Search Results

If you saw 2000 Mules, you remember these two heroes. rue the Vote founder and president Catherine Engelbrecht makes a point during a presentation on ballot trafficking at the Arizona statehouse on May 31, 2022. Seated next to her is True the Vote data investigator Gregg Phillips. (Allan Stein/The Epoch Times) Arizona is one of the key states in the CPI initiative to assure Election Integrity. Arizona joins us, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. The election integrity group True the Vote presented Arizona lawmakers with cell phone tracking data showing alleged ballot traffickers visited drop boxes in two of the state’s largest counties no less than 5,700 times during the 2020 election. “When we started the project, we didn’t know [what we would find],” said Catherine Engelbrecht, the Texas group’s founder and president. “We began to think through what is a realistic expectation or threshold for when going to a dropbox is too many times. We wanted to focus on a clear, narrow data set [to demonstrate] “extreme outlier behavior.” The group’s investigators settled on 10 visits as an actual number—but “here, in Arizona, they went an average of 21 times,” Engelbrecht told the panel of state legislators on May 31. Lawmakers—all Republican—vowed to move forward with HB-2289 to make ballot drop boxes illegal in Arizona. “The only thing I would like to see come out of this meeting is people going to jail,” said State Rep. Quang Nguyen (R). “I would just like to see people cuffed.” The presentation was delayed 45 minutes while Arizona Democratic legislators wrangled over proposed gun control. Arizona state Sen. Kelly Townsend (R) goes over data during a presentation on election integrity by True the Vote in Phoenix on May 31. (Allan Stein/The Epoch Times) “This is political grandstanding, which I find is shameful,” said Arizona state Rep. Mark Finchem (R). “They’re trying to suspend the rules, which is always a bad idea—to bring forward a bill that hasn’t gone to committee, and that has not had any vetting whatsoever. It’s not going to happen.” During the 90-minute presentation, Engelbrecht and True the Vote data investigator Gregg Phillips, former head of Mississippi’s Department of Human Services, described the group’s investigation into so-called “mules,” illegal ballot runners, and the role NGOs may have played to commit 2020 election fraud. The investigation focused on two of the state’s largest counties—Maricopa County and Yuma County—and on unique visits to ballot boxes utilizing cell phone tracking technology to develop “patterns of life” for each alleged ballot trafficker. “We resolved to try to find a path that we could measure that would be useful to law enforcement,” Engelbrecht said. The study used Oct. 7 and Nov. 3, 2020 as a timeframe, identifying 202 target devices that made 4,242 unique dropbox visits in Maricopa County. In Yuma County, the study found 1,435 unique dropbox visits by 41 target devices based on cell phone signals, or “pings.” Arizona State Sen. Leo Biasiucci (R) listens as the election integrity group True the Vote presents its findings on ballot fraud in at the statehouse Arizona in Phoenix on May 31, 2022. (Allan Stein/The Epoch Times) Engelbrecht said a geofence is around every dropbox to provide a “digital coordinate set” and measure how many times a device passed through the geofence. Measurements are precise to within a meter of contact with a ballot box. The federal government uses the same tracking technology. Its accuracy is “nearly perfect [like] wearing an ankle bracelet,” Engelbrecht said. “Friends, it’s happening on all of our phones, which are attached to us at almost all times. Suffice for this purpose and for this time to say the outlier set was so extreme that it warrants serious consideration, one that we hope this body before us will consider,” she said. Phillips said the web of cell phone signals is “so significant. Your phone is sending regular pings [this] is how all that comes together.” He added, “It can’t be overstated not to do what the [New York Times] did” in a series of articles on geofencing—”to say we got 50 billion pings and make all these [erroneous] assumptions.” Phillips said the group’s study sifted through billions of signals, “teasing out” devices based to exclude “false positive” signals. Dinesh D’Souza illustrated these findings in the new movie “2,000 Mules,” which seeks to expose organized ballot trafficking in the 2020 election. “We decided to go in on a methodology that uses ad data [embedded] in all of your phones. This is how digital DNA is captured,” Engelbrecht said. “If there were a subversion of [electoral] process, it would show up in the drop boxes. We believed that to prove it [geospatial data] would be something to focus on. We resolved to look at the ways to prove this.” True the Vote is investigating alleged 2020 ballot harvesting in Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania electoral jurisdictions as well, and will share its findings with law enforcement officials that could lead to criminal investigations. Engelbrecht said inaccurate voter rolls provide a “gateway to all your problems” with mass mailing of ballots. She said that issues are more likely to occur at ballot drop boxes because they are not well regulated. Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake (C) claps during a presentation of ballot trafficking by True the Vote at Arizona’s statehouse in Phoenix on May 31. Next to her is Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb. (Allan Stein/The Epoch Times) True the Vote recommends Arizona lawmakers commit to clean voter rolls using real-time technology, and eliminate mass mailing of ballots and drop boxes. Or at the very least, drop boxes should be secure with video surveillance technology. Finally, lawmakers should make the penalty for ballot running something “cheaters will fear,” said Engelbrecht, who views 2020 election fraud as a “vertical grift layers and layers deep.” “The exploitation targets the most vulnerable communities. This is voter abuse. This is not about Republicans or Democrats. This is about securing the vote,” Engelbrecht said. Arizona state Rep. Leo Biasiucci (R) said, “Obviously, something is going on. We’ve got to figure out what went wrong, how to fix it, and if you were involved, you should be prosecuted.” State Sen. Nancy Barto (R) said it is “very scary” for voters not to have confidence in the ballot. “We are going to get a handle on this,” she said. State Sen. Walter “Walt” Blackman (R) summed up the solution for Arizona in “HB-2289.” “After seeing this, we need to move forward with [HB-]2289,” he said to loud applause. Allan Stein Follow Allan Stein is an Epoch Times reporter who covers the state of Arizona.

CPI Senior Legal Fellow Cleta Mitchell Asheville Tea: The New York Times just learned about CPI’s Election Integrity Network and the statewide training conferences we have been leading across the country this year. And after seeing Cleta Mitchell leading just one Summit meeting, they are in full-out panic mode! Sunday, they published a 3,500-word expose on our efforts to: Organize volunteers (GASP!), Teach them how elections work (SHUDDER!), Train them to be civil and gracious (HOW DARE WE!), and Show them how to ensure fair elections. THE HORROR! The ridiculous article was the latest in a series of insinuating, dishonest hit pieces against Cleta, CPI, and conservatives. Whenever conservatives act, the media gets scared. Well… they should be. For generations, the media, the deep state, and liberal poll workers had exclusive power over election information in this country. The lesson Americans learned in 2020: NEVER AGAIN. Help end election fraud today: Support CPI The public wants free and fair elections, and the Election Integrity Network is working every day to ensure we have them. Liberal pundits are outraged that EIN is teaching activists exactly how the system works and how to prevent it from being corrupted. We teach citizens how to regain control over and confidence in their elections – and the Left calls that “intimidation.” Hogwash. They know what this is really about. They know the corners they have cut, the games they play with the rules, and with our votes. And we’re putting a stop to it. We’re going to be holding Election Integrity Summits in numerous states between now and November. But we can’t do it without you. Support CPI and the Election Integrity Network! We need your help to take EIN’s work to the next level. Voting season is in full swing, and the most important mid-term elections of our lives are only MONTHS AWAY! There is no time to lose – and no organization working harder to protect the integrity of the voting booth and the ballot box than CPI’s Election Integrity Network. If the liberals at the New York Times are shaking in their boots, you know we’re doing something right! Thank you for being part of our team and for helping us make CPI the place where conservatives go to win. Sincerely,Jim DeMint CPI ChairmanCONSERVATIVE PARTNERSHIP INSTITUTE 300 Independence Ave SE Washington, DC 20003 (202) 742-8988 Tel | (202) 595-0282 Fax CPI.orgSUPPORT CPI

Rumble Video: DOMINION IS BUSTED! Georgia Hand Count Changes Election Results! (rumble.com)

Michael Avenatti Sentenced to Prison for Scamming Client out of Book Deal Money (theepochtimes.com) Lawyer Michael Avenatti, who made headlines for his anti-Donald Trump stance, was sentenced to four years in prison Thursday for cheating his former client out of $300,000 in cash from a book deal. Avenatti was convicted of aggravated identity fraud and wire fraud in a New York federal court earlier in 2022. He could have faced two years in prison for the first charge and 20 years for the second. During his sentencing, Avenatti acknowledged that he made a “series of mistakes” and “poor judgment” when he represented and bilked Stormy Daniels out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Previously, Avenatti said he did not want to appear at the sentencing, but the judge ordered him to. “I will forever be branded ‘disgraced lawyer’ and worse,” he also said Thursday. District Judge Jesse Furman said Thursday that Avenatti’s conduct was “so brazen and egregious” and said that he “took advantage of a vulnerable victim given her unorthodox career and somewhat unorthodox beliefs,” referring to Daniels, an adult film actress. Avenatti, meanwhile, still faces a retrial in California federal court in another case in which is being accused of stealing nearly $10 million from five clients. He’s also currently serving a 30-month prison sentence for attempting to extort more than $20 million from Nike by threatening to release damaging information to the public unless he was paid. Furman said that part of Thursday’s sentence will be served alongside the prison term that was handed down in connection to the Nike case. Avenatti will have to serve two and a half years after the Nike sentence is completed. The disgraced lawyer also has to pay $148,750 to Daniels and $297,900 to the federal government, Furman said. The sentencing marks another chapter in the tumultuous rise and fall of Avenatti, who was heavily featured on MSNBC and CNN during the Trump years as he claimed he would run for president while representing Daniels, who made a series of accusations against the former president. As a guest on mainstream news programs to discuss a lawsuit Daniels had filed against Trump, Avenatti logged more than 100 CNN and MSNBC appearances from March 7 to May 10, 2018, according to an analysis. In that time frame, Avenatti simultaneously gained hundreds of thousands of followers on Twitter and other social media platforms. But his time in the spotlight quickly came crashing down in early 2019 when he was arrested in New York City over the Nike extortion case. “I’m not [expletive] around with this, and I’m not continuing to play games,” he told the Nike attorney, according to court documents. Last month, Avenatti issued an apology letter to Daniels, which was handed to Judge Furman. “It is obvious that I failed you in many respects and that I disappointed you and let you down in multiple ways,” he wrote, adding: “I wish that we could turn back the clock so that the mistakes I made would never be repeated. I am truly sorry.” But prosecutors in a sentencing submission last week urged that he should face “substantial” additional time in prison for a wire fraud conviction and criticized his apology letter, saying the 51-year-old failed to apologize for his actual crime. “The defendant certainly had every right to defend himself at trial. But he is not entitled to a benefit for showing remorse, having done so only when convenient and only after seeking to humiliate his victim at a public trial, and denigrating and insulting her for months to her agent and publisher while holding himself out as taking up her cause against the powerful who might have taken advantage of her,” prosecutors wrote. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Jack Phillips BREAKING NEWS REPORTER Follow Jack Phillips is a breaking news reporter at The Epoch Times based in New York.

With the 2022 midterm elections around the corner, scrutiny of the 2020 election continues to raise questions about election integrity, including a newly identified anomaly in Maricopa County, Arizona. Arizona Law requires that, to be considered valid, ballots must be received by the county no later than 7 p.m. on Election Day. But newly uncovered records documenting the Maricopa County 2020 general election show that while more than 20,000 ballots were transported from the U.S. Postal Service after Election Day, Maricopa County only rejected 934 late ballots in its “Early Voting Rejections Summary” document. This means more than 19,000 late, invalid ballots should have been rejected. That is significant because it is enough to potentially sway the results of Arizona’s presidential election, which rested with a final tally of Joe Biden winning the state with 10,457 more votes than Donald Trump. It is impossible to know if the results would be different if the late ballots had not been counted in Maricopa County. The Early Voting Rejections Summary is just one of the documents telling the story. County documents were obtained by Verity Vote, a group of citizen volunteers with data research and investigation backgrounds who have been investigating the 2020 election results throughout the country. Verity Vote recently released a report detailing this investigation. How Ballots Move To understand the anomaly, it is important to know how ballots are moved in Maricopa County, which uses dropboxes and early mail-in voting. A truck driven by a Maricopa County Elections Department employee picks up ballots at least once a day. The collection truck starts at the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Center. The truck has some space for more ballots but is already loaded with some early in-person ballots and ballots that were placed in a dropbox. The driver goes to the post office and picks up more ballots, then takes the truck to Runbeck Election Services where all ballots are given an incoming scan. It is here, at the scan, that the “Inbound Receipt of Delivery” document is generated. This receipt of delivery shows the date, time, and names of the employees delivering and receiving the ballots, and it itemizes the number of ballots that came from the post office, dropboxes, and early in-person voting. In response to some document requests, Maricopa County made the Receipt of Delivery documents available for public inspection for dates spanning Oct. 13 to Nov. 6, 2020. From that collection of documents, Verity Vote noticed that documents from Nov. 4, 2020—the day after the election—were missing. Verity Vote requested Maricopa County provide the Receipt of Delivery for that day, first with a few phone calls, then with written requests. It should have been a simple request because all the other dates were already public. But this request went to a county attorney. “After numerous delays, multiple follow up emails, and phone calls, county employees informed Verity Vote that the records were with legal counsel pending review,” the report says. “It took nearly seven months to get the documents.” The Nov. 4 Receipt of Delivery shows 18,000 ballots were picked up from the Post Office the day after the Nov. 3 election. The form has three colors of ink. A Runbeck Election Services employee printed his first name only, Brandon, in blue. The ballots arrived at “9:30” on “11-4-20” and the paper is signed in the same blue ink by the receiver, but the signature is illegible. A row listed as “lates” should show how many ballots are late. The four columns in the late row have numbers in blue ink but are scribbled over and cannot be read. Another signature, scrawled in red ink, is also illegible. It denotes the person who delivered the ballots. Even though the document is dated Nov. 4, one day after the election, at the top of the page, above the margin, someone has written “Election Day” in black ink in what looks like different handwriting from the rest of the page. The county also documents receiving 1,000 ballots on Nov. 5 and 1,500 ballots on Nov. 6. Combined with the 18,000 ballots found on Nov. 4, the total documented late ballots were 20,500. A letter from County Recorder Stephen Richer, responding to Verity Vote’s document request, indicated that the Nov. 4 receipt the county provided is not the only receipt for ballots the county received that day. “This document does not represent the complete universe of Maricopa County inbound receipt delivery forms from Nov. 4, 2020. We cannot be certain, but we believe that the remainder of these forms were transferred to the treasurer’s office to be stored and sealed with ballots,” Richer wrote. If so, it indicates there are more mailed ballots that were not counted in the Early Voting Rejections Summary, and presumably would have been counted in the results.” Another anomaly is the number of ballots collected Nov. 4, compared to other surrounding days. Voters were instructed to mail ballots by Oct. 27 to be sure their ballots arrived on time. By Oct. 30, the number of ballots coming by mail dropped sharply, but then spiked the day after the election. On Oct. 28, the county received 58,500 ballots from the post office, then: Oct. 29: 14,500 Oct. 30: 10,500 Oct. 31: 6,000 Nov. 1: 1,500 Nov. 2: 1,000 Nov. 3: 2,500—Election Day. In order to be counted and valid, the ballot must be received by the county no later than 7 p.m. Nov. 4: 18,000 late, invalid ballots Nov. 5: 1,000 late, invalid ballots Nov. 6: 1,500 late, invalid ballots Yet Maricopa County rejected just 934 ballots for lateness. Maricopa County responded to The Epoch Times’ request for comment with an email promising the communications director in its Elections Department would “reach out.” The Epoch Times will report when they do. Arizona has 11 electoral votes. In the final tally, Biden had 74 more electoral votes than Trump, according to the official record at the National Archives. Beth Brelje REPORTER Follow Beth Brelje is an investigative journalist covering Pennsylvania politics, courts, and the commonwealth’s most interesting and sometimes hidden news. Send her your story ideas: Beth.brelje@epochtimes.us

Numbers USA, May 27, 2022 THIS ISSUE: USICA, spending bills, and bipartisan Senate talks pose biggest immigration threats this summer FRI, MAY 27th With both the House and Senate out next week for the Memorial Day recess, here's a look at the legislation that could impact immigration as we head into the summer months... USICA/America COMPETES Act The bicameral conference committee tasked with negotiating a final version of a massive legislative package to strengthen America's global innovation and competition continues to meet. But most reports indicate that not much progress has been made. The House-passed version -- the America COMPETES Act -- contains a number of troubling immigration provisions that would dramatically increase legal immigration by creating a new visa program for foreign investors and their workers. The bill also includes a provision that would allow any foreign citizen with a doctorate degree in a STEM field from a U.S. university or college, or the foreign equivalence, to receive a green card. The Senate-passed version -- the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act (USICA) -- doesn't contain any immigration provisions. The committee was hoping to reach an agreement this week on an outline for the final legislation, but that has yet to be done. GOP Senators expressed frustration with the slow pace of the negotiations and are telling House Democrats to start accepting the fact that the final legislation will look more like the Senate bill than the House bill. A bill that more closely resembles the Senate version is good news for those who oppose immigration increases. "Gang of 4" continues immigration talks Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), and John Cornyn (R-Texas) continue their behind-the-scene discussions on a potential immigration compromise. Previous reports indicated that the "gang of 4" was negotiating a package that would trade border security for an amnesty for an estimated 2.1 million DACA-eligible illegal aliens. Sen. Tillis provided an update of those discussions this week and said that most of the conversations have centered around the ongoing border crisis. Border Patrol agents have made more than 1.2 million apprehensions over the first 7 months of the fiscal year that started on Oct. 1. And in April, CBP reported a record-level number of total encounters (234,088). Encounters include both border apprehensions and inadmissible aliens who present themselves at a port of entry. Tillis was asked directly about an amnesty for illegal aliens. He said that the group has yet to discuss an amnesty, and "there will never be an amnesty." However, Tillis then said that there could be a "path" for the "DACA population." Apparently, Sen. Tillis doesn't believe that giving permanent status and work authorization to illegal aliens IS an amnesty, so we've posted new messages for activists in North Carolina and Texas that they can send to Sens. Tillis and Cornyn, respectively. Appropriations process We expect the appropriations process to heat up once Congress returns from next week's recess. For the past several years, lawmakers have used the Homeland Security appropriations bill to allow for an increase in the number of foreign guest workers. We'll also be watching funding levels for both the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, especially as the Biden Administration winds down the Title 42 policy that blocked some illegal border crossers from claiming asylum because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Elections Update Two races stood out on immigration after Tuesday's primary elections. Alabama, Arkansas, and Georgia held their primaries, while Texas held runoffs from its March primaries. In Alabama, NumbersUSA "True Reformer" and current Congressman Mo Brooks secured a runoff for the GOP Senate nomination against Katie Britt who previously served as the retiring Sen. Richard Shelby's chief of staff. The runoff is on June 21. (See our comparison of those candidates here. For more on NumbersUSA "True Reformers," see the top of the right column.) In Texas, incumbent Congressman Henry Cuellar holds a slim lead with most votes counted over Jessica Cisneros in a runoff for the Democratic nomination in Texas' 28th Congressional District, a heavily Hispanic electorate along the Mexican border. Cuellar has a really poor immigration voting record, but it is the 4th best among Democrats in Congress. And he has been one of the few Congressional Democrats -- and the loudest -- in criticizing the Biden Administration's border policies over the past year. Cisneros is an immigration attorney who supports the less-enforcement philosophy of Pres. Biden and of Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who campaigned for Cisneros. The hard-fought contest and close results are indicative of the growing split among Democratic voters nationwide over border policies. Finally, all of us at NumbersUSA wish you and your families a safe and happy Memorial Day weekend! CHRIS CHMIELENSKI NUMBERSUSA DEPUTY DIRECTOR

Heritage Action For America Saturday Summary Busted: "Voter Suppression" Myth (ashevilleteaparty.org) Before we jump in, be sure to check out the latest episode of our podcast. Director of Grassroots Janae Stracke breaks down Heritage Action’s concerns about the recently passed $40 billion Ukraine funding bill. If you recall, this bill was hastily passed after secret backroom negotiations among Congressional leadership. Rank-and-file members of Congress were cut out of the process, which means that the American people were cut out of the process. Congress is likely to try and spend billions more in Ukraine aid by September. We think there should be transparent debate, and that Congress and President Biden should answer some important questions that the American people have been asking. You can watch the podcast here. BUSTED: “Voter Suppression” Myth Georgia held their primary election this Tuesday while Pennsylvania held theirs over a week and a half ago. These two elections completely busted the Left’s myth of describing election integrity as “voter suppression.” Here’s how: Georgia: Last year Governor Kemp signed into law a sweeping election integrity bill backed by Heritage Action. It standardized early voting while prohibiting private funding (or “ZuckBucks”) and also secured drop-boxes and banned ballot trafficking/harvesting. Nearly the entire liberal media and Democrat politicians decried the bill as “voter suppression,” and Biden even called it “Jim Crow in the 21st Century.” The MLB moved their All-Star game out of Atlanta, and other corporations like Coca-Cola and Delta embarrassed themselves by blindly parroting Democrat talking points. This week, the Georgia primary elections showed the real effect of the new law: We saw record turnout with nearly 1.9 million Georgians voting (up 60% from 2018). There were virtually no lines, unlike in the 2020 election, and Georgians can thank the new law for cleaning up the process. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania serves as a stark contrast: After the disastrous 2020 election in Pennsylvania, the Republican-led legislature passed a sensible bill to clean up the mail-in process, but liberal Governor Tom Wolf vetoed the bill. Now, Pennsylvanians are left wondering who their Republican nominee for Senate will be. It’s been nearly two weeks since the election, and voters still don’t have an answer. The same issues that plagued the 2020 election –– misprinted and undated mail-in ballots –– are also plaguing this primary election. Had Governor Wolf signed into law some common-sense election integrity reforms, this disaster of a process could have easily been avoided. What’s the moral of the story? Election integrity is NOT “voter suppression” as the Left and their media allies would like you to believe. Rather, election integrity is about making it easy to vote and hard to cheat. Learn more at www.saveourelections.com So-Called “Domestic Terrorism” Bill Last week, the House passed a “Domestic Terrorism” bill, with every Democrat voting for and nearly every Republican voting against (unsurprisingly, Rep. Adam Kinzinger was the sole Republican “Yay” vote). And this week the Senate took up the bill, but Senate Republicans stopped it from passing with a vote of 47-47. This bill is really a flimsy cover for a far-Left agenda that targets ordinary Americans, and shows the dangerous lengths to which Congressional Democrats want to empower President Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland to target their political enemies. If you recall: Last year, Attorney General Merrick Garland was caught targeting parents who spoke up at school board meetings, labeling them as “domestic terrorists.” And new whistleblower evidence shows that Biden’s Justice Department is again using counterterrorism tools to target parents that speak up against mask mandates, vaccine mandates, and critical race theory at school board meetings. This new bill would have empowered Biden and Garland to continue targeting parents and go after their political enemies: The bill is specifically targeted towards “White supremacists and neo-Nazis.” The problem with that is who the Left defines as “white supremacists.” The Left has a proven record of calling anyone that dissents from their world view a “white supremacist, including concerned parents, elected officials like Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, activists like Christopher Rufo, news reporters like Tucker Carlson, and of course, all Trump voters. It’s clear that this “Domestic Terror” bill was the Left’s not-so-subtle way of targeting their political opponents, and Americans of all stripes should be loudly opposed. Oklahoma is Pro-Life This week, Governor Stitt signed into law House Bill 4327, which protects life at conception and guarantees more babies their right life. Governor Stitt also vetoed two flawed pieces of legislation that were designed to only help a few Oklahoma families, but not all Oklahomans. You can read our full statement here. We’re looking forward to Governor Stitt’s special session in June to consider his new initiatives to help Oklahomans deal with crushing inflation. Looking Ahead Congress is out of session next week, but following the heinous murders at Robb Elementary in Texas, we’re likely to see negotiations around a legislative response. And it’s possible that the Senate could vote on a bill the week of June 6. In the wake of a tragedy, we’ve seen some politicians rush to insert themselves and their own political agendas. But sincere legislators will seek for real solutions that would have actually prevented the tragedy, while protecting the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. Lastly, this Monday is Memorial Day, where we pause, reflect, and honor those who paid the ultimate price to defend our liberties and freedom. We hope you enjoy your day with loved ones. May you have a meaning-filled Memorial Day. Jessica and the Heritage Action team Join the fight to advance the conservative agenda.

What Really Happened in Uvalde? - CannCon’s Newsletter (substack.com) Before I begin, if you believe Uvalde, Parkland, or any of the other school shootings didn’t happen, stop readin.' As we all try our best to make sense of another mass killing in the United States, we’re learning more and more about the situation and getting a better picture of what did (and didn’t) happen. It is of the utmost importance to make sense of these events and learn from them. So much so that if we had done exactly that on February 14, 2018, we may have a different situation today. I am going to outline the series of events as stated by law enforcement officials in Uvalde, TX regarding the shooting, followed by some questions that I feel are incredibly relevant and need answers. But before we start the timeline, we must first ask an extremely important question: How did an 18 year old man, with no known employment, whom was living with his grandmother because of an addict mother, afford: -Two expensive firearms made by Daniel Defense ($2,000 each) -an EOTech optic ($400-$700) -1,657 rounds of .223 ammo ($800-1000 depending on how they were purchased) -body armor ($500-1000) -and over 60 magazines ($10-20 each) for a total of approximately $6300 to $8,000? Most established adult Americans, especially after the last two years and the current economy, can’t afford a fraction of that. But this young 18 year old was able to do so with no known job and all on a debit (not credit!) card? In a border town reportedly overrun by the worst of the worst from the US Border…I’ll let you make your own assumptions. Read more here.

Unanimous Supreme Court Flies Flag for Free Speech in Case Against City of Boston In a rare unanimous ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court secured a major victory for free speech. In the opinion in Shurtleff v. Boston, authored by retiring Justice Stephen Breyer, the court ruled that the city of Boston violated the Constitution when it prohibited a group from flying a Christian flag on a flagpole it had held open to other groups and their flags. The court determined that simply by permitting private groups to fly their flags on the City Hall flagpole, the city was not endorsing any message behind those flags and that, therefore, the flag and what it represents did not constitute government speech. As a result, its refusal to allow a religious group to raise its flag simply because of its religious viewpoint was a violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Boston had historically allowed groups to raise a flag on one of the city’s three flagpoles in conjunction with ceremonies held on the City Hall plaza. Over a period of 12 years, between 2005 and 2017, the city approved the flying of 50 different flags in conjunction with 284 events. Its unofficial policy was to accommodate all applicants. But when Harold Shurtleff, director of a group called Camp Constitution, asked to fly what he described as a “Christian flag” in conjunction with an event on the plaza celebrating the civic and social contributions of the Christian community, the city denied his request, claiming that flying the flag would violate the Constitution’s Establishment Clause by “promot[ing] a specific religion.” Notably, before Shurtleff’s request, the city had never denied other groups’ requests to fly a flag, including the “Pride” flag, the flag of a local bank, a flag for emergency medical service workers, and many others. The First Amendment’s protections regarding the right to speak and assemble vary based on the speakers’ chosen forum. In its 1983 ruling, Perry Education Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, the high court divided forums into three types: traditional public forums, limited or designated public forums, and nonpublic or private forums. The city acknowledged that by allowing the public to participate in flag-flying on the plaza, it had established a traditional “public forum.” In a traditional public forum, the government’s content-based restrictions on speech are considered highly suspect. But, as Breyer wrote in Shurtleff, “the line between a forum for private expression and the government’s own speech is important, but not always clear.” In assessing Shurtleff’s claim, Breyer wrote that when the government invites the public to participate in a program, the court has to look at particular “holistic” factors to determine whether the government intends to speak for itself, or to regulate another’s private expression. These, Breyer wrote, were derived from the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision, Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, and included the history of the particular expression, the public’s perception as to who is speaking (the government or a private person), and the extent to which the government has actively shaped or controlled the message. Breyer stated the record showed that Boston did not actively control the flag-raisings or shape the messages that the flags sent. In fact, the city had no written policy or guidance about what flags groups could fly and what those flags could communicate. In addition, all flag-raisings had been approved prior to Shurtleff’s request in 2017. Therefore, the court held, the city’s refusal to let Shurtleff fly his flag was viewpoint discrimination and violated the Free Speech Clause. Breyer wrote: When the government encourages diverse expression—say, by creating a forum for debate—the First Amendment prevents it from discriminating against speakers based on their viewpoint. … [I]t may not exclude speech based on ‘religious viewpoint; doing so ‘constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination.’ In a separate, concurring opinion—perhaps the shortest we’ll see all term—Justice Brett Kavanaugh took one paragraph to distill the case to its essence, writing: Under the Constitution, a government may not treat religious persons, religious organizations, or religious speech as second-class. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, filed a separate opinion concurring in the judgment, but disagreeing with the court’s decision to analyze the case under the terms from the Walker case. He argued that to use those factors as a test obscured the appropriate—and simple—inquiry in First Amendment cases emanating from challenges under the government-speech doctrine; namely, whether the government itself is speaking or whether it is regulating someone’s private expression. These three justices believe that relying on Breyer’s “factorized approach” doesn’t present a principled way of deciding First Amendment cases. And, Alito added, to examine the degree of control over speech in a government setting could allow “governments to exploit public expectations to mask censorship.” Gorsuch filed his own opinion centering on what he characterized as a misunderstanding of the court’s Establishment Clause precedent, which he believed was the real problem in the case. His opinion harkened back to oral arguments on April 25 in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, when former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, counsel for coach Joe Kennedy, argued that the court’s Establishment Clause test, derived from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), needs to be “cut in half,” and was a “stubborn fruit.” Gorsuch piled on in Shurtleff, arguing that Lemon has produced only chaos—and “new business for lawyers and judges.” Despite the court’s recognition of Lemon’s many problems, and what Gorsuch called the court’s abandonment of the case (which seemed to imply that Lemon is overruled at least in practice, if not in fact), the city of Boston made a costly mistake in relying on it anyway. Breyer, 83, will retire at the end of this term next month, but remains on the bench pending the swearing-in of President Joe Biden’s Senate-confirmed nominee, federal Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. He will continue to participate in this term’s remaining high-profile cases on abortion, free exercise, free speech, and the Second Amendment. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

Could the Supreme Court Leaker Be Criminally Prosecuted? Maybe Politico published a bombshell story late on May 2 that five Supreme Court justices had voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. Shockingly, the story even contained a link to an authenticated full draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, which he apparently circulated to the other justices almost three months ago. This isn’t a final opinion and the votes can still change. Why else leak it, though, except as a last-ditch effort to bully at least one of the justices into changing his or her vote or to influence the political process in some way? While leaks from the Supreme Court have happened in the past, they have historically been few and far between, and never this egregious. And it’s hard to remember any other time where someone leaked a complete draft opinion. While leaks in the court’s history have been rare, there is some precedent for prosecuting a justice’s law clerk who leaked information to the press—though the Department of Justice ultimately dismissed the case. In 1919, Ashton Embry, Justice Joseph McKenna’s law clerk, resigned to become a full-time baker. It was an odd career change, but one that made more sense when just “a few months after this resignation, the Department of Justice indicted him for sharing the court’s decisions with Wall Street traders before the decisions were officially released.” Still, with “no explicit prohibition on insider trading [at the time], the DOJ charged Embry with conspiring ‘to deprive the United States of its lawful right and duty of promulgating information in the way and at the time required by law and at departmental regulation.’” His case never went to trial, and the DOJ dismissed the charges approximately 10 years later in 1929. While Embry leaked, presumably for financial gain, a scheme to get rich off of trading on insider knowledge doesn’t seem like the likely culprit behind this leak. For all the handwringing about the court’s institutional legitimacy, this leak clearly seems to be a calculated political move designed to harm that legitimacy—which makes it all the worse that some on the left are cheering the move. Sadly, we have seen this before. In 2020, for example, current Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., stood on the steps of the Supreme Court just as it was about to hear oral arguments in an abortion case and said, “I want to tell you, [Justice Neil] Gorsuch; I want to tell you, [Justice Brett] Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” This shows the lengths to which some on the left will go in order to tarnish the Court in the service of their extreme positions on abortion (see, for example, here, here, here, and here). As to the leak itself, one Supreme Court news site said, “It’s impossible to overstate the earthquake this will cause inside the Court, in terms of the destruction of trust among the Justices and staff. This leak is the gravest, most unforgivable sin.” It’s definitely a sin and an unpardonable one. But is it a federal crime? Maybe. Professor Orin Kerr, a noted criminal law scholar, succinctly summarized his initial thoughts by saying, “It’s not clear, I need to go read all the cases and it may depend on the circuit.” That’s an unsatisfying answer on a visceral level, but it may be the correct one. There’s just too much we don’t know right now. First, there are no laws that would explicitly cover the unauthorized release of a draft opinion; they’re not classified or national security materials. Maybe Congress could pass a law allowing them to be designated as such, but nothing like that currently exists. As Kerr points out, obviously, if someone obtained the copy through a hack—a remote but not impossible proposition since Politico’s national security correspondent placed his name on the story’s byline—or stole a physical copy of the draft opinion, those are clearly crimes. But what if someone who worked for the Supreme Court and had access to it (like a law clerk) released it without permission? There are a few possibilities for prosecution but nothing that guarantees success. One remote possibility is prosecution for so-called honest services fraud. As the Congressional Research Service has said, Congress amended 18 U.S.C. §1346, “which defines the crimes of mail and wire fraud,” to make clear that this statute extends “to conduct that deprives a person or group of the right to have another act in accordance with some externally imposed duty or obligation, regardless of whether the victim so deprived has suffered or would suffer a pecuniary harm.” Moreover, Supreme Court law clerks clearly take an oath pledging to maintain confidential information that they learn about as a result of their jobs in their justice’s chambers. But the Supreme Court has pared back that statute’s reach to cover “only those who, in violation of a fiduciary duty, participate in bribery or kickback schemes” and that seems an unlikely outcome here. Another remote possibility is prosecution under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, which is codified at 18 U.S.C. §1030. The act makes it a crime “to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter.” But the court, just last term in Van Buren v. United States, held that this “provision covers those who obtain information from particular areas in the computer—such as files, folders, or databases—to which their computer access does not extend. It does not cover those who … have improper motives for obtaining information that is otherwise available to them.” A final potentially promising possibility is prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §641, which broadly deals with theft, embezzlement, or conversion of government property or governmental “things of value.” The federal government has successfully prosecuted some leakers under this statute, but the federal circuit courts of appeal disagree about whether, and what, information can be a “thing of value.” But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is one of the circuits that has held an intangible item, like information, can be a “thing of value” under this statute, and since the Supreme Court is located within the District of Columbia Circuit­, that increases the odds that this would be a chargeable offense. Still, prosecution under this statute is no slam dunk. There are other measures that Chief Justice John Roberts could implement which might increase the odds of discovering who the leaker is and of a successful prosecution. 18 U.S.C. §1001 makes it a federal offense to knowingly and willfully make a materially false statement “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the Government of the United States … ” The chief justice could ask all the law clerks, and anyone else who had access to Alito’s draft opinion, to sign a statement saying that they were not the source of the leak. Assuming that they all sign the statement denying being the source of the leak, the chief justice could then ask law enforcement agents to interview each of those individuals. If the interview exposes the leaker, that individual could be prosecuted for having made a false statement in the declaration. But even if criminal liability does not attach to the person or entity responsible for leaking the draft opinion, professional consequences are sure to follow. As Justice Antonin Scalia told his clerks, “If I ever discover that you have betrayed the confidences of what goes on in these chambers, I will do everything in my power to ruin your career.” That sounds harsh. But the stakes are too high and the consequences too devastating to tolerate leaks of draft opinions or deliberations at the Supreme Court. The justices are not politicians and need to have confidence that they can fully and fairly discuss their legal views with their colleagues without these tentative views making front-page news. Roberts is right that this was an “egregious breach of trust this is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants” who work there. He has directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the leak, and the marshal should quickly conduct and complete the investigation and make the results public. Let us hope that the authorities are able to discover who committed this opprobrious act and that serious consequences follow. At the very least, although an unfortunate measure to have to take, the court should consider taking additional measures in the future, such as adding individual watermarks to each of the drafts that are circulated to other chambers, which would help narrow the search for the culprit should this happen again. And the Supreme Court should quickly release the final opinion in the leaked case as soon as possible to avoid further threats or attempts to intimidate any of the justices. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

Over the Target (mailchi.mp) There is an old saying in politics: If you’re taking flak, it means you’re over the target. And right now, the Left is desperate to shoot down the Conservative Partnership Institute’s growing squadron of razor-sharp organizations. First, The New Yorker did a hit-piece on the American Accountability Foundation, the oversight research group we helped launch last year. Since AAF opened its doors, it has unearthed more scandals and disqualifying outrages about Joe Biden’s nominees than any organization in Washington. The headline read, “The Slime Machine Targeting Dozens of Biden Nominees.” We figure that translates as “The Incredibly Effective Researchers Exposing Biden’s Incompetent Extremists.” It was AAF who first uncovered Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s pattern of leniency toward convicted child molesters and sexual predators. And it was AAF that exposed and helped defeat: Comptroller nominee Saule Omarova, because she was an honest-to-goodness communist! Federal Reserve nominee Sarah Bloom Raskin, who wanted to fight climate change by denying banking services to the energy industry. David Chipman, the gun-grabber Biden tapped to run the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. The only reason the Left is attacking AAF and its president – the intrepid Tom Jones – is that he’s beating them! Please support CPI today so we can help programs like AAF shine more light on those seeking power. And so is Cleta Mitchell in her vital project, the Election Integrity Network. EIN is crushing all expectations. Their state summits attract hundreds of activists and give them the tools to win America’s fight for free and fair elections. So it was only a matter of time before Cleta got a hit piece, too. Hers was in The Guardian. But the funny thing is that every supposedly “scary” thing EIN is doing is objectively good. Look at these quotes: “There was a large focus on recruiting precinct officials to watch the polls and all of the other processes associated with elections.” “How to protect vulnerable voters from leftist activists.” “Monitoring voting equipment and systems.” Citizen oversight? Accountability? Transparency? No wonder the Left is so upset! Please help us expand the Election Integrity Network with a tax-deductible gift to CPI today. Like AAF, EIN tells the truth to Americans sick of being lied to by woke socialists who run our government, corporations, and media. CPI is proud to have helped Tom Jones and Cleta Mitchell score so many victories quickly in their new projects. And we’re just as proud of the Left’s outrage! The Woke Establishment is coming after these groups for one reason: because they are effective! The smartest, toughest, most battle-hardened conservatives know where to come to start winning. With your support, these victories are just the beginning. Thank you for being part of our team and helping make CPI the place where conservatives go to win. Sincerely,Jim DeMint CPI Chairman

HUGE: Arizona Republicans Pass HB2492 Requiring ALL Voters To Provide Proof Of Citizenship Upon Registering To Vote (thegatewaypundit.com) Republicans in the Arizona Legislature passed a critical election integrity bill that requires all voters to provide satisfactory evidence of citizenship to be properly registered to vote. State Rep. Jake Hoffman’s HB2492 also applies to Federal Only voters who are not required to show this documentation when registering to vote. Currently, 13,077 Federal Only voters are actively registered in Maricopa County. Proof of citizenship is not required for these voters to vote in federal elections. President Trump “lost” the state by only 10,457 votes. The new law will require Federal Only voters to prove their citizenship before voting or receiving a ballot in the mail. TRENDING: BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: US Postal Service Refuses to Release Investigative Report on Whistleblower Truck Driver Who Hauled 288,000 Suspicious Ballots Across State Lines Before 2020 Election HB2492 was signed into law by the Governor on Wednesday. This law will require officers in charge of elections to verify citizenship status within ten days of receiving a voter registration form, and they must reject registrations that lack proof of citizenship. Illegal voter registrations must be presented to the Attorney General, who will have a duty to investigate and prosecute these crimes. RINO Arizona Governor Doug Ducey certified the stolen 2020 Presidential election, and he has a lot of making up to do. On Wednesday, Ducey took credit for Arizona’s election integrity battle, saying, “Arizona is a leader in election integrity — and election integrity means counting every lawful vote and prohibiting any attempt to illegally cast a vote. #HB2492 does that while honoring Arizona’s history of making voting accessible.” Are you serious? This is coming from the Governor who certified the most corrupted election in Arizona’s history and showed no support for the 2020 election investigations. The Arizona House Republicans later released a statement thanking the bill’s sponsor, Arizona State Rep. Jake Hoffman. Historic Day: Arizona Enacts Law Requiring Citizenship to Vote STATE CAPITOL, PHOENIX – State Representative Jake Hoffman today celebrated the enactment of HB 2492, legislation he sponsored that requires proof of U.S. citizenship to vote in Arizona elections. “Today is a historic day for Arizona and a great victory for Arizonans and all Americans alike. The signing into law of Arizona House Bill 2492, which requires verification of U.S. citizenship to be eligible to vote in Arizona elections, is a giant step toward ensuring elections are easy, convenient, and secure in our state. “HB 2492 is an incredibly well-crafted piece of legislation that is on sound legal footing and broadly supported by voters of all political parties. I am confident that should Democrats challenge HB 2492 in court it will only serve to further reinforce its clear constitutionality.” This is a major step toward free and fair elections. Democrats are terrified!