Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton appears on Sean Hannity to discuss the legal position of his state in an election lawsuit about arbitrary state processes used in the 2020 election.
Paxton, on behalf of Texas, has sued battleground states Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin to challenge the unconstitutional creation of their mail-in ballots within the election. Several states have now joined Texas in alignment with the lawsuit.
There are only a few instances where a party can file a direct lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court, a state claiming harm by another state is one of those instances.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit [pdf here] with the supreme court seeking and emergency injunction against Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia “from taking action to certify presidential electors or to have such electors take any official action including without limitation participating in the electoral college.”
The Texas AG argues that arbitrary changes made by the state’s governors, secretaries of states and election supervisors were “inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.”
The lawsuit states: “these non-legislative changes … facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.” […] “By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.”
Paxton notes the intent of the states may have been changes in good faith, due to COVID-19 mitigation efforts; however, the end result of the changes is in direct violation to the Constitution and therefore creates the harm.
“Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting.” […] “The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States.”
Yesterday, in a final foot-stomping and teeth-gnashing exhibition of judicial activism, federal judge Emmet Sullivan allowed a host of political amicus briefs to be provided to the case file against Lt. General Michael Flynn.
The obvious judicial intent was to legally smear General Flynn with as many corrupt and manipulative Lawfare opinions as possible. In essence Sullivan was just pouring on the dirt after President Trump stepped in and said “enough” granting Flynn a deserved, full and unconditional pardon.
I didn’t write about Sullivan’s scheme and vile nature last night because: (a) I was very angry, and (b) I suspected Sullivan’s only intent was to besmirch the good name and reputation of Flynn in the judicial record. Ultimately Sullivan’s childish Lawfare antics held no legal or judicial merit because Flynn has been pardoned. It was all moot.
Today, after stomping his feet and throwing a verbal tantrum, as expected Judge Sullivan announces the motion to dismiss the case is granted.
I’ve got two words for you Judge Sullivan, and they ain’t Merry Christmas!
And, for the record, I ain’t too happy with AG Bill Barr in this endeavor either.
Instead of using the truth of his office to stand up to the corruption in this case, AG Barr used USAO Jeff Jensen to deliver the evidence of institutional corruption to Sidney Powell and made her expose the rotten core activity of the DOJ and FBI.
AG Bill Barr hid behind the skirt of Sidney Powell because he could not bring himself to visibly and publicly admit the institutions of the DOJ and FBI were/are compromised beyond recovery….
I wrote this ↓ in early 2019, and I stand by it; it’s exactly what happened. FUBAR:
SSCI Vice Chairman Mark Warner, SSCI Chairman Richard Burr and Acting SSCI Chair Marco Rubio are dirty. So too was Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, FBI Director Chris Wray, FBI Deputy Director David Bowditch and FBI Legal Counsel Dana Boente. Their predecessors were dirty: Comey, McCabe and Baker.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller was dirty. Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein was dirty. All of the special counsel lawyers including Andrew Weissmann and Brandon Van Grack (Flynn prosecutor) were/are dirty.
Additionally, Mueller’s lead FBI Agent David Archey, who was promoted after the corrupt special counsel investigation to be the head of the Virginia FBI field office, dirty. FBI official David Archey, like ICIG Michael Atkinson, conveniently put into a place where he can run cover for FBI operations that might expose dirty DC and Virgina-based FBI activities. See how that works?
Try telling me with all we know about the Mueller investigation how anyone on the special counsel assignment was participating in a fraudulent investigation without knowing.
Special Agent Peter Strzok, dirty. FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, dirty. FBI Lawyer Lisa Page, dirty. FBI media spox Michael Kortan, dirty. James Comey, Andrew McCabe and James Baker, dirty-dirty-dirty. Fortunately all of these are fired… but what about Supervisory Special Agent Joseph Pientka (SSA1)? Pientka clearly outlined as dirty by Inspector General Michael Horowitz report on FISA abuse, and yet still employed; still providing cover.
So what exactly does that make IG Horowitz? At best the lead corruption manager who comes in willfully blind behind the Bondo application team…
Boy howdy, is this ever a good time to see something we have exposed for years. The CTH library is filled with deep dive evidence of how this process specifically works.
First watch this important segment from Tucker Carlson:
President Trump’s MAGAnomic and foreign policy agenda is jaw-dropping in scale, scope and consequence. There are multiple simultaneous aspects to each policy objective; they have been outlined for a long time even before the election victory in November ’16.
If you get too far into the weeds the larger picture can be lost. CTH objective is to continue pointing focus toward the larger horizon, and then at specific inflection points to dive into the topic and explain how each moment is connected to the larger strategy.
Today we dive into how MAGAnomic policy interacts with Wall Street, the stock market, the U.S. financial system and perhaps your personal financial value. Again, the ongoing reference and source material is included at the end of the outline.
If you understand the basic elements behind the new dimension in American economics, you already understand how three decades of DC legislative and regulatory policy was structured to benefit Wall Street and not Main Street. The intentional shift in monetary policy is what created the distance between two entirely divergent economic engines.
REMEMBER […] there had to be a point where the value of the second economy (Wall Street) surpassed the value of the first economy (Main Street).
Investments, and the bets therein, expanded outside of the USA. hence, globalist investing…. investing in foreign manufacturing; multinational corporations moved manufacturing outside the U.S. and into Asia (China).
However, a second more consequential aspect happened simultaneously. The politicians became more valuable to the Wall Street team than the Main Street team; and Wall Street had deeper pockets because their economy was now larger.
As a consequence Wall Street started funding political candidates and asking for legislation and trade policies that benefited their, now international, interests.
When Main Street was purchasing the legislative influence the outcomes were -generally speaking- beneficial to Main Street, and by direct attachment those outcomes also benefited the average American inside the real economy.
When Wall Street began purchasing the legislative influence, the outcomes therein became beneficial to Wall Street. Those benefits are detached from improving the livelihoods of main street Americans because the benefits are “global”.
Global financial interests, multinational investment interests -and corporations therein- became the primary filter through which the DC legislative outcomes were considered.
As an outcome of national monetary policy allowing the blending of commercial banking with institutional investments (Glass-Stegal repeal), something happened on Wall Street that few understand.
If we take the time to understand what happened we can understand why the Stock Market grew and what risks exist today as U.S. policy is reversed to benefit Main Street.
Instead of attempting to put Glass-Stegal regulations back into massive banking systems, the Trump administration began supporting a parallel, smaller financial system, of less-regulated small commercial banks, credit unions and traditional lenders who can operate to the benefit of Main Street without the burdensome regulation of the mega-banks and multinationals. This really is one of the more brilliant solutions to work around a uniquely American economic problem.
♦ When U.S. banks were allowed to merge their investment divisions with their commercial banking operations (the removal of Glass Stegal) something changed on Wall Street.
Companies who are evaluated based on their financial results, profits and losses, remained in their traditional role as traded stocks on the U.S. Stock Market and were evaluated accordingly. However, over time investment instruments -which are secondary to actual company results- created a sub-set within Wall Street that detached from actual bottom line company results.
The resulting secondary financial market system was essentially ‘investment markets’. Both ordinary company stocks and the investment market stocks operate on the same stock exchanges. But the underlying valuation is tied to entirely different metrics.
Financial products were developed (as investment instruments) that are essentially wagers or bets on the outcomes of actual companies traded on Wall Street. Those bets/wagers form the hedge markets and are [essentially] people trading on expectations of performance. The “derivatives market” is the ‘betting system’.
♦Ford Motor Company (only chosen as a commonly known entity) has a stock valuation based on their actual company performance in the market of manufacturing and consumer purchasing of their product. However, there can be thousands of financial instruments wagering on the actual outcome of their performance, both domestically and internationally.
There are two initial bets on these outcomes that form the basis for Hedge-fund activity. Bet ‘A’ that Ford hits a profit number, or bet ‘B’ that they don’t. There are financial instruments created to place each wager. [The wagers form the derivatives.] But it doesn’t stop there.
Additionally, more financial products are created that bet on the outcomes of the A/B bets.
A secondary financial product might find two sides betting on both A outcome and B outcome.
Party C bets the “A” bet is accurate, and party D bets against the A bet. Party E bets the “B” bet is accurate, and party F bets against the B. If it stopped there we would only have six total participants. But it doesn’t stop there, it goes on and on and on…
The outcome of the bets forms the basis for the tenuous investment markets. The important part to understand is that the investment funds are not necessarily attached to the original company stock, they are now attached to the outcome of bet(s). Hence an inherent disconnect is created.
Subsequently, if the actual stock doesn’t meet it’s expected P-n-L outcome (if the company actually doesn’t do well), and if the financial investment was betting against the outcome, the value of the investment actually goes up. The company performance and the investment bets on the outcome of that performance are two entirely different aspects of the stock market. [Hence two metrics.]
♦Understanding the disconnect between an actual company on the stock market, and the bets for and against that company stock, helps to understand what can happen when monetary policy and trade policy is geared toward helping the underlying company (Main Street MAGAnomics), and not toward the bets therein (Wall St – Investment).
The U.S. stock markets’ overall value can increase with Main Street policy, and yet the investment class can simultaneously decrease in value even though the company(ies) in the stock market is/are doing better. This detachment is critical to understand because the ‘real economy’ is based on the company, the ‘paper economy’ is based on the financial investment instruments betting on the company.
Trillions can be lost in investment instruments, and yet the overall stock market -as valued by company operations/profits- can increase.
Conversely, there are now classes of companies on the U.S. stock exchange that never make a dime in profit, yet the value of the company increases. This dynamic is possible because the financial investment bets are not connected to the bottom line profit. (Examples include Tesla Motors, Uber and Amazon, and a host of internet stocks.) It is this investment group of companies that stands to lose the most if/when the underlying system of betting on them stops or slows.
Specifically due to most recent U.S. monetary policy, modern multinational banks, including all of the investment products therein, are more closely attached to this investment system on Wall Street. It stands to reason they are at greater risk of financial losses overall with a shift in policy.
That financial and economic risk is the basic reason behind Trump and Mnuchin putting a protective, secondary and parallel, banking system in place for Main Street.
Big multinational banks can suffer big losses from their overseas investments; and yet the Main Street economy can continue growing, and have access to capital, uninterrupted.
U.S. companies who have actual connection to a growing internal U.S. economy can succeed; based on the advantages of the new economic environment and MAGA trade policy, specifically in the areas of manufacturing, domestic supply chain and the ancillary benefactors.
Meanwhile U.S. investment assets (multinational investment portfolios) that are disconnected from the actual results of those benefiting U.S. companies, and as a consequence also disconnected from the U.S. economic expansion, can simultaneously drop in value even though the U.S. economy is thriving. Those assets are heavily dependent on prior overseas investments in China.
♦ China and the EU devalued their currency, and continue to devalue their currency, in an effort to block the impacts from President Trump and the ‘America First’ trade policy. In essence they are trying to maintain their part of a global economic system of manufacturing and export.
However, because those currencies are pegged against the dollar, the resulting effect is a rising dollar value. In essence, the globalist IMF is now blaming President Trump for having a strong economy that forces international competition to devalue their currency.
That’s the stupid hypocrisy of global banking outlooks. They make a decision to devalue their currency, which causes the dollar value to rise, and then turn around and blame the U.S. dollar for being overvalued.
The root cause of the devaluation is unaddressed in the Wall Street/Globalist argument.
The EU and China are trying to retain their global manufacturing position and offset the impact of President Trump’s tariffs by lowering the end value of their exports.
President Trump was engaged in a massive and multidimensional effort to re-balance the entire global trade and wealth dynamic. By putting tariffs on foreign imports he has counterbalanced the never-ending Marshall Plan trade program and demanded renegotiation(s).
Trump’s trade goal is reciprocity; free and fair trade. However, the EU and Asia, specifically China, don’t want to give up a decades-long multi-generational advantage. This is part of the fight.
Because so many shifts -policy nudges- have taken place in the past several decades few academics and even fewer MSM observers are able to understand or explain how Trump planned to get off the service-driven economic path and chart a better course.
President Trump began a process for less dependence on foreign companies for cheap goods, (the cornerstone of a service economy), and began a return to a more balanced U.S. larger economic model where the manufacturing and a production base can be re-established and competitive based on American entrepreneurship and innovation.
No other economy in the world innovates like the U.S.A, Trump sees this as a key advantage across all industry – including manufacturing. The benefit of cheap overseas labor, which is considered a global market disadvantage for the U.S, is offset by utilizing innovation and energy independence. Additionally, the wage rates in the Asian manufacturing economies have risen as their national wealth has increased.
The third highest variable cost of goods beyond raw materials first, labor second, is energy. By unleashing the energy sector -fully developed- the manufacturing price of any given product will allow for global trade competition even with higher U.S. wage prices.
In 2019 the Total Cost of Production (TCP) is now entirely different than it was in 2016. The U.S. has a key strategic advantage with raw manufacturing materials such as: iron ore, coal, steel, precious metals and vast mineral assets which are needed in most new modern era manufacturing. Trump’s policies stopped selling those valuable national assets to countries we compete against – they belong to the American people, they should be used for the benefit of American citizens. Period.
As the U.S. economy expands; and as blue-collar manufacturing returns; the demand for labor increases, and as a consequence so too does the U.S. wage rate (2019 +3.4%) which was stagnant (or non-existent) for the past three decades. Total compensation for U.S. workers was growing in 2019 at a fantastic +5.5 percent rate.
As the wage rate increases, and as the economy expands, the governmental dependency model is reshaped and simultaneously receipts to the U.S. treasury improve. More money into the U.S Treasury and less dependence on welfare programs have a combined exponential impact. You gain a dollar, and have no need to spend a dollar.
As the GDP of the U.S. expands, we stop thinking about how to best divide a limited economic pie, and begin thinking about how many more economic pies we can create.
So yeah, there was going to be pain – for them: massive economic pain as the process of reestablishing a fair trading system is rebuilt; and also for U.S. interests that are dependent on returns from prior investments in China.
The dynamic of reciprocal and balanced trade is the essential policy that benefits Main Street USA. Unfortunately, in the initial phase where putting ‘America First’ is the priority, the policy is against the interests of the multinationals on Wall Street connected to Chinese manufacturing.
As a result, President Trump had to fight adverse economic opponents on multiple fronts…. and their purchased mercenary army we know as DC politicians…. {Go Deep}
When you understand that any changes to this DC system would not be accepted by those who command power and affluence; when you accept their willingness to deploy military tanks around themselves in order to protect them from you; and when you realize they will use every system, including the ballot counting machines, to stop the American people from disrupting this corrupt system of self-aggrandizing elitism; you start to realize the diminished options for removing them from office…
With increased attention on how U.S. politicians are purchased by Chinese influence it is worth revisiting a speech made by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo directly to an assembly of U.S. Governors who were on the 2020 CCP influence list.
Pompeo’s remarks were made to the National Governors Association (NGA) Feb 8, 2020; and there’s an interesting segment where Pompeo reveals his awareness of a list of U.S. governors compiled by China’s communist party; and their alignment with China’s interests. A transcript of the key excerpt from his speech is provided. WATCH:
[Transcript at 01:45] […] “Last year, I received an invitation to an event that promised to be, quote, “an occasion for exclusive deal-making.” It said, quote, “the opportunities for mutually beneficial economic development between China and our individual states [are] tremendous,” end of quote.”
“Deal-making sounds like it might have come from President Trump, but the invitation was actually from a former governor.
I was being invited to the U.S.-China Governors’ Collaboration Summit.
It was an event co-hosted by the National Governors Association and something called the Chinese People’s Association For Friendship and Foreign Countries. Sounds pretty harmless.
What the invitation did not say is that the group – the group I just mentioned – is the public face of the Chinese Communist Party’s official foreign influence agency, the United Front Work Department.
Now, I was lucky. I was familiar with that organization from my time as the director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
But it got me thinking.
How many of you made the link between that group and Chinese Communist Party officials?
What if you made a new friend while you were at that event?
What if your new friend asked you for introductions to other politically connected and powerful people?
What if your new friend offered to invest big money in your state, perhaps in your pension, in industries sensitive to our national security?
These aren’t hypotheticals. These scenarios are all too true, and they impact American foreign policy significantly.
Indeed, last year, a Chinese Government-backed think tank in Beijing produced a report that assessed all 50 of America’s governors on their attitudes towards China. They labeled each of you “friendly,” “hardline,” or “ambiguous.”
I’ll let you decide where you think you belong. Someone in China already has. Many of you, indeed, in that report are referenced by name.
So here’s the lesson: The lesson is that competition with China is not just a federal issue. It’s why I wanted to be here today, Governor Hogan. It’s happening in your states with consequences for our foreign policy, for the citizens that reside in your states, and indeed, for each of you.
And, in fact, whether you are viewed by the CCP as friendly or hardline, know that it’s working you, know that it’s working the team around you.
Competition with China is happening inside of your state, and it affects our capacity to perform America’s vital national security functions.” (Keep Reading)
Secretary Pompeo, noting his prior role as CIA director, fired a shot across the bow of the governors with those remarks. Subtle as a brick through a window… letting them know of the Trump administration awareness of their Chinese influence.
To provide more information, Axios had an article earlier this year and included the Chinese Communist Party Report [Cloud pdf Here]
Attorney Sidney Powell appears on Newsmax television for an interview with Greg Kelly about the current status of lawsuits after a Georgia judge threw out the case. Ms. Powell is optimistic the U.S. Supreme Court will grat a writ to hear the evidence in the case and weigh in.
It was widely reported by media and independent observers that Fulton County, Georgia, election officials asked everyone to exit the State Farm Arena on election night at approximately 10:00pm; however, a selected group of election workers remained and conducted sketchy ballot tabulation after observers left. A complaint was filed with the Georgia Secretary of State.
In a short, albeit obtuse, affidavit filed today in advance of election litigation, Chief Investigator Frances Watson simultaneously highlights the evidence seems to support the claims of fraud and manipulation, but also says it doesn’t. [pdf link]
The widely reported “water main” break excuse was actually nothing to do with the widely reported late-evening request to exit the arena. In essence this part of the affidavit validates the water main lie was false. It was a lie told to media by someone for some unknown purpose. But this affidavit gets even more sketchy…
According to Frances Watson workers were “not asked to leave” yet simultaneously they thought “they were done for the night and were closing up and ready to leave.”
Where did the workers, poll watchers and media, get that idea to leave and they were finished if they were not “asked to leave”? Why did they clean up and prepare to exit along with media and poll watchers if they didn’t expect to leave. It doesn’t make sense.
If anything, the actual behavior of the workers outlined in the affidavit supports the claims within the complaint, and the CCTV video. However, the “chief investigator” simply ignores the key part of the behavior and instead says the investigation “remains open.”
As noted in Apelbaum, with a moment by moment review of the CCTV footage:
“The video shows a four camera FOV of suite 604, the ballot processing room at the State Farm Arena. At 10:58:05 p.m., as the crew was finishing cleaning-up at the end of the day, one of the supervisors, Ralph Jones (a bald man in a red shirt) received several calls on his cell phone.
Shortly after his second call, the footage shows him and another woman with black hair and blond braids (Shaye Moss) removing 4 rolling transport ballot boxes from under a black cloth covered table at the center of the room. At 11:02:52 p.m., they distribute the ballot trays from the boxes between 4 work stations.
The ‘special’ count task force that consists of 5 individuals then starts feeding the ballots to the 4 scanners. The counting continued for close to two hours and ended at about 12:58 a.m.
The footage shows multiple evidence that the ‘special’ count session was pre-planned and carefully timed, it’s also clear that in the 116 minute period the team sprinted through the ballot scanning process to meet some sort of a deadline.” (read more)
The silence of the professional republican apparatus appears strategically positioned only to ensure the use of President Trump to assist with their Georgia senate intentions; and then, as customary for the decepticon agenda, they will fall in line to status quo and turn their backs on him/us.
The one constant scheme in an ever changing Decepticon universe.
The Washington Times is reporting the Arizona Supreme Court has accepted an election challenge lawsuit filed by Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward concerning mail-in ballots in Maricopa County.
[…] “A lower court judge dismissed her case Friday, but she took the challenge to the state’s highest court and has said a small sample of ballots and envelopes she was able to inspect showed some irregularities.” (more)
On its face the decision seems to be a positive step; however, the court is ultra-fast-tracking the case. Filings due by noon today, no oral arguments and the seven member panel likely with a ruling later today or tomorrow.
The speed is likely part of a Arizona Supreme Court procedural intent to avoid SCOTUS intervention ahead of the Tuesday Safe Harbor deadline. As noted by AZ Law: “Congress cannot challenge any state’s electors if the results are certified and lawsuits resolved by the end of the day tomorrow” (more)..
Re-Posted from Justfactsdaily.com By James D. Agresti originally published November 24, 2020
A “fact check” by USA Today is defaming a Ph.D.-vetted study by Just Facts that found non-citizens may have cast enough illegal votes for Joe Biden to overturn the lawful election results in some key battleground states. The article, written by USA Today’s Chelsey Cox, contains 10 misrepresentations, unsupported claims, half-truths, and outright falsehoods.
Furthermore, Facebook is using this misinformation to suppress the genuine facts of this issue instead of honoring its policy to “Stop Misinformation and False News.” Compounding this malfeasance, a note at the bottom of Cox’s article states that USA Today’s “fact check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook.”
#1 Dr. Glen’s Credentials
Starting with the most simplistic falsehood in Cox’s piece, she impugned the character of Dr. Andrew Glen, a Ph.D. scholar who specializes in data analytics and who examined Just Facts’ study and found that it “provides a credible data analysis that supports a strong hypothesis of non-citizens having a significant effect on this election.”
Cox did this by claiming that “though he is attributed as a professor emeritus at the United States Military Academy, an ‘Andrew Glen’ did not appear in a search result on the website for the United States Military Academy, West Point. Glen attended the school as a student, according to his LinkedIn profile page.”
That statement reveals that Cox and her editor were ignorant of the fact that a professor emeritus is one who has “retired from an office or position.” Thus, Dr. Glen would not appear on the webpage of current faculty to which she linked.
Had Cox conducted a proper search, she would have found that West Point’s website lists Glen among a group of professors who wrote a reference work for its Department of Mathematical Sciences.
Cox could have also found proof of Glen’s professorship at West Point via a peer-reviewed journal, an academic book that he coauthored on the topic of computational probability, or the website of Colorado College, where Glen currently teaches.
After reading what USA Today published about Dr. Glen, current West Point adjunct professor Dr. Joseph P. Damore wrote:
I can personally attest to the fact that Andrew Glen, COL USA, ret. was an Academy Professor at West Point. I know, because I was there with him.
And Ms. Cox, to imply that an Iraq war vet, a graduate of West Point, and a retired Colonel from the U.S. Army is somehow lying about his credentials is so egregiously offensive, that it demands your apology.
Instead of an apology, USA Today altered the article 18 hours after publication to remove this attack on Glen without issuing a correction. This is a breach of journalistic ethics that require reporters and media outlets to “acknowledge mistakes” and explain them “carefully and clearly.”
#2 Dr. Cook’s Credentials
Cox also assails the credibility of Dr. Michael Cook, another scholar who specializes in data analytics and reviewed Just Facts’ study. Cook found that the study is “methodologically sound, and fair in its conclusions,” but Cox dismisses him as a “financial analyst, according to his LinkedIn profile page.”
However, Cook’s LinkedIn profile states that he is an “applied mathematician and strategic thinker with experience on Wall Street, scientific research, statistical modeling.” This experience, coupled with Cook’s Ph.D. in mathematics, make him eminently qualified to assess Just Facts’ data-heavy study.
#3 Cook’s and Glen’s Qualifications
Cox also attempts to discredit both Ph.D. scholars by reporting that they “are not election experts.” Given that Cox gives no credence to their reviews of Just Facts’ study, she is overtly implying that they are unqualified to assess it. After reading this, Dr. Cook wrote:
Though I am not an “election expert,” I have training and experience in statistical modeling, statistical inference, and sampling theory, which is the basis of my comments on Agresti’s methodology and approach.
Agresti, the president of Just Facts, is the author of the study.
Dr. Glen replied similarly while explaining the folly of Cox’s argument:
Once elections happen, they leave the academic realm of sociologists and political scientists, and enter the realm of statisticians, data scientists, and operations research. Analogously, biostatisticians are often not medical doctors and yet are of great necessity in studying the effects of public health, disease spread, and drug efficacy.
That a “fact checker” would be unaware of these types of interdisciplinary interactions that are common in scientific and academic fields displays a significant lack of qualification for the job and reflects poorly on the trustworthiness of USA Today.
#4 Voter Registration by Non-Citizens
Cox also mangles the facts about every major aspect of Just Facts’ study. She mainly does this by treating unsupported claims from progressives as if they were facts, while ignoring or dismissing actual facts.
Cox asserts that “only a handful” of non-citizens ever register to vote, and “that’s not going to change an election.” Those words came from a lawyer named Robert Brandon, founder of the left-leaning Fair Elections Center. In the article from which Cox quotes him, Brandon provides no evidence to support this statement. He simply makes it. Yet, Cox accepts this unsubstantiated claim as a fact.
Meanwhile, Cox disregards these rigorously documented facts that appear in Just Facts’ study:
In scientific surveys conducted in 2008, 2012, and 2013, 13% to 15% of self-declared non-citizens admitted that they were registered to vote.
Database matches with voter registration records in 2008 suggest that the true rate of non-citizen voter registration is almost twice what they reveal in surveys.
Without a hint of skepticism, Cox also relies on “a 2007 report by the Brennan Center for Justice, a center-left institute” that allegedly shows “few people purposefully register to vote if they are knowingly ineligible.” Written by Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt, the report provides narrow, weakly sourced evidence that does not come close to supporting Cox’s broad claim.
For example, Levitt’s first piece of evidence that non-citizens rarely register to vote is a Seattle Times editorial chastising a lone person who challenged the citizenship and voting credentials of 1,000+ people “based on the sound of their name.” Levitt gives the false impression that an investigation was conducted, but the editorial says nothing of the sort. Instead it says that “state election officials are not aware” of such illegal voting, but “that is not to say non-citizens did not vote or that non-citizens should vote.”
Levitt provides another fives examples that suffer from similar flaws, including arguments from silence, references to secondary sources, and the use of narrow probes with no capacity to root out voting by illegal immigrants who use false IDs.
All-in all, Cox does not provide a single fact to support her statement that “few noncitizens register to vote in federal elections.” She merely declares this to be a fact based on the allegations of two progressives—who she selects. Then based on this, she claims that Just Facts’ study “is unfounded.”
#5 Results of the Electoral Studies Paper
Furthermore, Cox misrepresents the results of a seminal 2014 paper in the journal Electoral Studies. She does this by quoting it out of context to convey the false impression that only “some noncitizens” vote. She never mentions the study’s striking results, which are as follows:
“Non-citizen voting likely changed 2008 outcomes including Electoral College votes and the composition of Congress.”
The “best estimate” for the number of non-citizens who voted illegally in the 2008 presidential election is 1.2 million, with a range “from just over 38,000 at the very minimum to nearly 2.8 million at the maximum.”
“Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass” Obamacare.
#6 First Attack on the Integrity of the Electoral Studies Paper
Cox also tarnishes the Electoral Studies paper, and with this, the reputations of the scholars who wrote it. Once again, she does this by treating unsupported and demonstrably false claims as if they were facts.
Citing an article in Wired magazine, Cox writes: “Michael Jones-Correa, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the study’s critics, told Wired that any responses from noncitizens” in the survey used for the study “were included due to error.”
Neither Cox, nor Wired, nor Jones-Correa present any evidence to support that accusation. Moreover, it is disproven by the fact that the survey posed this question to its respondents: “Which of these statements best describes you? … I am an immigrant to the USA but not a citizen.”
#7 Second Attack on the Integrity of the Electoral Studies Paper
Based on the same Wired article, Cox declares that “Jones-Correa also said the sample size is too small for a representative sample of the noncitizen population.” In reality, Jones-Correa makes a different claim (debunked below), but neither Cox nor the Wired reporter seem to understand the difference between them.
Cox’s argument about sample size is based on a puerile notion debunked by a teaching guide for K–8th grade students, as well as other academic sources. Snopes and PolitiFact previously made the same false argument, and for this reason, Just Facts’ study provides a warning about this “mathematically illiterate” claim and a link to the facts that disprove it. However, Cox completely ignores these facts and reports this untruth instead.
#8 Third Attack on the Integrity of the Electoral Studies Paper
The argument that Jones-Correa actually made in Wired is that the survey sample for the study was unlikely to “accurately represent” non-citizens. This has nothing to do with the sample size and everything to do with the fact that surveys can be highly inaccurate if they don’t use random samples of respondents. As stated in the textbook Mind on Statistics, “Surveys that simply use those who respond voluntarily are sure to be biased in favor of those with strong opinions or with time on their hands.”
However, the Electoral Studiespaper directly confronts this issue by “weighting the data” to produce “a non-citizen sample that appears to be a better match with Census estimates of the population.” As explained in the academic book Designing and Conducting Survey Research: A Comprehensive Guide, weighting “is one of the most common approaches” that researchers use to “present results that are representative of the target population….”
The book goes on to explain that weighting is far from foolproof, and both Just Facts and the Electoral Studiespaper directly state that. This is one of the reasons why Just Facts refers to its study results as “estimates” five separate times and directs readers to these “possible sources of error, some of which may produce overcounts and some undercounts.”
Nonetheless, weighting is a generally accepted means of making survey data representative, and Cox’s omission of this fact is grossly misleading.
Cox, Wired, and Jones-Correa are not the only ones to spread this half-truth. PolitiFact and Brian Schaffner of UMass Amherst have done the same—despite the fact that the Electoral Studiespaper addressed this issue right from the start. This shows that each of these people and organizations either did not read the full paper, did not understand it, or are deliberately trying to slander it.
#9 Pathways to Illegal Voting
Cox writes that “registrants voting in a federal election supply evidence of their residence,” but “Agresti argues some noncitizens manage to vote in federal elections despite preventive measures.” This mischaracterizes the facts on two levels.
First, proof of residency is not proof of citizenship. And as Agresti pointed out in his study and in an email to Cox, “all 50 states require people to be U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in federal elections.”
Second, Agresti does not merely argue that “some noncitizens manage to vote in federal elections despite preventive measures.” He provides reams of facts from primary sources showing that:
no state requires anyone to provide documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote because federal courts have stopped them from enacting this requirement.
the vast bulk of illegal immigrants use false identifications that would allow them to vote.
three scientific surveys and database matches with voter registration records show that millions of non-citizens are registered to vote.
Barack Obama stated that there is no effective way to enforce the law that prohibits non-citizens from voting.
The sources cited by Agresti to prove these facts include:
a U.S. Government Accountability Office investigation.
a study by the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration.
a video of California Senate Leader and Democrat Kevin De Leon stating that “anyone who has family members who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification.”
a video of Obama stating that non-citizens would not be deported if they voted because “there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over, and people start investigating, etcetera.”
Yet, Cox describes this stunning array of documented facts with the phrase “Agresti argues” and then rejects all of them in favor of an unsubstantiated claim from a progressive lawyer. That’s not fact checking but propagandizing.
#10 Confirming Fraud
Finally, Cox contests the reality that states have withheld public voter roll data from the Trump administration that could be used to prove how many illegal votes are cast by non-citizens. She does this by linking to a summary of state policies on public access to voter lists. She then points out that “voter information is publicly available” in the battleground states.
This is one of the rare cases where Cox actually presents facts to support her case, but she misinterprets them. She does this by failing to account for the differences between:
a policy summary versus its practical application.
limited public data versus detailed public data provided in a format that can be analyzed to root out illegal votes.
Once again, all of the facts needed to understand these points are documented in Just Facts’ study with links to credible primary sources, including the Federal Judicial Center and a statement from California’s Secretary of State.
Though California is not a battleground state, it provides a crystal clear example of the distinctions that Cox fails to recognize. According to the link she provided, California’s voter rolls are available to “candidates, parties, ballot measure committees, and to any person for election, scholarly, journalistic, or political purposes, or for governmental purposes, as determined by the Secretary of State.” Yet, when Trump’s Commission on Election Integrity requested the data, California’s Secretary of State vowed that he would not provide it and promised lawsuits and “opposition at every step of the way” to keep the data from the Commission.
Summary
A “fact check” by USA Today contains 10 demonstrably false claims that smear a range of scholars and denigrate a rigorously documented study as “unfounded.”
Facebook partly funded this defamatory work and then notified Just Facts that Facebook is:
placing a label on Just Facts Facebook post for the study that states: “Independent fact-checkers say this information is missing context and could mislead people.”
reducing the reach of the post.
counting this post as a “Page Quality Violation” against Just Facts.
Just Facts posed these three questions to Facebook about its so-called “independent third-party fact-checking organizations” and is awaiting a reply:
Given that Facebook has hand-selected these organizations to be the judges of truth on your platform, do you hold them to actionable standards and count quality violations against them?
If so, what exactly are these standards and the repercussions for violating them?
If not, why are you vesting certain people with unchecked authority to use Facebook to censor others, sow misinformation, and slander the reputations of scholars?
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 