Delco Refuses Count Of Mail-In Envelopes

Delco Refuses Count Of Mail-In Envelopes — Delaware County Pa. is refusing to let Republicans count mail-in ballot envelopes from the May 16 primary election spawning a request for intervention in Commonwealth Court; demands from John McBlain, who is the minority member of the Board of Elections; and a letter from Delco GOP Chairman Frank Agovino to County Election Director James Allen asking him what’s up.

“I cannot fathom why the county will not allow examination of the envelopes,” Agovino said. This is a pretty simple request. And, as (McBlain) has indicated repeatedly, this is in direct violation of state law. I cannot in good conscious abide by the county’s current position.”

Agovino told Allen to consider his letter a formal request to conduct a count on behalf of Katie Ford, the losing candidate in a special election to fill the 163rd District State House seat. A victory by her would have given Republicans control of the House.

The Commonwealth Court filing was made by County Council candidate Joy Schwartz of Drexel Hill along with poll watchers Greg Stenstrom of Glen Mills, Leah Hoopes of Chadds Ford and Paul Rumley of Springfield.

The docket number is 258 MD 2023 and can be found here.

When a government fights this hard to hide something, something bad is being hidden.

It’s really becoming hard not to believe Delaware County’s elections are rigged.

Delco Refuses Count Of Mail-In Envelopes
Delco Refuses Count Of Mail-In Envelopes

2020 Election Questions Went Unasked Says Sharyl Attkisson

2020 Election Questions Went Unasked Says Sharyl Attkisson — Sharyl Attkisson’s recent podcast concerns the establishment media miserable failure in addressing claims of irregularities in the 2020 election.

It was inspired by the snarky berating Donald Trump received from CNN’s Kaitlan Collins at the May 10 New Hampshire town hall over his insistence that the 2020 election was stolen.

Ms. Collins definitively claimed that there was no evidence of fraud. Ms. Attkisson, rightfully, said it was improper for a journalist to make definitive claims about things which the journalist had no definitive knowledge.

She then pointed out that there were major concerns regarding 2020.

“The Trump side was being required by the courts to . . . produce evidence in a matter of days that takes years to get and build when handled by prosecutors . . .,” she said.

She said the media’s rush to declare the election decided deified common sense and violated journalistic standards.

“Suddenly there wasn’t the slightest suspicion or inkling of curiosity among so many,” she said. “It was as if they thought there wouldn’t be powers, in arguably the most unusual election of our time, that wouldn’t be willing to do anything that would have their candidate win.”

She said she followed some of the early Trump court challenges.

“It struck me in one court proceeding when a Trump-allied lawyer was pleading with the judge for just a few more days to produce names of people who could testify to something and this attorney was trying to tell the judge that this was information that normally takes months if not years to build.” She said. “They were being required to produce it in something like 48 hours without any power to make anyone answer questions or provide the information they would need.”

She said this is frightening from the standpoint of public confidence. Even before 2020, that a majority of people didn’t have faith in the integrity of our elections, she said.

“We have slowly become like the nations we have criticized over the decades,” she said.

She said many establishment Republicans sided with the Democrats regarding Trump’s claims.

“There is the weird case of Trump’s own attorney general, Bill Barr, actually calling the Associated Press,” she said. “According to my sourcing, he reached out to them and wanted to be interviewed right after the election and it was in that interview that Bill Barr declared there wasn’t any fraud more or less.”

This lead to a story soon saying “Disputing President Donald Trump’s persistent baseless claims, Attorney General William Barr declared, Tuesday, The U.S. Justice Department has uncovered no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 Election.”

Ms. Attkisson notes that Barr couldn’t have known as there had been no real investigation and AP couldn’t have known that Trump’s claims were “baseless.’

“It didn’t make sense to me to have it reported this way and to have Bill Barr saying these things, at least from a journalism and factual standpoint,” she said.

(William McSwain, then U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, published a letter saying Barr ordered him to stop an investigation. Retired intelligence officer Tony Shaffer working privately also has publicly said Barr ordered him to stop an investigation of suspicious ballots being transported from New York State to Pennsylvania)

Ms Attkisson also pointed out the proclamation of “no fraud” changed in the weeks after the election.

“Initially, the media said there was no fraud,” she said. “And then when some fraud was uncovered they said, ‘well, there was no widespread voter fraud’ and then when there was arguably some widespread voter fraud that could have taken place, they changed it to ‘there was no evidence of widespread voter frauc that could have changed the outcome of the 2020 election.”

She said they kept modifying the phraseology to put the issue to rest.

“It seemed to me to be an effort to make the topic untouchable for the future,” she said. “Let nobody dare claim there could have been irregularities or fraud in 2020 or they would be banished to social media oblivion, lampooned, discredited. After all, they would say in the media, it was established that this was the cleanest election ever in history.”

She said that while she didn’t have the resources to find a definitive answer to 2020 she could report on other election integrity issues hence the rest of the podcast in which she touches on last year’s Ozzie Meyer vote fraud conviction in Philly and matters in Arizona.

It’s an interesting 50 minutes . Here’s a link to the places it can be heard:–What-really-happened-in-the-2020-election–A-Sharyl-Attkisson-Investigation-e23tfnc?%24web_only=true&_branch_match_id=758824792243286089&utm_source=web&utm_campaign=web-share&utm_medium=sharing&_branch_referrer=H4sIAAAAAAAAA8soKSkottLXLy7IL8lMq0zMS87IL9ItT03SSywo0MvJzMvWT9X3NU4rzAzNcvGrSgIANVRNYzAAAAA%3D

If you missed the Trump town hall, also very much worth watching, it can be found here:

Joe Fried Makes Radio Rounds

Joe Fried Makes Radio Rounds — CPA and election integrity activist Joe Fried has explained the obvious and unremitting problems with our elections on National Security Hour, which can be heard here, and on the Shaun Thompson radio show in Chicago, to which Joe links on his Substack.

Check them out.

Joe notes that despite what you might have read in the establishment propaganda outlets, the Cyber Ninjas audit of the 2020 election in Arizona found huge issues.

Did you know an investigation into the 2022 Arizona elections is progressing? Not if you get your information from the propaganda outlets.

National Security Hour has another great program concerning FBI whistleblower Nate Cain, which can be heard here.

Cain is running for Congress in West Virginia.

Joe Fried Makes Radio Rounds
Joe Fried Makes Radio Rounds

CIA Election Manipulation Undeniable Now

CIA Election Manipulation Undeniable Now — The CIA put its heavy thumb on the scales and was instrumental in Joe Biden’s dubious 2020 victory in the presidential election.

The involvement of our intelligence service is now impossible to deny.

Michael Morell testified to Congress earlier this month that he and 50 other former intelligence official signed this public statement that the Hunter Biden laptop scandal being reported by the New York Post in October 2020 was a a Russian disinformation campaign.

Morell was a former Deputy Director of the CIA and had twice been acting director.

CIA Election Manipulation Undeniable Now
Michael Morell

Others signing it included former CIA directors John Brennan, Mike Hayden and Leon Panetta, and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

The signatories knew they were lying.

They were put up to it by U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, then senior advisor to the Biden campaign.

This is infinitely more seditious than anything that happened on Jan. 6, 2021.

Those who care about the sanctity of the ballot box — which is most Americans — should be outraged by this.

Of course, how many New York Times readers know? How about those who get their news from CBS? NBC?

CIA Election Manipulation Undeniable Now

Pennsylvania County Fights Open Records Decisions On Elections; Why The Fear?

Pennsylvania County Fights Open Records Decisions Regarding Elections; Why The Fear? — Robert Mancini of Media filed right-to-know requests last year for public records relating to elections in Delaware County, Pa., which the county rejected.

Mancini wanted to know who installed the software on the voting machines, the date it was it installed, and the hash code of the software installed. He also wanted to know who requested absentee ballots at the county level; email correspondence between the Fort Orange Press of Albany, N.Y., which prints the county’s election ballots, along with the names of those requesting the ballots. He also wanted the number voter lists, a list of those removed from voter list for reasons such as deaths and moving, and the 90-day report on how the money from the election integrity grant received from the county was spent.

Mancini appealed to Pennsylvania’s Office of Open Records which overruled the county and said that Mancini had a right to the info.

After hemming and hawing, the Democrats who run Delco conceded these four and Mancini awaits the documents.

However, the county is appealing these four to Common Pleas Court.

Why the fight? The county’s actions make it impossible not to go “hmmm, what are they hiding?”

Tens of thousands of Delaware County residents believe the elections are rigged here. This is troubling and dangerous.

Yet, there is no innocent explanation for the county’s actions.

What Mancini wants are obviously things to which the public has a right. Correspondence with a vender? The number of voters who cast a ballot in a precinct in Marple? The mail-in ballot applications the printer received? Who installed what software on certain voting machines in Marple?

Provide a reason for these to be secret.

Other than corruption, of course.

And why does the county have to go to New York to get a printer for Pennsylvania ballots?

A final question: Why isn’t the Delco GOP speaking out for Mancini? This isn’t about calling into question elections. This is about convincing the public that the elections are trustworthy.

This is about good governance and common sense.

Again, what the county is doing only raises suspicion.

Pennsylvania County Fights Open Records Decisions On Elections
Mancini cases upheld by the Office of Open Records that the county still wants hidden

Pennsylvania County Fights Open Records Decisions On Elections; Why The Fear?

Joe Fried On Fox Settlement

Joe Fried On Fox Settlement — CPA and election integrity activist Joe Fried has published on Substack a great take on the Fox vs Dominion Voting Systems legal battle.

Read it here.

Lawfare may be the greatest threat to our freedoms.

Joe Fried On Fox Settlement

Dominion Answers Would Have Been Found If Fox Fought

Dominion Answers Would Have Been Found If Fox Fought — Fox, showing the courage for which corporate America is known, caved in its court case with Dominion Voting Systems confessing it told lies about the company after the 2020 election and paying it $787 million to avoid a $1.6 billion settlement.

One would have thought they would have at least gone to trial simply to keep their cred which would be higher with a fighting loss rather than rolling over.

One would have thought that even with a defeat in a jury trial they sill had numerous paths to appeal as Dominion would presumably fall under the public figure/public official standard created by New York Times vs Sullivan .

If the company that runs our elections is not a public official what exactly is?

Further, if Fox showed some spine it could have perhaps compelled Dominion officials to answer the questions they refused to take from the Pennsylvania Senate.

Further, the could have queried them about their strident opposition to software audits such as one they one they squelched in Fulton County, Pa.

And maybe they could have even brought up how Fulton County, itself, is suing Dominion. They could have maybe worked into the debate the findings of   Wake Technology Services Inc.  concerning Dominion machines.

The opposition to audits is obvious grounds for suspicion.

Cowardice is going to kill this country.

And regardless of whether the suspicions are grounded or that Dominion is evil or any other similar thought lurking in the minds of millions of Americans, why are we using private machines for our elections? Why does the intellectual property of corporations take precedence over election transparency?

Demand answers to these questions starting with your committeeman and take it all the way to the governor.

Oh, the latest concerning Fulton County regarding lawfare and the destruction of faith in our elections:

Note that Pennsylvania’s partisan Supreme Court is not saying Wake TSI found nothing. It’s saying it shouldn’t have looked.

Dominion Answers Would Have Been Found If Fox Fought
Dominion Answers Would Have Been Found If Fox Fought

Delco Dems Plan Precinct Power Grab

Delco Dems Plan Precinct Power Grab — We have it on good authority that Democrats that control Delaware County, Pa. are planning a power grab designed to give them forever rule.

What is in the works — and is supposed to be in place by the November election — is the consolidation of precincts into massive voting districts.

Where this has happened namely in Oregon, Washington, Colorado and California, has been the disenfranchisement of voters unaligned with the ruling “credentialed” class.

The first target is reportedly Republican-leaning Aston.

For the record, the state Election Code limits precincts to 1,200 voters which is still too high. A good rule of thumb is that the election workers should be familiar with most of the voters.

Where is the outrage from the county Republicans?

Delco Dems Plan Precinct Power Grab
Stick it to the man and fight the power, Delco. It’s your heritage
Delco Dems Plan Precinct Power Grab

Delco Election Case Before Commonwealth Court

Delco Election Case Before Commonwealth Court — Leah Hoopes and Greg Stenstrom told Emerald Robinson, yesterday, that Commonwealth Court has agreed to hear their appeal of allegations that Delaware County Election officials destroyed or are hiding evidence that the 2020 election was stolen.

See the interview here:

Delco Election Case Before Commonwealth Court

Bucks County Election Case Before Commonwealth Court

Bucks County Election Case Before Commonwealth Court — A hearing Wednesday, April 5, in Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court concerned the interpretation of a state law stemming from election challenges filed in Bucks County.

What was in dispute was an apparent conflict between Section 1701 and Section 1703 of Article XVII of the Pennsylvania Election Code.

Section 1701 allows for three qualified voters of a district to demand the “ballot box” be opened “upon information which they consider reliable, they believe that fraud or error, although not manifest on the general return of votes, was committed.”

The respondents, which were the Bucks County Bureau of Elections and the Pennsylvania Department of State, argued that Section 1703 says that for elections that covered more than one district — which would be all elections except for Judges of Elections and similar offices — a petition would have to be filed in each district requiring three voters from each district and the placing of a bond. The bonds in a state-wide race would require several million dollars.

Section 1703 says “a recount or recanvass shall include all election districts in which ballots were cast for the office in question.”

Opening a single machine on suspicion is obviously not recounting an entire race. Improprieties one machine, however, could and should lead to investigating other machines, and a recount. Rigged ballots in one place are prima facie evidence of a stolen election, and the residency and bond requirements would not apply.

Attorney Andrew Teitelman, who was working pro bono, argued for 111 Bucks County residents who saw troubling events in the 2022 elections. Many filed pro se petitions to start things.

A decision is pending. Any decision will not affect the results of the election but would provide clarity for the future.

And we have been told that the Department of State did not insert itself in the case until two days prior to the hearing.

The hearing can be watched here.

Bucks County Election Case Before Commonwealth Court
%d bloggers like this: