November 10, 2022 at 04:55PM BREAKING: Arizona Election Results Delayed Until AFTER Weekend
The election results in Arizona won’t be completed until after the weekend, according to breaking reports coming out of the region.
A Maricopa County spokesperson has just said the counting of the ballots will not be done Friday as originally expected, reportedly blaming a “historic” dump of 290k ballots on Election Day as the reason for the delay.
“Arizona spokesperson for Maricopa County elections tells me the majority of ballots won’t be done being counted until after the weekend,” reports Ali Bradley of NewsNation. “They initially anticipated 95-99% of ballots to be completed by Friday.”
“A historic 290k ballots were dropped off ElectionDay causing the delay.”
Currently, conservatives are closely following Kari Lake’s gubernatorial saga against Democrat Katie Hobbs as well as Blake Masters’ race to unseat incumbent Mark Kelly in the Arizona senate.
Already, critics are slamming Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell for brazenly disregarding Masters’ tight struggle for Senate.
“Mitch McConnell dumping $9 million into Alaska so pro-abortion RINO Lisa Murkowski could beat an America First Republican instead of spending it in Arizona for Blake Masters, whose race is going down to the wire, should be the nail in the coffin for his time as Leader,” said journalist Greg Price.
Moreover, Steve Bannon celebrated Lake’s efforts to assist Masters in his fight for the Senate seat.
“Blake was abandoned by Mitch McConnel,” said Bannon Thursday on The Charlie Kirk Show. “It took Kari Lake, who’s in a dog race herself, to say ‘no’ we’re going in as a team & we’re coming out as a team.”
“How many people think like that? In politics, they don’t think like that. This is what leadership is.”
Thirteen days after the 2020 election, I had lunch with President Trump. I told him that if his legal challenges came up short, he could simply accept the results, move forward with the transition, and start a political comeback, winning the Senate runoffs in Georgia, the 2021 Virginia governor’s race, and the House and Senate in 2022. Then he could run for president in 2024 and win. He seemed unmoved, even weary: “I don’t know, 2024 is so far off.”
In a Dec. 5 call, the president for the first time mentioned challenging the election results in Congress. By mid-December, the internet was filled with speculation about my role. An irresponsible TV ad by a group calling itself the Lincoln Project suggested that when I presided over the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress to count the electoral votes, it would prove that I knew “it’s over,” and that by doing my constitutional duty, I would be “putting the final nail in the coffin” of the president’s re-election. To my knowledge, it was the first time anyone implied I might be able to change the outcome. It was designed to annoy the president. It worked. During a December cabinet meeting, President Trump told me the ad “looked bad for you.” I replied that it wasn’t true: I had fully supported the legal challenges to the election and would continue to do so.
On Dec. 19, the president mentioned plans for a rally in Washington on Jan. 6. I thought that would be useful to call attention to the proceedings. I had just spoken with a senator about the importance of vetting concerns about the election before Congress and the American people. At the White House on Dec. 21, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan led lawmakers in a discussion about plans to bring objections. I promised that all properly submitted objections would be recognized and fully debated.
On Dec. 23, my family boarded Air Force Two to spend Christmas with friends. As we flew across America, President Trump retweeted an obscure article titled “Operation Pence Card.” It alluded to the theory that if all else failed, I could alter the outcome of the election on Jan. 6. I showed it to Karen, my wife, and rolled my eyes.
On Dec. 30, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley announced that he would co-sponsor election objections brought by representatives. I welcomed Sen. Hawley’s decision because it meant we would have a substantive debate. Without a senator’s support, I would have been required to dismiss House objections without debate, something I didn’t want to do.
Early on New Year’s Day, the phone rang. Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert and other Republicans had filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to declare that I had “exclusive authority and sole discretion” to decide which electoral votes should count. “I don’t want to see ‘Pence Opposes Gohmert Suit’ as a headline this morning,” the president said. I told him I did oppose it. “If it gives you the power,” he asked, “why would you oppose it?” I told him, as I had many times, that I didn’t believe I possessed that power under the Constitution.
“You’re too honest,” he chided. “Hundreds of thousands are gonna hate your guts. . . . People are gonna think you’re stupid.”
On Saturday, Jan. 2, I instructed my chief of staff to issue a statement supporting the right of lawmakers to bring objections under the Electoral Count Act. By Sunday morning, the headline “Pence Welcomes Congressional Republicans’ Bid to Challenge Electoral Votes” was everywhere. When the president called me that morning, his mood had brightened. “You have gone from very unpopular to popular!” he exclaimed. But then he pressed me again to reject electoral votes unilaterally. “You can be a historic figure,” he said, “but if you wimp out, you’re just another somebody.”
On Jan. 4, the president’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, summoned me to the Oval Office for a meeting with a long list of attendees, including the legal scholar John Eastman. I listened respectfully as Mr. Eastman argued that I should modify the proceedings, which require that electoral votes be opened and counted in alphabetical order, by saving the five disputed states until the end. Mr. Eastman claimed I had the authority to return the votes to the states until each legislature certified which of the competing slate of electors for the state was correct. I had already confirmed that there were no competing electors.
Mr. Eastman repeatedly qualified his argument, saying it was only a legal theory. I asked, “Do you think I have the authority to reject or return votes?”
He stammered, “Well, it’s never been tested in the courts, so I think it is an open question.”
At that I turned to the president, who was distracted, and said, “Mr. President, did you hear that? Even your lawyer doesn’t think I have the authority to return electoral votes.” The president nodded. As Mr. Eastman struggled to explain, the president replied, “I like the other thing better,” presumably meaning that I could simply reject electoral votes.
On Jan. 5, I got an urgent call that the president was asking to see me in the Oval Office. The president’s lawyers, including Mr. Eastman, were now requesting that I simply reject the electors. I later learned that Mr. Eastman had conceded to my general counsel that rejecting electoral votes was a bad idea and any attempt to do so would be quickly overturned by a unanimous Supreme Court. This guy didn’t even believe what he was telling the president.
Right before going to bed, I saw that the Trump campaign had issued a statement. The New York Times reported that I had told the president I didn’t believe I had the power to block congressional certification of the election. That was true, but the statement called it “fake news.” I had a feeling that Jan. 6, 2021, was going to be a very long day.
Trump supporters protest inside the U.S. Capitol after breeching security in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021.PHOTO: BRENT STIRTON/GETTY IMAGES
I rose early that day and worked on my statement to Congress. When the phone rang a little after 11 a.m., it was the president. “Despite the press release you issued last night,” I said, “I have always been forthright with you, Mr. President.” I reiterated that I didn’t believe I had the power to decide which electoral votes would count and said I would be issuing a statement to Congress confirming that before the joint session started.
The president laid into me. “You’ll go down as a wimp,” he said. “If you do that, I made a big mistake five years ago!”
But when he said, “You’re not protecting our country, you’re supposed to support and defend our country!” I calmly reminded him, “We both took an oath to support and defend the Constitution.”
As I headed to the Capitol, President Trump took the stage. He told the crowd: “I hope Mike is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I hope so. Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election.” Repeating the argument made by the crank lawyers standing just offstage, he said, “All he has to do, all this is, this is from the No. 1, or certainly one of the top, constitutional lawyers in our country. . . . All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest people.”
As our motorcade arrived at the Capitol, I saw thousands of protesters standing peacefully on the East Lawn. I felt compassion for all the good people who had traveled to Washington having been told that the outcome of the election could be changed. They cheered as we entered. I turned to my daughter and sighed: “God bless those people. They’re gonna be so disappointed.”
I had no idea that what was later described as a “wall of people” had formed about a block west of the Capitol. As I led senators onto the House floor, the mood was solemn. There was no indication of the mayhem unfolding outside. Speaker Nancy Pelosi gaveled the chamber into session a little after 1 p.m.
When the electoral votes for Arizona were opened, Rep. Paul Gosar rose to raise the first objection of the day, co-sponsored by 60 representatives. When I asked if the motion had a Senate sponsor, Ted Cruz rose. I adjourned the joint session and accompanied senators back to their chamber, still oblivious to the riot outside.
Forty minutes into the session, Republican James Lankford of Oklahoma had the floor when the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, seated a few feet in front of me, leaned back in her chair and whispered: “Mr. Vice President, protesters have breached the building’s doors on the first floor. Just informing you.”
A member of my Secret Service detail walked onto the Senate floor, straight to my chair, and said, “Mr. Vice President, we gotta go.” I was confident that the U.S. Capitol Police would soon have the situation in hand, so I told him we’d wait in the nearby ceremonial office reserved for my use as president of the Senate.
Soon my lead Secret Service agent, Timothy Giebels, walked into that crowded office and said, “Sir, we’ve got to get you out of the building.” The protesters who had smashed their way into the House side of the Capitol were heading for the Senate. I later learned that many had come looking for me.
I told my detail that I wasn’t leaving my post. Mr. Giebels pleaded for us to leave. The rioters had reached our floor. I pointed my finger at his chest and said, “You’re not hearing me, I’m not leaving! I’m not giving those people the sight of a 16-car motorcade speeding away from the Capitol.”
“OK,” he answered in a voice that made it clear that it wasn’t. “Well, we can’t stay here. This office only has a glass door, and we can’t protect you.”
My daughter Charlotte, sensing my frustration, asked, “Isn’t there somewhere else dad can go that is still in the Capitol?” Mr. Giebels said we could move to the loading dock and garage, a few stories below. I agreed.
The steps were secured. We walked out into the hall slowly. All around us was a blur of motion and chaos: security and police officers directing people to safety, staffers shouting and running for shelter. I heard footsteps and angry chanting. Making our way to the basement of the Capitol took a few extra minutes because I insisted that we walk, not run. The Secret Service team grudgingly accommodated me.
Arriving in the loading dock, we saw that our motorcade had been repositioned, with all the cars pointed toward a ramp leading out. Mr. Giebels began to escort us toward our cars. I stopped and said, “I’m not getting in the car.”
“Sir,” he replied, “we’re just going to have you wait in the car, but we are not leaving the Capitol.”
“Tim, I believe you,” I said. “You’re a man of integrity, but you’re not driving that car.” I knew that if we got into the car, somebody would tell the driver to get us out of the building.
We had no television in the garage, so my staff and security team briefed me on the situation using police radio communications and Twitter. The House and Senate leaders had been whisked away to a secure location off Capitol Hill, but other members were barricaded in the House chamber as Capitol Police worked to hold back the mob.
My unflappable assistant Zach Bauer walked up sheepishly and handed me his phone. The president had sent a tweet at 2:24 p.m.: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”
Rioters were ransacking the Capitol. Some of them, I was later told, were chanting, “Hang Mike Pence!” I ignored the tweet and got back to work.
My chief of staff arranged for a conference call with the congressional leadership. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made the point that it was imperative Congress reconvene as soon as possible to complete the vote count. Everyone agreed.
By 2:38 p.m., it appeared that cooler heads had prevailed at the White House. The president tweeted, “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!” A half hour later, he urged the rioters to “remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order—respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue.” At 4:17 p.m., the president issued a video telling the rioters, “I know your pain, I know your hurt . . . but you have to go home now, we have to have peace.”
By 7 p.m., we had been cleared to return to my office. When the session reconvened, everything changed. Many lawmakers withdrew support for objections that had been properly filed. Beyond the violence and destruction, the Jan. 6 rioters had managed to end the debate over election irregularities. At around 3:40 a.m., Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota read the results of the 2020 election.
I met with the president on Jan. 11. He looked tired, and his voice seemed fainter than usual. “How are you?” he began. “How are Karen and Charlotte?” I replied tersely that we were fine and told him that they had been at the Capitol on Jan. 6. He responded with a hint of regret, “I just learned that.” He then asked, “Were you scared?”
“No,” I replied, “I was angry. You and I had our differences that day, Mr. President, and seeing those people tearing up the Capitol infuriated me.”
He started to bring up the election, saying that people were angry, but his voice trailed off.
I told him he had to set that aside, and he responded quietly, “Yeah.”
I said, “Those people who broke into the Capitol might’ve been supporters, but they are not our movement.” For five years, we had both spoken to crowds of the most patriotic, law-abiding, God-fearing people in the country.
With genuine sadness in his voice, the president mused: “What if we hadn’t had the rally? What if they hadn’t gone to the Capitol?” Then he said, “It’s too terrible to end like this.”
On Jan. 14, the day after President Trump was impeached for the second time, I stopped by the Oval Office. The night before, he had unequivocally denounced the violence at the Capitol and called for calm and national unity. I congratulated him on his address. “I knew you’d like it,” he said. He seemed discouraged, so I reminded him that I was praying for him.
“Don’t bother,” he said.
As I stood to leave, he said, “It’s been fun.”
“A privilege, Mr. President,” I answered.
“Yeah, with you.”
Walking toward the door leading to the hallway, I paused, looked the president in the eye, and said, “I guess we will just have to disagree on two things.”
“What?”
I referred to our disagreement about Jan. 6 and then said, “I’m also never gonna stop praying for you.”
He smiled: “That’s right—don’t ever change.”
y Last Days With Donald Trump
I supported legitimate challenges to the 2020 vote counts. I also recognized that the Constitution didn’t give me authority to override the voters—and I followed my conscience on Jan. 6.
BREAKING: Kari Lake Goes on with Tucker Carlson and Brings INCREDIBLE NEWS! (VIDEO)
Arizona Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake joined Tucker Carlson on Wednesday night.
Kari told Tucker Carlson that they will start to see the election going in her direction.
And Kari dropped some incredible news on the 650,000 remaining ballots that need to be counted.
Kari Lake: Well I feel 100% certain I am going to win. The question is how big will that win be? Can you believe this, Tucker? We still hve 650,000 votes that have not been counted. And guess who these voters are? They’re the people who showed up on election day. They’re the people, 275,000 of them are people who brought their ballot to polls on election day because they don’t trust the mail and they don’t trust the drop boxes. So guess who those voters are? They’re our voters. And we’re only down by a few thousand votes right now. When those votes come in we’re going to see a lot of liberal minds kind of blowing up.
November 5, 2022 at 09:22AM NBC Quietly Removes Report Claiming Paul Pelosi Walked Away From Police, “Did Not Immediately Declare” Emergency
The Paul Pelosi attack continues to grow more bizarre by the day.
On Friday, sources familiar with the investigation told NBC News that when the police responded to the high-priority call, they had no idea they had been called to the Pelosi residence. What’s more, Pelosi did not immediately declare an emergency or try to leave his home.
“After a ‘knock and announce,’ the front door was opened by Mr. Pelosi. The 82-year-old did not immediately declare an emergency or try to leave his home,” reports NBC. Instead, Pelosi “began walking several feet back into the foyer toward the assailant and away from police.”
What’s more, Pelosi and attacker David DePape were reportedly alone for 30 minutes.
Of note, NBC News has deleted the clip from their Twitter feed and scrubbed it from their website.
Meanwhile, a neighbor living across from the Pelosis who was awake when the assault took place didn’t hear an alarm or anything unusual.
“No, not a thing, and you know we were awake at that hour in the morning; my husband was awake. We didn’t even hear sirens,” neighbor Sally McNulty told The Epoch Times.
McNulty, who has lived in the neighborhood for 20 years, said everything was quiet around the time of the 2 a.m. attack on Oct. 28.
“This is one of the quietest streets in the city,” she said. “You can hear a pin drop at night.”
McNulty said she doesn’t recall ever hearing the Pelosis’ alarm go off in the past, though she has occasionally heard others in the neighborhood.
She said that Paul Pelosi had no enemies she knew of and was well-liked.
Other neighbors declined to comment.
Marjorie Campbell, a former neighbor of the Pelosis for 10 years, told the Daily Mail she recalled fleets of black SUVs surrounding the house around the clock when she stayed there.
Everyone in the neighborhood has alarms on their windows, and if glass were smashed, an alarm would sound, she told the publication. Campbell recalled her computers getting scrambled by alleged security measures to protect the congresswoman.
Nancy Pelosi was at her Pacific Heights home, the site of the attack, on Nov. 2 while several dark SUVs were parked outside. Capitol Police were present, too, as were multiple San Francisco Police Department cars.
Paul Pelosi had surgery to address a skull fracture and other injuries at the Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, after 42-year-old David DePape allegedly fractured his skull with a hammer on Oct. 28.
Pelosi’s failure to call out for help or flee his home was a detail in the court filing that previously raised a red flag to me, and it seems that even NBC News finds it odd. “Why Pelosi didn’t try to flee or tell responding officers he was in distress is unclear,” NBC News’s Miguel Almaguer noted.
Nevertheless, the report suggested it was unknown whether Pelosi was already injured or what mental state he was in.
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
November 3, 2022 at 04:37PM San Francisco DA Won’t Release Police Bodycam Video, 911 Calls From Paul Pelosi Attack
San Francisco’s top prosecutor confirmed Wednesday her office will not release police body camera footage or 911 calls from the alleged Paul Pelosi attack late last week.
Authorities said that David DePape, 42, allegedly broke into the San Francisco home of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her husband Paul during the early morning hours of Oct. 28, according to court documents, before he allegedly struck Pelosi with a hammer. No security camera footage, police body camera footage, or 911 calls have been released.
When pressed about releasing more evidence in the case, San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins told NBC News that her office will not.
“Are you planning to release the 911 call or any body camera video [from the Paul Pelosi attack]?” asked NBC’s Kristen Welker on Wednesday.
“Not at this time,” replied Jenkins. “We’re going to find out today the speed at which this case will proceed once he’s arraigned. We’ll make decisions about what evidence gets played in court, during any hearings, or during the trial,” Jenkins added.
The San Francisco Police Department denied a public records request from The Epoch Times for body camera footage from the officers who responded to the Pelosi home, stating that “disclosure of information may endanger successful completion of the investigation.”
Requests for the 911 call and the police incident report are pending.
According to court documents, prosecutors said that DePape allegedly told investigators that he was on a “suicide mission” and sought to break Speaker Pelosi’s kneecaps, although she was not there at the time of the attack. DePape pleaded not guilty in a state court on Tuesday.
“I’m sick of the insane … level of lies coming out of Washington, D.C. I came here to have a little chat with his wife,” DePape also allegedly told officials, adding, “I didn’t really want to hurt him, but you know this was a suicide mission. I’m not going to stand here and do nothing even if it cost me my life,” according to the documents.
The U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) also wrote on Nov. 2 that it has cameras at the Pelosi home but said they weren’t being monitored when DePape entered the residence. The agency said cameras aren’t “actively monitored” unless Nancy Pelosi is at home.
Authorities at the USCP’s Command Center didn’t see anything unusual at the Pelosi home until they noticed police activity.
San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins announces charges against David DePape, who is accused of assaulting Paul Pelosi, in San Francisco, Calif., on Oct. 31, 2022. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
While Democrat officials have claimed that DePape was a right-wing radical, his neighbors and the mother of his children painted a different picture. On Wednesday evening, President Joe Biden, in a midterm stump speech, tied alleged threats to U.S. institutions to the attack targeting Pelosi’s longtime husband.
Independent Michael Shellenberger wrote that he went to the alleged former home of DePape in Berkeley, a city located near San Francisco that has long been a center of left-wing activism.
“And, as I discovered yesterday, DePape lived with a notorious local nudist in a Berkeley home, complete with a Black Lives Matter sign in the window and an LGBT rainbow flag, emblazoned with a marijuana symbol, hanging from a tree. A closer look reveals the characteristics of a homeless encampment,” he wrote in a Substack article.
Shellenberger added that neighbors told him that “people come and go from the house and the vehicles, neighbors say, in part to partake in the use of a potent psychedelic drug, ibogaine.”
Meanwhile, the mother of his children, Oxane “Gypsy” Taub, a nudist activist, told ABC7 over the past weekend that when they were in a relationship, DePape shared her left-wing political views. However, she said DePape was “mentally ill” and has been “for a long time.”
At one point, he disappeared for months and came back, she recalled. “He thought he was Jesus. He was constantly paranoid, thinking people were after him. And it took a good year or two to get back to, you know, being halfway normal,” Taub, who is incarcerated at a California prison on a kidnapping conviction, told ABC7.
The Epoch Times has contacted Jenkins’ office for comment.
November 2, 2022 at 04:19PM. BRAZILIAN ELECTION: The People, the Police and the Military Support Bolsonaro’s Efforts to Address Socialist Attempt to Steal Election (VIDEOS)
Pro-Bolsonaro Crowd in front of the Military Command in Brazil
The “Trump of the Tropics” is standing up the stolen election in Brazil and the people, the police, and the military support him.
TGP reported last night the President of Brazil known as “Trump of the Tropics” has decided not to accept the stolen election in Brazil.
THE BRAZILIAN PEOPLE ARE COMING OUT IN DROVES TO SUPPORT HIS EFFORTS TO GET TO THE TRUTH.
Millions of people are out around the country supporting Bolsonaro.
Brazilian patriots besiege the military command in Rio de Janeiro. They ask the military leaders to arrest Lula: “We will not allow a corrupt criminal to rule us!” Mass protests across Brazil. pic.twitter.com/z5DSVbOFhI
In the massive city of San Paolo citizens are protesting the stolen election and backing Bolsonaro.
ALERT ? Supporters of president Bolsonaro, unhappy with the election’s results, blocked roads around the country and restricted access to Sao Paulo international airport, Reports of multiple flights being canceled
The socialists don’t like that the police are behind Bolsonaro as well:
HAPPENING NOW: Things are developing quickly in Brazil, and not in a good way after the election that was STOLEN from Bolsonaro.
The police are starting to join with the Bolsonarista truck drivers who are protesting the fraudulent results of the Brazilian election. pic.twitter.com/FFWV7EOuDu
Fortaleza/CE, agora mesmo! Aqui na capital cearense não houve nenhuma manifestação de comemoração pela vitória do Lula, mas essa multidão se juntou rapidamente e de forma orgânica para dizer que não aceita o ladrão como presidente. pic.twitter.com/aKlUuI1PMo
October 28, 2022 at 06:46AM Federal judge holds tight-lipped chiefs of election denial group in contempt
True the Vote’s principals said they could not divulge the name of an FBI informant involved in a hack of poll workers’ personal data. A judge said they had no choice.
A bowl of stickers is set out for voters in Steubenville, Ohio, in March 2020. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar, File)
HOUSTON (CN) — Leaders of the election-monitoring group True the Vote have until Monday morning to identify a man privy to the download of personal information of 1.8 million U.S. poll workers from a software company’s server, or they will be detained for contempt, a federal judge warned Thursday.
True the Vote, its founder Catherine Engelbrecht and contractor and former board member Gregg Phillips are leading proponents of the conspiracy theory voting fraud cost Donald Trump the 2020 presidential election.
With U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt threatening them with fines and arrest in a contempt hearing Thursday, they took the witness stand and alleged they were working as confidential informants for the FBI from 2021 to May of this year, helping with an investigation of Konnech Inc., a Michigan-based company that sells software to help manage election equipment and poll workers.
The hearing centered on a meeting in a Dallas hotel room in early 2021.
Phillips testified a friend of his named Mike Hasson summoned him to the hotel and after they rolled up towels and placed them under the door, Hasson plugged his laptop into a TV and showed him data Konnech maintained for U.S. poll workers —including Social Security numbers, phone numbers, email addresses and banking information — that Hasson said he had obtained by accessing a password-protected server in China.
According to a defamation and computer fraud lawsuit Konnech filed on Sept. 12 in Houston federal court, its Chinese-American CEO and founder Eugene Yu and his family had to leave their home due to threats from True the Vote supporters after Phillips and Engelbrecht spread lies at events and on podcasts the company is a vehicle of the Chinese Community Party to manipulate U.S. elections.
The same day Konnech sued, Hoyt issued a temporary restraining order, directing Phillips and Engelbrecht to identify each person involved in taking Konnech’s data.
The saga took an unexpected twist Oct. 4 when Yu was arrested by local police in Michigan working with investigators from the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.
District Attorney George Gascón said Konnech has a contract with LA County that mandates it keep election worker information on secure servers in the United States, and a probe by his office had found probable Konnech was storing the data on servers in China.
Two days later, Hoyt convened a contempt hearing at the behest of Konnech’s attorneys, Dean Pamphilis and Nathan Richardson of Benson Kasowitz Torres, because Phillips’ and Engelbrecht’s attorneys were refusing to identify who had accessed Konnech’s data.
They said it would jeopardize national security and was an “FBI matter.” But under pressure from Judge Hoyt, they named Hasson in open court at the Oct. 6 hearing, despite their concerns it would somehow endanger Hasson.
A few days before Yu’s Oct. 14 arraignment in Los Angeles County on charges of grand theft by embezzlement of public funds and conspiracy to embezzle public funds, which together carry a maximum sentence of eight years in prison, True the Vote’s attorneys revealed Phillips had testified before the grand jury that indicted Yu.
Back in Houston, Hoyt scheduled another contempt hearing because True the Vote’s counsel still had not complied with the TRO and named everyone who had been in that Dallas hotel room or seen the filched data.
True the Vote’s initial counsel withdrew from the case, and it hired new lawyers, John Kiyonga of Alexandria, Virginia and Michael Wynne with Gregor Cassidy Wynne of Houston, to represent them at Thursday’s hearing.
Wynne started off trying to appease Judge Hoyt and avoid any contempt order against his clients with a sworn affidavit from Phillips, stating the only people who have seen Konnech’s stolen data besides Hasson and Phillips were two Texas-based FBI agents to whom Hasson had given the data.
Pamphilis, Konnech’s attorney, complained that he had spent the last 45 days “chasing these guys around,” trying to get information they insisted they couldn’t give up due to national security concerns and had incurred $130,000 in attorney’s fees.
“I want them to put on the record today all info required by the [TRO]. And if not be fined a specific amount or confined to jail until they do comply,” he said.
Judge Hoyt agreed. “A motion for contempt can’t be answered with an affidavit,” he said. “It has to be addressed with testimony or suffer the consequences. Failing to testify can lead to them [Phillips and Engelbrecht] being incarcerated. … This isn’t criminal contempt, it’s coercive contempt. They hold the key to the jailhouse. They can get out if they testify.”
After Phillips, Engelbrecht and their entourage of attorneys and bodyguards retired to a side room for a conference, they returned to the courtroom and Phillips took the stand.
Phillips, 62, in a blue suit jacket and sporting a long salt-and-pepper beard said, “I’m a contractor for True the Vote and was on its board from 2014 to 2017.”
Phillips testified he does not know how Hasson accessed Konnech’s data. He also revealed the involvement of a mystery man: He said a third FBI confidential informant had been in the hotel room with him and Hasson, as he considered both himself and Hasson to also be CIs for the agency, helping it with voter fraud investigations.
On cross-examination, Pamphilis tried to pry the man’s identify from Phillips.
“There was somebody else in the room with you, who was it” Pamphilis asked.
“I’m not at liberty to say,” Phillips replied.
Judge Hoyt interjected, “I’m ordering you to.”
“I’m a confidential informant, I can’t do it,” Phillips said.
Engelbrecht, 52, then took the stand. Punctuating her testimony with long dramatic pauses, she also declined to name the third man in the Dallas hotel room: “I can’t give the name because he’s an informant.”
Engelbrecht said she and Phillips lost their FBI confidential informant status in May after the criminal division of the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, which had been working with the pair on election fraud investigations, started calling different FBI offices and inquiring about them.
“The Arizona AG’s Office made so many calls it caused us to lose that status,” she said, before acknowledging that the agency had recently asked the FBI and IRS to investigate True the Vote because it had not delivered promised data proving widespread fraud in the 2020 election.
Engelbrecht and Phillips co-produced, with conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza, a documentary called “2000 Mules” in which they purport to show, using cellphone app geolocation data and surveillance footage how 2,000 people, “mules,” working for unnamed nonprofits potentially stuffed 380,000 fraudulent ballots in drop boxes in five swing states that Joe Biden narrowly won in the 2020 election.
Near the end of a four-hour hearing that felt like eight hours, Wynne, True the Vote’s attorney, asked Engelbrecht if she would reveal the mystery man’s name if he could confirm with the FBI it is OK to do so.
“Yes,” she replied. “But I’m just very concerned about security.”
Hoyt pointed out that as a federal judge, he has the “highest security clearance of anyone in this country” and said Engelbrecht and Phillips must divulge the man’s identity before a hearing Monday morning
“They are both in contempt of court. And they have until 9 a.m. Monday to cure it, otherwise I’ll ask the U.S. Marshals to detain them,” Hoyt pronounced.
October 26, 2022 at 07:00AM John Fetterman Opens only Senate Debate with “Hi, Goodnight Everybody” (Video)
John Fetterman opened his only debate tonight with, “Hi Goodnight everybody.”
Moderator: Lt. Governor you’re running for a seat that could decide the balance of power in Washington. What qualifies you to be a US Senator? You have 30 seconds.
On Monday, Pete Santilli discussed his investigation into what he tripped upon when he tried to follow a link to an article by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who investigated historic Watergate and had exposed the CIA in a massive article that went missing on the web.
The following is another discussion about the highly important article that Santilli found and restored and talked about by CATO org:
During the early decades of the Cold War, some journalists even became outright CIA assets. Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein’s January 1977, 25,000-word article in Rolling Stone was an extraordinarily detailed account of cooperation between the CIA and members of the press, and it provided key insights into that relationship. In some cases, the “journalists” were actually full‐time CIA employees masquerading as members of the Fourth Estate, but Bernstein also confirmed that some 400 bona fide American journalists had secretly carried out assignments for the ClA during the previous 25 years. He noted that “journalists provided a full range of clandestine services — from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go‐betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs.”
A December 26, 1977, investigative report in the New York Times described the scope of the CIA’s global campaign to influence opinion through media manipulation. “In its persistent efforts to shape world opinion, the C.I.A. has been able to call upon” an extensive network “of newspapers, news services, magazines, publishing houses, broadcasting stations and other entities over which it has at various limes had some control. A decade ago, when the agency’s communications empire was at its peak, [it] embraced more than 500 news and public information organizations and individuals. According to one CIA official, they ranged in importance ‘from Radio Free Europe to a third‐string guy in Quito who could get something in the local paper.’” The CIA funded those foreign “journalistic assets” generously.
The American people, who count on the news profession to provide them with accurate, independent information about foreign affairs, are the ultimate victims.
Bernstein emphasized that the most valuable of the close associations were “with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc. [the publisher of both Time and Newsweek].” In fact, the New York Times alone” provided cover for about ten CIA operatives” over a nearly two‐decade period. “The aid furnished often took two forms: providing jobs and credentials (“journalistic cover” in Agency parlance) for CIA operatives about to be posted in foreign capitals; and lending the Agency the undercover services of reporters already on staff, including some of the best‐known correspondents in the business.” CBS News, though, gave the Times some competition for the designation of the CIA’s most useful press asset. CBS was unquestionably the CIA’s most valuable broadcasting asset. Over the years, the network not only provided cover for CIA employees, the network “allowed reports by CBS correspondents to the Washington and New York newsrooms to be routinely monitored by the CIA.”
Reforms enacted in the late 1970s after investigative hearings by the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Sen. Frank Church (D‑ID), supposedly brought an end to such CIA penetration of the press. However, evidence of recent media‐intelligence agency collaboration suggests that while the manipulation may have become more subtle, it has not gone away. A startling September 2014 exclusive report in the Intercept confirmed that the problem of excessively close ties between the CIA and certain prominent journalists is not a merely a historical artifact.
Intercept reporter Ken Silverstein obtained several hundred pages of documents from the Agency regarding that issue in response to two Freedom of Information Act applications. The heavily redacted documents provided only limited enlightenment; the un‐redacted portions consisted primarily of correspondence from reporters and columnists to the Agency, while the replies from CIA personnel were mostly blacked out. As Silverstein noted, “It’s impossible to know precisely how the CIA flacks responded to reporters’ queries, because the emails show only one side of the conversations. The CIA redacted virtually all of the press handlers’ replies other than meager comments that were made explicitly on the record, citing the CIA Act of 1949, which exempts the agency from having to disclose ‘intelligence sources and methods.’” Silverstein pointed out archly that the contents of off‐the‐record or background emails from CIA press handlers might disclose sources and methods, “depending on whether you view manipulation of American reporters as an intelligence method.”
Even with the extensive redactions, the abundance of the e‑mail exchanges with reporters from the Associated Press, Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and other major outlets indicated that very close professional (and sometimes personal) relationships seemed to exist between those journalists and the CIA. Silverstein focused much of his attention on the behavior of Ken Dilanian, a national security reporter for the Los Angeles Times who later joined the Associated Press, and still later, NBC News. His relationship with the CIA certainly raised some troubling questions. Silverstein charged that numerous e‑mails “show that Dilanian enjoyed a closely collaborative relationship with the agency, explicitly promising positive news coverage and sometimes sending the press office entire story drafts for review prior to publication. In at least one instance, the CIA’s reaction appears to have led to significant changes in the story that was eventually published in the Times.” Clearing stories in advance and currying official cooperation and approval automatically compromises the integrity of the journalist’s handiwork.
One of the CIA’s long‐standing, favorite tactics is to generate favorable, including outright bogus, news stories in foreign media outlets, with the expectation that American outlets will eventually pick them up. There is no question that the U.S. government still recruits foreign journalists for propaganda missions in their home countries. For example, the United States and Britain have mounted an extensive joint propaganda effort regarding the Syrian civil war using an array of Middle Eastern reporters and columnists. Among other possible effects, one must ponder how many of those orchestrated “news” stories found their way back into American media, impacting the narrative and domestic debate about the Syrian civil war and what Washington’s stance should be toward that conflict. The potential “blowback” phenomenon is a worrisome example of how the intelligence agencies can manipulate the debate on a foreign policy issue in the United States.
It is unsettling how often most mainstream media outlets advance the agenda of the narrative put forth by the CIA and other portions of the national security state. Most of the press circulated the narrative that the CIA‐orchestrated coups in Iran and Guatemala in the 1950s were spontaneous democratic uprisings. More recently, the news media disseminated allegations that Saddam Hussein had a vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Nearly all that information came from Iraqi exiles that the CIA supplied to “friendly” journalists, including New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Perhaps most striking, major media outlets, especially the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN and MSNBC, have avidly joined the national security state’s campaign to demonize Russia. Those media heavyweights enthusiastically promoted the false narrative about collusion between Donald Trump’s campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 presidential election. Even worse, they parroted the CIA’s unsupported, far‐fetched allegation that Moscow had paid the Taliban bounties to kill American soldiers.
It is possible that the willingness of journalists to be megaphones for the CIA on such issues merely reflects inherent gullibility. However, given the long track record of collusion, it is likely that the intelligence community is systematically working with willing allies. The American people, who count on the news profession to provide them with accurate, independent information about foreign affairs, are the ultimate victims.
BREAKING: FBI Arrests 87-Year-Old Concentration Camp Survivor for Singing Hymns Outside Abortion Clinic Door
11 pro-life activists were arrested this month for holding a prayer vigil and singing hymns at the door of the abortion clinic in Mount Juliet, Tennessee.
The protest movement was posted on Facebook at the time months earlier.
87-year-old Eva Edl, is a German survivor of a communist prisoner-of-war concentration camp during World War II.
If convicted of the offenses, the seven conspiracy defendants each face up to a maximum of 11 years in prison, three years of supervised release and fines of up to $350,000. The remaining five defendants face a year in prison, one year of supervised release and a fine of up to $10,000.
Eva Edl released a video in November 2018 describing her experience in a concentration camp and her opposition to abortion.
The Biden administration has been under heavy criticism as Joe Biden’s Justice Department targets peaceful pro-life Americans for protesting abortions in such as a way that they blocked access to an abortion center.
The Justice Department has charged 11 more pro-life activists with violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act for blocking the entrance of an abortion clinic in 2021. The 11 activists were charged with FACE Act violations stemming from their 2021 “blockade” of an abortion clinic in Mount Juliet, Tennessee.
New information about one of the pro-life advocates arrested recently shows she is an 87-year-old woman who is a concentration camp survivor.
A federal indictment alleges that the pro-life defendants “engaged in a conspiracy to prevent the clinic from providing” and patients from receiving abortion services and violated the FACE Act by “using physical obstruction to intimidate and interfere with the clinic’s employees and a patient.”
Yet the event was mostly pro-life people staging a peaceful sit in along with signing and praying and it was so lawful and peaceful that local police let them go after minor misdemeanor charges. But if convicted on these federal charges from the Biden administration, Vaughn faces up to 11 years in prison, three years supervised release and fines of up to $350,000.
One of the pro-life advocates the FBI considers as a danger to the public is an elderly woman, Eva Edl, who is a German survivor of a communist prisoner-of-war concentration camp during World War II. After she escaped that horror, Edl dedicated her life to fighting for human rights for everyone — including people before birth
