The rope-a-dope is a boxingfighting technique in which one contender leans against the ropes of the boxing ring to draw non-injuring offensive punches in an effort to tire their opponent out and, while they are on the ropes, try to execute devastating offensive punches.
It has been proven that Pelosi manufactured the Jan6 scheme in her own words and the Military failed to follow up on an order given by President Trump.
President Trump communicated with the military and gave an order to send the National Guard to the Capital to keep the peace and the head of the military should be in trouble for not fulfilling the President’s command which was an order.
The Supreme Court ruling has been set which protects President Trump in these matters. So, why does the court and Jack Smith keep digging up old bones that have been buried?
These dogs keep digging up these old bones and trying to resurrect the past which is now history and interfering in the 2024 election.
These Obama judges need to be called out for this interference. They are beginning to look foolish and lawless in the eyes of the people.
The fight is at the ballot box not the court system.
When will the Democrat Socialist realize – you win at the ballot box not at the White House?
We also know that Harris/Walz are not ready for prime time. Is that why they pulled this boner to try to stop/interfere with the election process?
All states cannot prove that the election is fair and square. We have to go back to paper ballots since it is so easy to cheat with computers and lawyer’s law unfair?
Pelosi was found to be responsible for Jan6 – all tied up in a package with a red bow. And, the Pentagon released the phone conversation about the National Guard.
The Democrat Socialists are beginning to look ridiculous with all of this interference – law suitsssss/assassinations/and on and on?
Was the lawyer appointed by the proper authority? NO!
****
Newsweek
Jack Smith Filing—Five Biggest Bombshells
Former President Donald Trump is seeking to have his election fraud trial dismissed just one day after prosecutors released a 165-page dossier of evidence in the case.
In a motion to dismiss the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith, Trump’s lawyers argued that former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was “caught” on camera admitting her responsibility for the riot at the U.S. Capitol.
“The Special Counsel’s Office seeks to assign blame for events President Trump did not control and took action to protect against,” their filing states.
“It is apparently of no consequence, to the Office and those who support their efforts, that former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was caught on a previously undisclosed video accepting ‘responsibility; for the events at the Capitol,” it adds.
Pelosi was among the Congress members who had to flee the Capitol after Trump supporters stormed the building on January 6, 2021.
Newsweek reached out to the Trump campaign team via email for comment on Friday.
Thursday’s dismissal motion also states that General Mark A. Milley, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will be a “star” prosecution witness in the case.
The joint chief of staff is the highest-ranking military officer in the United States.
“Even one of the Office’s star witnesses, General Mark Milley, acknowledged long before charges were brought in this case that President Trump had instructed the Defense Department on January 3, 2021 to ‘make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers to make sure it’s a safe event,'” the document states.
Trump’s lawyers claim that the indictment “stretches generally applicable statutes beyond their breaking point” based on “false claims that President Trump is somehow responsible for events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.”
Much of their argument relies on the case of Fischer v. United States, in which the Supreme Court dismissed an obstruction charge against a man who wandered around the Capitol on January 6.
The Supreme Court said that was not enough to be charged with obstructing Congress; a defendant would have to throw papers around or do some other act that would physically obstruct Congress.
Trump, who is also charged with obstruction of Congress, is now seeking to have that charge and the entire indictment struck out. His lawyers state that the Fischer case shows that the Supreme Court rejects “lawfare overreach targeting President Trump.”
On Wednesday, Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan unsealed the 165 pages of prosecution evidence against Trump. It was the first time the public could see the case against the former president in depth.
It included allegations that a Trump staffer encouraged a riot among Trump supporters outside a Detroit count center during the 2020 election. He allegedly did so after it became clear that Michigan votes were leaning toward Joe Biden.
It also claims that, in mid-December 2020, Trump spoke with Republican National Committee chairwoman Ronna McDaniel and “asked her to publicize and promote a private report that had been released on December 13 that purported to identify flaws” in the use of voting machines in Antrim County, Michigan.
McDaniel refused, telling Trump that she had already discussed the report with Michigan’s Speaker of the House, “who had told her the report was inaccurate.”
She conveyed to Trump the Michigan speaker’s “exact assessment: the report was f**king nuts,” the document states.
Nevertheless, Trump continued to claim that the election in Michigan and other states had been rigged in Biden’s favor, the document notes.
Trump is accused of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct a Congressional official proceeding, obstruction and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights in connection with an alleged pressure campaign on state officials to reverse the 2020 election results.
Trump has denied all charges against him and repeatedly said he is the victim of a political witch hunt. He has accused Smith of attempting to interfere in the 2024 presidential election by prosecuting him.
The new indictment removes all accusations leveled against Trump regarding attempts to pressure the Department of Justice to falsely declare that President Joe Biden‘s 2020 election win was the result of massive fraud.
****
Now tell us how fair are the elections with computers?
Voters enter a polling place in Guadalupe, Arizona, to drop off their ballots during the July 30, 2024 primary election. New information reveals why some Arizona voters have for decades been able to vote a full ballot without providing documented proof of citizenship. (Courtney Pedroza for Votebeat)
Arizona election officials who suddenly discovered that they hadn’t obtained proof of citizenship from nearly 100,000 registered voters were relieved last month when the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that they wouldn’t be required to ask for it before the November election.
But new details that have come out since then are raising questions about the state’s handling of the error. The Secretary of State’s Office issued a revised estimate that said more than twice as many voters — 218,000 — were affected, indicating that officials didn’t have a clear picture from the Motor Vehicle Division about just how many voters were affected by a database error, or why, when they provided recommendations to the court on how to solve the issue.
State law in Arizona requires voters to provide proof of citizenship to vote in state and local elections, but the court had said it was too close to the election to ask these voters for the documents, especially since the problem with collecting the documents wasn’t their fault. These voters — who most probably had the proof but just hadn’t provided it to the state — would be allowed to vote a full ballot in November, the court ruled, rather than being placed on a separate list of voters who can vote only in federal elections.
The problem was at first characterized as a glitch that provided incorrect license issuance dates for the voters to election officials, which signaled to them that the MVD had proof of citizenship on file when it did not. New information obtained by Votebeat this week showed that the MVD has historically categorized anyone with a pre-1996 license as a U.S. citizen, even though the agency has not obtained their proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or passport. It’s unclear how or whether this would have affected the citizenship checks, which mainly relied on the issuance date.
This has been the case since 2004, when the system was initially programmed, according to a spokesperson with the Arizona Department of Transportation
Republicans target Secretary of State Fontes
As the Nov. 5 election approaches quickly — with mail ballots set to go out next week — the evolving explanations are unnerving some people who initially supported the court’s decision, including the Arizona Republican Party, which is now directing its criticism at Secretary of State Adrian Fontes.
“Now we find out that he hasn’t been as forthcoming with Arizonans as we would have hoped,” Arizona GOP Chair Gina Swoboda said. “We find that troubling, and will be taking additional action in the coming days.”
Separately, the Donald Trump-aligned America First Legal Foundation sued the state Thursday on behalf of conservative Strong Communities Foundation of Arizona, asking the court to force the secretary to release the names of the voters whose citizenship proof is in question.
In a response to an earlier public records request from the group, the Secretary of State’s Office wrote Sept. 24 that the data on affected voters was not yet final, and that releasing it too soon “would create confusion, chaos, uncertainty and consternation among the public — all of which is avoidable, and indeed must be avoided amid an ongoing election during which we expect to receive record turnout.”
The slow unraveling of the mysterious glitch has fueled misinformation about who the voters are and why the situation is happening. Republican elected officials and leaders across the country are claiming that the problem is evidence of cheating and that all the people on the list are noncitizens. That’s not the case: All of the voters attested to their U.S. citizenship under penalty of perjury when they registered to vote, as required by federal law. Only two on the list have so far been identified as noncitizens.
How, and how many, voters were miscategorized
Overall, at least 696,713 residents in Arizona received their license prior to 1996 and have been categorized in state records as U.S. citizens, without providing proof of citizenship. At least 218,000 of them are voters, according to data provided by the Secretary of State’s Office.
The office found out from MVD shortly after the court’s ruling that the number of voters involved was far more than initially reported. At the time, the office couldn’t explain exactly why the number had grown, or whether it was a final number.
Of the 218,000, the office said, 79,000 are Republicans, 61,000 are Democrats, and 76,000 are not registered with either party.
The Secretary of State’s Office has begun researching the citizenship of those affected using federal and state databases, and asking for expedited access, to narrow down the list.
Vote smart(er) with Votebeat Arizona’s newsletter.
Get the latest news on voting and elections in the Grand Canyon State delivered to your inbox for free every other week.Email (required)Sign Me Up
The problem has been occurring since 2004, when Arizona enacted a unique law requiring documented proof of citizenship to vote. Under federal law, all U.S. voters must attest to their citizenship to register, but do not need to prove it. In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Arizona must allow residents who do not provide proof to vote in federal elections. That created the separate “federal only” voter roll of people who can vote only in federal elections.
Under the law, Arizona driver’s licenses issued after October 1996 count as proof of citizenship for someone registering to vote. That’s because in October 1996, Arizona began requiring such proof to get a regular driver’s license, and started issuing noncitizens, such as green card holders, a different type of license. Before that, there was no such differentiation.
Because of that change, election officials often use information provided by MVD about driver’s licenses to confirm citizenship. When they query the MVD system for the information, they are able to see both an issuance date and a code indicating that the resident is a U.S. citizen, and they use those two criteria to determine a voter’s eligibility.
Under the MVD’s coding, if someone had received a license prior to 1996, they are coded as a “4,” which indicates U.S. citizen. On election officials’ screens, that code showed up as either “4” or “US Citizen/Non Foreign,” depending on the county. That would incorrectly indicate that someone had provided proof of citizenship.
But the election officials also had access to the voters’ license issuance date, which, if correct, should have alerted officials that they still needed to obtain the voter’s proof of citizenship.
In Maricopa County, officials were using both the date and the citizenship status to make the determination, according to a spokesperson. And in Yavapai County, Registrar of Voters Matt Webber said that the system would flag 1996-licenses, but it was rare.
The problem was that the issuance date was wrong in many cases.
The 98,000 voters first announced as being affected by the problem had a pre-1996 license, but when they registered to vote sometime after 2004, the system was showing the date of the last time they got issued a duplicate license— to replace a lost card, for example — not their original issuance date. Residents getting duplicate licenses don’t provide proof of citizenship at the time. But since the election official would in some cases see a date after 1996, they would assume the person provided proof of citizenship.
The second round of voters affected also had pre-1996 licenses, but when they registered to vote sometime after 2004, the system was showing the date of the last time they renewed or received a reinstatement of their license. The MVD has not historically required proof of citizenship when issuing reinstatements and renewals. But again, if the issuance date was after 1996, it gave the recorders the impression that the person had provided the documentation. That was the case for 120,000 more voters.
The Secretary of State’s Office has indicated the voters will need to provide documented proof of citizenship after the November election.
Jen Fifield is a reporter for Votebeat based in Arizona. Contact Jen at jfifield@votebeat.org.
“No, I don’t stand by it, and I’ll tell you why,” Sondland began. “I’ve now lived four years under the Biden-Harris policies and I have to say that those policies are not only becoming an existential threat to our country’s way of life, but to our allies as well.
Liz Cheney delivered a passionate defense of democratic institutions and called on the country to stand against threats to the rule of law.
Would that be the Democrats/Marxists/Biden Admin who are not using the Constitution?
Cheney has often distanced herself from some of the more extreme elements of her party, including election deniers, particularly after her break with former president Donald Trump and the MAGA faction following the events of January 6th, 2021, and her role as vice-chair of the HOAX January 6th Committee, which investigated the Capitol insurrection.Liz Cheney delivered a passionate defense of democratic institutions and called on the country to stand against threats to the rule of law.
The Jan6 Committee stated they destroyed their committee documents?
Newsweek
kommonsentsjane 