Arizona Recount to Restore Trump as President Is Just the Beginning
Republicans of the Arizona senate have set out to prove that the three audits, reviews, and recounts of the state's 2020 presidential election came up with the wrong answer. It's always been a red state (1996 presidency excepted). Biden couldn't have won.
To uncover the fraud that must be the only explanation, yet another count of the 2.1 million ballots of Maricopa County was ordered by the state senate and is underway as we write.
Recount taking place in the Arizona Veterans Memorial Coliseum
Maricopa weighs in with two-thirds of the state's votes; its votes delivered the wins for Democrats Biden and former astronaut and now Senator Mark Kelly, so other counties were not considered. And only the election of Biden and Kelly are being analyzed. Apparently there was no fraud in any of the races around the state that Republicans won.
The former president is, of course, ecstatic. He put out a "Statement by Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States of America" thanking "the brave and patriotic Republican State Senators from Arizona for the incredible job they are doing", admonishing Democrats for sending lawyers to Arizona…
"in an effort to stop this recount and full transparency because THEY KNOW WHAT THEY DID! The Democrats are desperate for the FRAUD to remain concealed because, when revealed, the Great States of Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, New Hampshire, and the Great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, would be forced to complete the work already started."
He concluded with "I predict the results will be startling".
only one acceptable answerArizona's vote has been audited by federally accredited firms, twice, with a second audit ordered by the state legislature, and by a hand count overseen by both parties. Biden's win was certified unanimously by the Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County which has five… Read More »
Tempers Flare Over Move to Kill Filibuster and Revive Senate
Mitch McConnell is livid. "Nobody serving in this chamber can even begin, can even begin", he repeated, "to imagine what a completely scorched earth Senate would look like". He was reacting to the threat of Democrats ending the filibuster, the Senate process for preventing bills from becoming law by requiring a super majority of 60 votes rather
Drew Sheneman, The Star Ledger
than a simple majority of one. No longer the Senate majority leader, he is furious that the filibuster might be taken away from him. He demands it because it transfers the Senate's power to him, taking it from the Democrats, never mind that they became the majority by winning in the elections.
There is no provision for the filibuster in the Constitution, but we often are told — by those holding the short straw — that without the filibuster, the Senate will be subject to the tyranny of the majority. McConnell prefers the tyranny of the minority, armed with the filibuster to block the victorious party from passing its legislative program.
Republicans may ridicule a majority that is so only when Vice-President Kamala Harris steps in to break 50-50 ties. But Democrats should reject such cavils for good reason:. Should they ditch the… Read More »
investigations
Yes, Collusion! Government Report Connects the Dots to Russian Intelligence
Apr 18 2021
When Robert Mueller turned in his investigative team's report to the Justice Department in March of 2019, Attorney General William Barr infamously undercut two years' work with his hurried four-page review so as to say that Mueller found no conspiracy "despite multiple offers from Russia-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign". When, two weeks later, he released the report itself, Barr said, "the Special Counsel found no 'collusion' by any Americans" with Internet Research Agency, the Russian outfit that interfered with the 2016 election. President Trump was triumphant. "There was no collusion with Russia", he declared on the tarmac returning from Mar-a-Lago. "No collusion" and "Complete and total exoneration" became Trump's immediate mantra, repeated endlessly.
The Mueller report was, of course, nowhere near so simplistic. It found that "the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts".
We thoroughly digested the Mueller report, footnotes and all, and amidst all the inexplicable contacts with Russians, already reported by 
Wanted: Konstantin Kilimnik
a revitalized press, we identified one connection that certainly looked collusive. Just days after the report's release, we wrote:
"The collusion theory 'expired in an instant' with Barr's letter, said the lead editorial at the Wall Street Journal. One would think that everything and everyone suggestive of collusion had been made to disappear in a puff of smoke, as if everything turned up by the investigative media over the last two years was imaginary. That must mean…that Trump's campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, did not hand over polling data that Russia presumably used to interfere with our elections to Konstantin Kilimnic [sic] … thought to have ties to Russian intelligence."
That says we, and many others, saw collusion at the outset. A presidential campaign's close-in polling data in battleground states would indicate in which towns and counties there is weakness. With the Russians showing a preference for Trump over Hillary Clinton, and using American social media to influence voters, such…
Read More »
When Robert Mueller turned in his investigative team's report to the Justice Department in March of 2019, Attorney General William Barr infamously undercut two years' work with his hurried four-page review so as to say that Mueller found no conspiracy "despite multiple offers from Russia-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign". When, two weeks later, he released the report itself, Barr said, "the Special Counsel found no 'collusion' by any Americans" with Internet Research Agency, the Russian outfit that interfered with the 2016 election. President Trump was triumphant. "There was no collusion with Russia", he declared on the tarmac returning from Mar-a-Lago. "No collusion" and "Complete and total exoneration" became Trump's immediate mantra, repeated endlessly.
The Mueller report was, of course, nowhere near so simplistic. It found that "the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts".
We thoroughly digested the Mueller report, footnotes and all, and amidst all the inexplicable contacts with Russians, already reported by
Wanted: Konstantin Kilimnik
a revitalized press, we identified one connection that certainly looked collusive. Just days after the report's release, we wrote:
"The collusion theory 'expired in an instant' with Barr's letter, said the lead editorial at the Wall Street Journal. One would think that everything and everyone suggestive of collusion had been made to disappear in a puff of smoke, as if everything turned up by the investigative media over the last two years was imaginary. That must mean…that Trump's campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, did not hand over polling data that Russia presumably used to interfere with our elections to Konstantin Kilimnic [sic] … thought to have ties to Russian intelligence."
That says we, and many others, saw collusion at the outset. A presidential campaign's close-in polling data in battleground states would indicate in which towns and counties there is weakness. With the Russians showing a preference for Trump over Hillary Clinton, and using American social media to influence voters, such… Read More »
pandemic
Suspicions Rise: Did the Virus Escape from a Wuhan Lab?
Apr 13 2021
A 15-member international contingent from the World Health Organization (WHO) journeyed to Wuhan, China, early this year to seek out the source of the original Covid-19 outbreak that has led to the deaths of close to three million people worldwide. At the end of March, they turned in their report. It did not go over well.
Earlier complaints that the WHO has been too deferential toward China were not eased by the WHO's member states deciding the 
A wet market in Wuhan, China
junket should be a collaboration between Chinese and foreign scientists, not an independent investigation or audit, so the international 15 were joined by a Chinese delegation of equal size. The Chinese were even given the right of approval of who was permitted on the tour; two from the international group were halted in Singapore. And once the group arrived, they were required by Chinese authorities to spend the first two weeks in quarantine, cutting their month-long trip…
Read More »
A 15-member international contingent from the World Health Organization (WHO) journeyed to Wuhan, China, early this year to seek out the source of the original Covid-19 outbreak that has led to the deaths of close to three million people worldwide. At the end of March, they turned in their report. It did not go over well.
Earlier complaints that the WHO has been too deferential toward China were not eased by the WHO's member states deciding the
A wet market in Wuhan, China
junket should be a collaboration between Chinese and foreign scientists, not an independent investigation or audit, so the international 15 were joined by a Chinese delegation of equal size. The Chinese were even given the right of approval of who was permitted on the tour; two from the international group were halted in Singapore. And once the group arrived, they were required by Chinese authorities to spend the first two weeks in quarantine, cutting their month-long trip…
Read More »