday to pardon former national security adviser Michael Flynn is an overdue act of justice that ends four years of political harassment, unjustified prosecution and judicial abuse. If it sounds like we feel strongly about this one, you’re right.

We’ve never met the former general and decorated veteran. But every American should be worried about his mistreatment by a politicized system of justice that could happen to anyone on the wrong side of vindictive people with power.

The FBI and Justice pursued him though they knew there was no basis for an investigation. They coerced a plea of lying to the FBI though the interviewing agents thought he was telling the truth. A later re-examination ordered by Attorney General Bill Barr found that Justice and the FBI had withheld exculpatory evidence. Former FBI director James Comey crowed about how the bureau took advantage of the unsuspecting Mr. Flynn and a trusting White House to have his agents interview him without courtesies normally extended to criminals.

Justice finally moved to dismiss the charges this year, but then federal Judge Emmet Sullivan opted for political revenge by refusing to agree to the dismissal. He even tried to investigate the case himself—an extraordinary intrusion by a court into the executive branch’s prosecutorial power. His obvious goal was to stall long enough for a Biden Administration to take power and reinstate the charges. What a disgraceful performance.

Mr. Flynn should have been vindicated in court, but Judge Sullivan was never going to give him a fair hearing. A pardon was the only avenue left to prevent Mr. Flynn from more years of punishment. Congratulations to Mr. Trump for sparing an innocent man who served his country well but was ill-served by too many of his countrymen.

 

Share

Congress, Not Judges, Should Make Law

This is worth your read if you are wondering about filling the vacant seat on the Supreme Court. mrossol

National Review –  9/22/2020 By Kevin D Williamson

Ruth Bader Ginsburg did a great many interesting and impressive things in her life, but she never did the one thing she probably really should have done: run for office. Ruth Bader Ginsburg wasn’t an associate justice of the Supreme Court — not really: She was a legislator in judicial drag.

You need not take my word on this: Ask her admirers. “Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a vision for America,” Linda Hirshman argues in the Washington Post. What was her vision? “To make America fairer, to make justice bigger.” That is not a job for a judge — that is a job for a legislator. The job of making law properly belongs to — some people find this part hard to handle — lawmakers. Making law is not the job of the judge. The job of the judge is to see that the law is followed and applied in a given case. It does not matter if the law is unfair or if the law is unjust — that is not the judge’s concern. If you have a vision for America, and desire to make the law more fair or more just, then there is a place for you: Congress. That is where the laws are made.

This distinction is an important one. As you may have noticed over the course of the summer, Americans do not agree on everything. Some of us have ideas about what is good, decent, fair, just, wise, intelligent, prudent, and necessary that are radically different from the ideas other Americans have about what is good, decent, fair, just, wise, intelligent, prudent, and necessary. Democracy is not good for very much, but democratic institutions are how we settle those disagreements. Even the antidemocratic elements of U.S. government, such as the Bill of Rights, which put certain questions beyond the reach of mere temporary majorities, came out of democratic institutions and were implemented through a democratic process. It is from that that they derive their legitimacy. Democracy has its shortcomings — mostly rooted in the fact that human beings are universally fallen and in the majority savage — but the alternative is bonking each other over the head over every disagreement.

Put another way, the alternative is might makes right — which is exactly the kind of “jurisprudence” Justice Ginsburg and others of her kind have long practiced. There isn’t a goddamned word about abortion or gay rights in the Constitution, and it is absurd to think that such rights had been hiding there, lurking in the ol’ penumbras, since the 18th flippin’ century, waiting to be discovered by a committee of progressive lawyers who somehow see the “real” Constitution that went completely undetected by the men who wrote and ratified the document we actually have. That should be obvious even to people who support abortion or gay rights or other things that have been magically discovered in the Constitution. For the New York Times, Justice Ginsburg was a “feminist icon.” And she was — but it was not her job to be a feminist icon or to impose feminist ideology — or any other ideology — on the law and on the American public, substituting her own desires and preferences for those that are the result of the actual democratic process, daft as it often is.

Justice Ginsburg’s using her position to try to impose a feminist vision on federal policy ought to be recognized for what it was: an abuse of power. If you want to rewrite the law along feminist lines, that’s a perfectly honorable project — run for Congress.

The real fissure running through the Supreme Court is not between so-called liberals and notional conservatives, but between those who believe that judges are superlegislators empowered to impose their own vision on society and those who believe that judges are constrained by what the law actually says. The latter is the position of the Federalist Society and many lawyers associated with it, and that this position — that the law says what it says, not what people with power wish for it to say — should be controversial is an excellent indicator of why faith in our institutions has eroded so deeply. “If Republicans give Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat to some Federalist Society fanatic, Democrats should pack the court,” reads the line over Michelle Goldberg’s New York Times column. Read that and ask yourself who the fanatic really is.

This should be obvious enough even to people who share Ginsburg’s ideology and political preferences. Maybe you think that the federal law should enshrine an unassailable right to abortion, or that the Bill of Rights shouldn’t protect the right to keep and bear arms as broadly and explicitly as it does. Many people would agree with you, and there are reasonable if erroneous good-faith arguments for those positions. But that is not what the law actually says. So, take it to the voters. In the case of abortion, that would have meant a state-by-state fight in the legislatures, which probably would have resulted in an abortion regime that is neither as permissive as the one we have nor as restrictive as abortion opponents would like, i.e., one that more closely resembles the actual position of the American electorate. (A large majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in the first trimester, and even larger majorities believe it should be restricted in the second and third trimesters.) In the case of gun control, proceeding legitimately would mean repealing the Second Amendment in order to impose the restrictions that progressives want but that are prohibited by the Bill of Rights. Yes, both of those would be long, hard, ugly, and frustrating fights that would almost certainly leave both sides partly unsatisfied — i.e., democracy.

It is, of course, much more tempting to get five allies on the Supreme Court to pretend that what you want is already mandated in the law, waiting to be discovered. And that was Justice Ginsburg’s specialty. Her most famous decision, outlawing the Virginia Military Institute’s single-sex admissions policy, was exactly the kind of thing you would expect from a “feminist icon” but shoddy — indeed, preposterous — as law. As Justice Antonin Scalia notes in his scathing dissent in the VMI case, other publicly funded military academies had changed their admissions policies, “not by court decree, but because the people, through their elected representatives, decreed a change.” What Justice Ginsburg was engaged in by inventing a prohibition on single-sex military academies was “not the interpretation of a Constitution, but the creation of one.”

Maybe Ginsburg was right to believe what she believed. That is irrelevant. The question is not whether VMI should have been admitting women, but whether the Constitution prohibited VMI’s policies and empowered activists such as Justice Ginsburg to replace those policies with others more to the liking of the nation’s progressive lawyers. It didn’t and doesn’t. Neither the text nor the history nor practice justified Justice Ginsburg’s decision — only her own sense of morality did. Her opinion is not legal reasoning — it is legal decoration, reverse-engineered and fitted to the decision she was committing to making for political rather than legal reasons.

Oh, but everything is political! they’ll say. I do not believe that judges are incapable of actually doing their jobs even if that means following the law to results other than the ones they would prefer — Justice Scalia’s account of the flag-burning issue is one example showing that it can be done the right way — but doing so would mean trying to do that job rather than treating the federal bench as a stage for score-settling, advantage-seeking, and constituent-servicing. If you don’t believe that judges should be constrained by the law — that power is power is power and that’s that — then you don’t have much of an argument against Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell filling this seat, which is not “Ginsburg’s seat.” And unlike Justice Ginsburg, who made up the Constitution as she went along, in this case Trump and Senate Republicans would be acting within their plain constitutional powers. In contrast to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, feminist icon, they would be doing their jobs.

The timing of Ginsburg’s death is a political inconvenience for Democrats — them’s the breaks. Trying to convert this into a question of principle is silly and dishonest. Yes, lots of Republicans said last time around that we shouldn’t confirm a justice right before an election. Lots of Democrats said last time round that we should. Handing out indictments for hypocrisy in Washington is like writing up people in New Orleans at Mardi Gras for public intoxication. Nobody doubts that the charge is a valid one, but, please, spare us the shock and sanctimony.

And after the slandering of Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh, arguing that Republicans should decline to move forward on the nomination for comity’s sake is laughable. Nobody believes for one second that if President Hillary Clinton were struggling toward an uncertain reelection campaign and Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer had the chance to confirm a new Supreme Court justice of her choosing that the Democrats would hesitate for a second. Nor have they ever shown themselves interested in replacing “conservative” justices — meaning those who are not open partisan campaigners on the model of Ginsburg — with conservatives or moderates in the name of ideological balance. The Democrats put left-wing activists on the Court when they get the chance, even if, like Elena Kagan, they have to lie their way through their confirmations to get there. Democratic complaints about political hardball after the outrageous campaign of fantastical fiction and slander directed at Kavanaugh, the anti-Catholic hatred directed at Amy Coney Barrett by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.), etc., are beneath contempt. So is threatening to create a constitutional crisis through a Court-packing scheme if a Democratic president and Senate are elected, threatening (more) riots and (further) arson, and other attempts at extortion.

On the matter of the Court-packing endorsed by Michelle Goldberg et al., Democrats should be careful about the precedents they set. Republicans may learn slowly, but they learn. Democrats spent generations engaged in partisan gerrymandering and then suddenly got religion on that subject when Republicans got good at it. They didn’t think their slander of Robert Bork and the politicization of the nomination process would come back to bite them, but it did. Mitch McConnell believed the politics were on his side, and he was right. A Democratic Senate might reorganize the federal courts in a way that gives their party a momentary advantage — which is banana-republic stuff, but that is what Michelle Goldberg of the Times advocates, and she is not alone — but there will be a Republican majority again. There’s one now. Is that a weapon you want to put in Mitch McConnell’s hand? In Donald Trump’s hand? Because the genie doesn’t go back into the bottle.

Justice Ginsburg could have retired some time ago — and probably should have. But she believed in 2016 that Hillary Rodham Clinton was going to win the election, and so she held on. That was a political miscalculation. But that happens from time to time. Dwight Eisenhower was asked about the greatest regrets of his time as president, and he answered: “I have made two mistakes, and they are both sitting on the Supreme Court.”

Ginsburg’s legacy is not a body of legal opinions but a deformed and disfigured judiciary, one in which the American people have — with good reason — lost some measure of faith. Setting that right will be the work of a generation. And that work begins with understanding that a judge’s concern is not justice or fairness or progress but the law, and that people who want to change the law should run for office.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-tuesday/ruth-bader-ginsburg-didnt-understand-her-job/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TUE_20200922&utm_term=Tuesday-Smart

Share