KOMMONSENTSJANE – Seanator Kelly Says Americans Need to be Educated on Election.

10/06/2024

Can you tell me the difference in Russian interference and ILLEGALS VOTING IN OUR ELECTIONS

******

Yes, they do need to be educated on the election – but don’t you have to clean up your own backyard?

The 218,000 is a lot of error votes – that could win an election with just a few of those – especially in 2020.

ttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/kelly-says-americans-need-to-be-educated-on-election-misinformation/ar-AA1rNbgB?ocid=BingNewsVerp

******

Joining us now is Arizona’s Democratic Senator Mark Kelly.

CBS News

Sen. Mark Kelly says Americans need to know about “huge amount of misinformation” on election

Washington — Sen. Mark Kelly said Sunday that the federal government needs to do its part to inform Americans of the vast swath of election misinformation that’s being consumed on social media platforms like X, TikTok, Facebook and Instagram.

“It’s up to us, the people who serve in Congress and in the White House to get the information out there, that there is a tremendous amount of misinformation in this election, and it’s not going to stop on Nov.  5,” Kelly said on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.” 

Kelly, who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he’s seen these misinformation operations target not only his state of Arizona, but also other battleground states.

“There is a very reasonable chance I would put it in the 20 to 30% range, that the content you are seeing, the comments you are seeing, are coming from one of those three countries: Russia, Iran, China,” Kelly said.Sen. Mark Kelly on

Sen. Mark Kelly on

In a committee hearing last month on foreign threats to the 2024 election, Kelly presented screenshots of Russian-made web pages showing fabricated headlines designed to look like Fox News and The Washington Post, targeted at voters in battleground states. 

“So my constituents in Arizona and others — they seek to influence the outcome of these elections, and that is absolutely beyond the pale,” Kelly said at the Sept. 18 hearing. “We’ve got to do something about it.”

Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump each have the support of 49% of Arizona voters, according to CBS News’ battleground tracker as of Sept. 30. 

In another battleground state, Pennsylvania, Trump returned Saturday to hold a rally in Butler three months after an attempted assassination on him. He was joined by members of his own party and billionaire Elon Musk, who said Trump was the only way to preserve democracy and warned of a last election if he does not win in November. 

Speaking to CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, Kelly called the social media mogul a hypocrite. 

“He’s standing next to the guy that tried to overturn the 2020 election on Jan. 6, saying that this is somehow going to be the last election and they’re going to take away your vote,” Kelly said. “And you know, it just doesn’t pass the logic test.”

(Pelosi’s video proves and she stated she was responsible for Jan6. Milley also received a call from President Trump for the National Guard and Milley disobeyed the order.)

At the White House press briefing on Friday, President Biden – speaking from the podium for the first time since taking office – said he’s confident of a free and fair election but alluded to the 2021 insurrection at the Capitol in his concerns on whether it will be a peaceful transfer of power.    

“The things that Trump has said and the things that he said last time out when he didn’t like the outcome of the election were very dangerous,” Mr. Biden said. “If you notice, I noticed that the vice-presidential Republican candidate did not say he’d accept the outcome of the election, and they haven’t even accepted the outcome of the last election.”

(Why should they when the cheating is being reported as below?)

*****

ttps://www.votebeat.org/arizona/2024/10/03/citizenship-proof-error-federal-only-voter-registration-drivers-license-records/#:~:text=Jen%20Fifield%20is%20a%20reporter%20for%20Votebeat%20based

Arizona labeled longtime residents as citizens without proof for years, leading to voter roll errors

Number of affected voters grows to 218,000 as new details emerge about flawed records in Motor Vehicle Division’s system.

By 

Jen Fifield | October 3, 2024, 5:07pm CDT

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)

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Arizona’s free newsletter here.

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.”

Become a Votebeat sponsor

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

By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Notice and European users agree to the data transfer policy. You may also receive occasional messages from sponsors.

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.

Become a Votebeat sponsor

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.

kommonsentsjane

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

KOMMONSENTSJANE – REAL CLEAR POLITICS: DOUG EMHOFF’S NEW KIND OF MALE IS A LOT LIKE THE OLD MALE.

10/07/2024

ttps://finishtherace.com/ella-ford/kamala-harris-husband-tied-to-blackrock-vanguard-and-controversial-lithium-profits/

10/06/2024

Sure doesn’t look like a candidate for FIRST GENTLEMAN. Gentlemen don’t slap women so hard they spin around like a top. And, they don’t kill babies after they get their nanny pregnant and then pay off the nanny with $80,000 to get rid of the nanny and the baby.

Gentleman – NOT! How does Harris’ women voters feel about her husband and the way he treats women?

Understand Kamala favors abortions rather than being safe when having sex?

Fool me once, shame on you – fool me twice, shame on me..

****

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/10/04/realclearpolitics_doug_emhoffs_new_standard_of_masculinity_is_a_lot_like_the_old_male.html

ttps://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/10/04/realclearpolitics_doug_emhoffs_new_standard_of_masculinity_is_a_lot_like_the_old_male.html

Posted By Tim Hains
On Date October 4, 2024

The guys on the RealClearPolitics podcast on Thursday discussed allegations that second gentlemen Doug Emhoff — who Democrats have presented as a role model for a new form of masculinity — slapped a woman in public in 2012.

Carl Cannon offered this take: “Well, we’ve answered one riddle. Why was such a handsome and successful lawyer single when he met Kamala Harris? Now we know why — his girlfriend broke up with him because he slapped her so hard, he spun her around.”

“The reason this matters as much as it does,” Tom Bevan said. “Is that he’s been rolled out by the campaign and the media as this new standard. According to Jen Psaki, he has ‘reshaped the perception of masculinity.'”

“His first marriage broke up after he impregnated the nanny. And now this girlfriend, from a year before he met Kamala Harris, says he committed domestic violence on her. It sounds like the new kind of male is a lot like the old kind of male,” added Carl Cannon.

“Did Kamala know about either of these stories?” Tom Bevan wondered about Kamala Harris. “She may be learning about this for the first time, which would be shocking. And I don’t know if that gives her more of an obligation to respond to it, or not.”

“She eats domestic abusers for breakfast,” Carl Cannon added.

ANDREW WALWORTH: Doug Emhoff, Kamala Harris’s husband, has been accused of slapping a former girlfriend more than a decade ago. According to a report in the Daily Mail, this was back in 2012 at the Cannes Film Festival, a year before he met Harris on that blind date we’ve heard so much about, two years before they were married.

And this is Doug Emhoff in conversation with Jen Psaki on MSNBC, just a few days ago:

JEN PSAKI, MSNBC: Something that has also been an important, interesting part of how people have talked about your role here is how your role has reshaped the perception of masculinity. I’m not sure you planned on that, but you are an incredibly supportive spouse. Has that been an evolution for you, and do you think that’s part of the role you might play as first gentleman?

DOUG EMHOFF: It’s funny, I’ve started to think a lot about this. I’ve always been like this. My dad was like this, and to me, it’s the right thing to do.

ANDREW WALWORTH: This story is picking up a little steam. Newsweek reported on it today. What do you make of it?

CARL CANNON: Well, we’ve answered one riddle. Why was such a handsome and successful lawyer actually single when he met Kamala Harris? Why was he available? And now we know why — his girlfriend broke up with him because he slapped her so hard, he spun her around. She called sobbing from a cab, called her friends to complain about it, and broke up with him.

Look, in all seriousness, you look at these charges against someone like Sean Combs. I mean, in the scheme of things, this may not even be a misdemeanor. It may not even be a crime. It sounds like it happened, but we don’t know.

But this idea that he’s the new kind of man, that he’s the 21st-century, non-toxic male — well, all we know about his personal life is that there was that lovely story they told at the convention in Chicago. He asked Kamala Harris out awkwardly on the phone, left a voicemail, and she plays it for him every year on their anniversary. That was charming.

But, you know, his first marriage broke up after he impregnated the nanny. And now this girlfriend, from a year before he met Kamala Harris, says he committed domestic violence on her. It sounds like the new kind of male is a lot like the old kind of male.

ANDREW WALWORTH: We were all at that Democratic convention, and I watched him give that speech. It was a very effective speech, Tom. I thought it was one of the better moments of the convention.

TOM BEVAN: I can go back and roll the tape. I actually thought, and I said at the time, that he was the best speaker of the night — and that included Michelle Obama. I thought he was the most effective at humanizing her and all these things. And then, of course, we find out after the fact…

He still gave a great speech.

The reason this matters as much as it does — and it should matter — this is a private event that happened however many years ago — is that he’s been rolled out by the campaign and the media as this new standard. According to Jen Psaki, he has “reshaped the perception of masculinity.”

(If you believe Psaki, I have a better one for you:)

KOMMONSENTSJANE – KAMALA HARRIS’ SEE SAW. | kommonsentsjane

Now, the story about the nanny was already out there, it didn’t get a lot of coverage. Even though you say, well, the New York Post ran it on the front page, but ABC, NBC, CBS, New York Times, Washington Post — nothing. Total crickets. I’m not going to go on another media rant, but if the shoe were on the other foot, obviously it would be national news. It would be everywhere, all over the place, right?

So, it’s hypocritical. And the other question that’s somewhat interesting is this: they reached out, the New York Post and others, to the Harris campaign. The Harris campaign is not commenting on this.

But I was just talking with my wife about this, and I wonder, did Kamala know about either of these stories before? Maybe she knew about the nanny before she started dating him and married him, but I don’t know that she knew. She may be learning about this for the first time, which would be shocking. And I don’t know if that gives her more of an obligation to talk about it, or speak about it, or respond to it, or not.

CARL CANNON: She eats domestic abusers for breakfast.

kommonsentsjane

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

KOMMONSENTSJANE – The Trump Trials Redaction Action – called Jack Smith ELECTION INTERFERENCE BY BIDEN/HARRIS/OBAMA’S JUDGE.

10/06/2024

It is called election interference!

ttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-trump-trials-redaction-action/ar-AA1rNenI?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=25c1ad5e673e48dba0ad2b0d8c135e26&ei=5

This fellow was not properly hired thru the government so he really is not qualified to fill this job. He was hired by Biden off the street.

The Trump Trials: Redaction Action

The Trump Trials: Redaction Action© Saul Loeb and Eva Marie Uzcategui/AFP/Getty Images

It’s been a while since we got a court filing that has revealed new evidence in one of the four criminal cases against Donald Trump. But, 30-ish days out from the presidential election, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan’s unsealing of special counsel Jack Smith’s filing in the federal D.C. election interference case did just that.

Welcome back to the Trump Trials newsletter, where I’ll explain the new details in the mostly unredacted mega-filing — and update you on the other (largely stalled) cases.

(Have questions on Trump’s trials? Email me at perry.stein@washpost.com and check for answers in future newsletters. Like what you’re reading? Get The Trump Trials in your email inbox every Sunday.)

Okay, let’s get started.

What’s ahead

For now, we expect the most action to happen in the D.C. case as Chutkan determines which allegations in the indictment are allowed to be prosecuted under the Supreme Court’s new definition of presidential immunity.

  • Trump’s lawyers have a Thursday deadline to make any objections to Smith’s proposed redactions for the lengthy appendix to his filing, which could include references to sensitive source information such as witness interview transcripts. Chutkan moved pretty quickly to unseal the bulk of the 165-page filing last week once both sides offered their proposed redactions. So she could unseal the appendix — with whatever redactions she decides on — soon after this week’s deadline.
  • Chutkan also must decide what — if any — additional discovery prosecutors need to hand over to Trump’s attorneys. Discovery is evidence that prosecutors have collected and are required to hand over to the defense so they can build their case. Trump’s attorneys have said prosecutors should give them more evidence as they challenge claims that certain allegations in the indictment can still be prosecuted under the Supreme Court’s expanded definition of presidential immunity.

Nowa recap of last week’s action.

Video Player is loading.

The Washington Post

October surprise | Sidebar

1. D.C.: Federal case on 2020 election

The details: Four counts related to conspiring to obstruct the 2020 election results.

Last week: In response to the Supreme Court immunity decision, prosecutors filed a superseding indictment in August against Trump — which charged him with the same four crimes, but with whittled-down evidence. On Wednesday, the judge unsealed Smith’s much anticipated filing that explained why the evidence in the superseding indictment should be considered private acts that can be prosecuted, rather than official acts that are immune from prosecution.

  • The filing lays out more extensively than before how many people told Trump there was no proof the election was stolen as he waged a campaign to overturn Joe Biden’s victory. In one striking detail, Smith said Trump allegedly said “So what?” when an aide told him Vice President Mike Pence had been taken to a secure location as violence unfolded at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
  • In another instance, Smith alleges that a White House staffer overheard Trump telling family members: “It doesn’t matter if you won or lost the election. You still have to fight like hell.”
  • And the new filing also highlights how some within Trump’s orbit tried to stifle those who said he lost the election. When Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani found out the chief counsel of the Republican National Committee sent an email urging colleagues not to back claims of a stolen election, Giuliani allegedly sent him a threatening voicemail.

Rudy Giuliani allegedly sent a threatening voicemail to the chief counsel of the Republican National Committee after he sent an email urging colleagues not to back claims of a stolen election.

Rudy Giuliani allegedly sent a threatening voicemail to the chief counsel of the Republican National Committee after he sent an email urging colleagues not to back claims of a stolen election.© Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post

Nerd word of the week

Proffer — The first section of Smith’s massive filing was titled “factual proffer.” In this instance, a proffer is Smith’s offer of proof in which he says he “provides a detailed statement of the case that the Government intends to prove at trial.”

In other scenarios, a proffer can be a session in which a potential defendant offers testimony or evidence to prosecutors in hopes of leniency. This is often one of the final steps before someone is charged with a crime.

Question Time

Q. Does the Justice Department’s “60-day rule” mean that there will be no movement in the cases against Trump ahead of the election?

A. The department’s rule — which is not binding law — calls on prosecutors to try to refrain from taking public steps in politically related cases, such as executing a search warrant in the 60 days before an election.

Trump has accused the special counsel of violating the 60-day rule with his latest filing. But once prosecutors file a case, the timeline is in the judges’ hands. Justice Department and legal experts say prosecutors are allowed to reply to judges’ requests, even if that means making public damaging information about a political candidate.

2. New York: State hush money case

The details: 34 charges connected to a 2016 hush money payment.

The latest: A jury found Trump guilty on May 30. Sentencing has been postponed until after the election, as Trump’s lawyers seek to get the entire case dismissed based on the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling.

3. Florida: Federal classified documents case

The details: Trump used to face 40 federal charges over accusations that he kept top-secret government documents at Mar-a-Lago — his home and private club — and thwarted government demands to return them.

Where it stands: U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon dismissed the entire case on July 15, saying Smith was unlawfully appointed as special counsel and has no authority to bring the indictment. Smith has appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, and Trump’s team has until Oct. 25 to file its response to that appeal.

We don’t yet know when the appeals court will hold oral argument or what panel of three judges will be assigned to the case. Every circuit works differently, but the 11th Circuit typically doesn’t schedule oral argument until after both the appeal and responses are filed, or assign judges to the case until a couple weeks before oral argument.

Given that Trump’s team doesn’t need to file its response until the end of October, it seems highly unlikely that oral argument will happen before the November election. But it could occur before the inauguration in January.The exterior of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, where the government's appeal of Cannon's decision will be heard.

The exterior of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, where the government’s appeal of Cannon’s decision will be heard.© Mike Stewart/AP

4. Georgia: State case on 2020 election

The details: Trump faces 10 state charges for allegedly trying to undo the election results in that state. Four of his 18 co-defendants have pleaded guilty.

Why it’s stalled: The case is on pause while the Georgia Court of Appeals hears an appeal from Trump and some of his co-defendants seeking to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis, the top prosecutor. Oral arguments for the appeal are set for Dec. 5.

Last week: No movement here. But the special counsel’s D.C. filing references many people in Trump’s orbit — not naming them, but giving enough detail that The Washington Post could identify them. Some are co-defendants in the Georgia case, including attorneys Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell (both of whom pleaded guilty in Georgia), John Eastman and campaign staffer Mike Roman.

Thanks for catching up with me. You can find past issues here.

kommonsentsjane

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

KOMMONSENTSJANE – AMERICANS BECAME POORER UNDER BIDEN AND INCOME GAINS WITH TRUMP.

10/06/2024

Google interfered with this blog by not allowing any services as “hold”.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/american-families-became-poorer-under-biden-harris-saw-income-gains-with-trump-stephen-moore/vi-AA1rMBVc?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=40e1c039646b47159478e1549e790cc1&ei=27

ttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/american-families-became-poorer-under-biden-harris-saw-income-gains-with-trump-stephen-moore/vi-AA1rMBVc?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=40e1c039646b47159478e1549e790cc1&ei=27

PersonalizePersonalize

placeholder

Fox Business

American families became poorer under Biden-Harris, saw income gains with Trump: Stephen Moore

Harris has indicted that taxes will be MUCH higher in her administration.

Trump economic adviser Stephen Moore discusses Trump’s plan to bring jobs back to America via tariffs on ‘Fox & Friends Weekend.’ 

kommonsetsjane

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment