Connect with us

The Swamp

REPORT: Florida Democrats Have ‘Lawyered Up’ In Possible Election Fraud Investigation

Published

on

With the election Overtime period in the Deep South coming to an end — and Republicans protecting their victories in Georgia and Florida — the details of the vote-finding madness are still coming to light. At least one investigation might already be taking shape. Florida officials have referred swamp state Democrats to federal prosecutors to look into evidence of an incorrect mail-in form.

If federal prosecutors accept the challenge, that would put the investigation of the Florida Democrats under the jurisdiction of acting attorney general Matthew Whitaker. The Florida Democratic Party, which nominated Andrew Gillum for governor, is now the subject of massive public scrutiny all over America.

Politico reports on the Democrats’ panicked response to the news:

Trending: Democrats Move to Ban Trump Supporters From Joining the Military and Holding Federal Jobs

After saying earlier in the week that the State officials were trying “divert attention” away from the Department of State, which is part of Gov. Rick Scott’s administration, the Democrats on Friday took a different approach: They lawyered up.

take our poll - story continues below

POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024?

  • POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“Upon receiving notice of the allegations that the form was incorrect, FDP took immediate steps, including hiring an independent investigator to review the issues at hand,” attorney Mark Herron said in a statement provided by a party spokeswoman. “As soon as we know the results of the investigation we will advise you.”

Herron went to CNN to break the news Friday morning, one week after the vote-by-mail “cure affidavits” were sent to U.S. Attorneys Christopher P. Canova of the Northern District of Florida, Maria Chapa Lopez of the Middle District of Florida and Ariana Fajardo Orshan of the Southern District of Florida.

Information related to whose mail ballots were rejected is public information. It’s not uncommon for political parties or outside groups to use that information to reach out to voters who had a mail ballot rejected to encourage them to fix the issues. In most cases, the problem is because a voter did not sign the ballot.

To cure a mail-in ballot, voters needed to submit an affidavit on Nov. 5, the day before Election Day. But the altered version changed the date to Nov. 8, the deadline to cure issues with provisional ballots. It’s unclear if any voters availed themselves of the altered affidavit produced by party operatives.

Politico passage ends

There could be a lot of material in any investigation into Florida Democrats — besides just that one incorrect form. There were, after all, boxes of ballots turning up, including a box of blank ballots intercepted at the Fort Lauderdale airport, flagged by an Avis employee.

Big League Politics reported:

The Broward County teacher who allegedly found a container labelled “Provisional Ballots” after Election Day did not choose to tell the cops or federal law enforcement right away. Rather, she called up Andrew Gillum’s friend in the Florida state legislature.

Lakeisha Sorey, the teacher who found the “Provisional Ballots” box, called Andrew Gillum’s friend Shevrin Jones for assistance during the emergency. How convenient!

Here is Andrew Gillum praising Shevrin Jones in 2017, at the beginning of Gillum’s long-shot bid to become governor.

Here is Gillum with Shevrin Jones literally on Election Day:

 

 

 

 

The Swamp

What Happens If John Roberts Decides Not to Preside Over Trump’s Post-Presidency Impeachment Trial?

Trying to make sense of a messy situation.

Published

on

Several Republicans and Democrats familiar with the negotiations over Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial have said that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts does not want to preside.

A Politico report that broke the news reads as follows: “We’re hearing that Roberts, who for years has sought to keep the courts apolitical, was not happy he became a top target of the left during Trump’s first impeachment trial. ‘He wants no further part of this,’ one of our Hill sources says. A spokesperson for the chief justice declined to comment.”

As if it weren’t unprecedented enough for a president to have been impeached twice, Democratic lawmakers are hell-bent on holding an impeachment trial for a man who is no longer president. And it sounds like they’re going to get their wish: Senate leaders agreed Friday that the trial would begin Tuesday, February 9. It does not appear that Roberts’ decision is a factor either way.

This clown show needs some unpacking. First off, Roberts has very good reason to reject presiding over Trump’s impeachment trial. The Constitution states that the chief justice will preside when the president is tried. Not the ex-president, the current president. That alone should be sufficient.

take our poll - story continues below

POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024?

  • POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Despite this, there may not be anything that expressly forbids Congress from impeaching and convicting former officials. Some legal experts have pointed out that “nothing in the text of the Constitution bars Congress from impeaching, convicting, and disqualifying former officials from holding future office.”

In light of all this, the radio silence of the Founders on this matter allows both sides to justify their support or opposition. Those in opposition say that because there’s nothing in the Constitution about trying a former president, there are no grounds to hold the trial. Those in support say that because there’s nothing in the Constitution about trying a former president, there is no legal reason to oppose the trial.

Furthermore, law professor Frank Bowman, speaking to the Washington Examiner, argued that if a trial is going to be held, it might be prudent for Roberts to preside.

“The vice president does have a personal interest in the outcome, insofar as conviction would eliminate Trump as a future political rival, either to President Biden or to Harris herself,” Bowman said. “I think the constitutionally safer call is that he should preside. That way, there can never be a later objection on the ground that the tribunal was not properly constituted.”

If Chief Justice Roberts decides to extricate himself from this mess, Democrats are said to be discussing the possibility of having Vice President Kamala Harris, who is also the president of the Senate, preside. Also being floated is president pro tempore and longest-serving senator Patrick Leahy.

Harris has a conflict of interest if she were to preside, however. And indeed that is why the Founders wanted the chief justice of a (theoretically) non-political entity of government to do so. Harris is not only of the opposite party and was on the ticket that defeated the Trump/Pence ticket, she might very well have aspirations for the presidency if Biden decides not to seek reelection. Trump himself may have his eye on the presidency once again as well, meaning that Harris would be presiding over the impeachment trial of a potential political opponent.

So if the legality of convicting an ex-president is gray, then it becomes a question of prudence. And prudence dictates that the impeachment trial should not proceed. The side that’s calling for “unity” is engaging in something fundamentally disunifying. Any attempt to convict a former president with no clear legal grounds is most definitely not a recipe for “unity” and “healing.” Our senators should just move on and worry about governing. Enough with the political shams and shenanigans.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending