Halderman Ignores Georgia’s Elephants in the Room
CAPT. SETH KESHEL JUN 21, 2023
On Monday, I ripped through the Halderman report, and what its unsealing means for the future of elections in Georgia and beyond. The report itself, and Halderman’s commentary on it, is a two-edged sword; it cuts the concept of electronic voting, and Georgia’s specific systems, to the core, criticizes Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s inattention in fixing these glaring deficiencies, then shows serious mercy, by saying there is still “no credible evidence” supporting Georgia’s 16 electoral votes were misallocated to Joe Biden.
Is Halderman trying to remain credible as a scientist, or perhaps seeking to maintain “welcome” status at local social gatherings, by not going there and getting political? Without further digging, one may consider that a wise strategy for having the report taken more seriously. When I was drafting my analysis of the unsealing of Halderman’s report, I noticed a real gem from 2016 and composed it like this:
In the aftermath of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss, a group of scientists led by Halderman admonished the Clinton camp to challenge election results over something the media would slam me as a conspiracy theorist for saying. From CNN:
“Halderman…told the Clinton campaign they believe there is a questionable trend of Clinton performing worse in counties that relied on electronic voting machines compared to paper ballots and optical scanners…”
The Midwest had been on a Republican trend for six years when Trump flipped Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Georgia, on the other hand, had been won by Trump in 2016 with little effort and money, and then experienced one of the largest Republican vote gains in one election cycle in history in 2020, only to be lapped by a Democrat performance exceeding Barack Obama’s vote gain in 2008. Halderman appears to be quite selective when it comes to his suspicions if he thinks there’s nothing to see here regarding Georgia’s curious 2020 result, especially after The New York Times needle had Georgia going to Trump on election night with 98% certainty.
A true political guru from Michigan, where Halderman works as a professor, would understand that his state had been trending heavily in favor of not only Trump, but the GOP in general, under Obama’s presidency. Trump turbocharged that trend and managed to flip the state just eight years after it went “blue” by more than 16 points. I have explained these coalition shifts in great detail, and they bear out the likelihood that Trump would have carried Michigan by 8.5% in a fair election, at minimum. Furthermore, believable Trump margins in Wisconsin (7.8%) and Pennsylvania (6.4%) represent a substantial continuation of these Midwestern white working class trends that began in the 2010 midterms.
Thanks to the stagnation or decline of population in a huge chunk of counties in those states, the pronounced movement of voters from one side to the other (coalition shift) resulted in a loss of votes for the Democrat Party in 2012, and even more severely in 2016, as the white working class began to disassociate from the “party of the people.” Trump’s gains in 2020 were even steeper than his gains in 2016, yet they were cancelled out by counterfeit Biden votes in every single county in that critical trio of states.
Still, Halderman saw no issue with analyzing basic statistical data in 2016, when Barack Obama’s absence atop the ticket, and the presence of a diabolical scold, blew the floodgates open in favor of Trump’s flanking maneuver. Perhaps Mr. Halderman would like to have a look at some of Georgia’s abnormalities andirregularities, as our tone-conscious country club GOP friends might call them.
Biden Popularity in Comparable Metros
Joe Biden exceeded Hillary Clinton’s 2016 vote total by 2.3% in Baltimore City, a Democrat stronghold with a heavily black voting base that goes almost 90% for whoever the Democrats field. Is there cheating in Baltimore City? Certainly. Is there an indication that any special spin was put on the 2020 election? None at all. In addition, Biden, with his 81 million vote stunner of a performance, failed to grow by even 1% over Clinton’s vote total in heavily blue Bronx County, New York, and lost a lot of margin to President Trump there.
Well, Captain, those are northern areas, nowhere near Georgia. Why should we care?
Painting the picture in greater detail and moving to comparable southern metros, we also find that Hinds County, the home of metro Jackson, Mississippi, saw a Biden gain of just 8.8% over Clinton, and Orleans Parish, Louisiana, home to the Big Easy, grew by a modest 10.3% in support of Biden over Clinton. Those numbers give us baselines.
Given that Biden hardly campaigned in Georgia or spent money in a state Trump was expected to win comfortably, one might think we could expect gains in metro Atlanta of 10%, or maybe even 15% factoring in population growth. Four big counties give the Democrats lots of votes. They are Fulton and DeKalb, home to urban Atlanta, and Cobb and Gwinnett, the two oldest suburban counties that have only flipped “blue” since the 2016 election. What kind of growth did Biden have in those counties?
Ah, yes. The safest and most secure election ever strikes again, and would you look at that? Just enough to get a win of 11,779 votes in the state, with Trump having one of the steepest GOP vote gains in the history of Georgia, and the highest since 2004.
For what it’s worth, I have crunched the numbers in these four counties and believe there are approximately 130,215 fictitious votes for Biden between them, even as I afford generous Biden gains in all four that are likely not reflective of reality, in which Trump had the strongest Republican black vote performance since 1960 and gained over 11 million votes nationally.
Eastern Alabama-Western Georgia Comparison
https://skeshel.substack.com/p/halderman-ignores-georgias-elephants
Trump’s full phone call with Georgia secretary of state (Audio)
FBI was biased against Trump, Durham confirms to Congress
Says distressed agents ‘apologized’ to him for Russia-collusion probe
By Bob UnruhJune 21, 2023
Special Counsel John Durham testifies before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, June 21, 2023. (Video screenshot)
The FBI was, in fact, biased in its attack on President Donald Trump during the 2016 election, when the bureau worked with the DOJ and Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign to falsify the “Russiagate” collusion claims against him.
That’s according to Special Counsel John Durham, whose recent report concluded the investigation was based on zero evidence, and the FBI didn’t even follow its own procedures in its pursuit of Trump.
Durham confirmed during a congressional hearing Wednesday there were certain officers in the FBI who were biased against Trump.
TRENDING: Can you define leftism?
He, in fact, affirmed there were FBI officials, “key officials in charge,” who deliberately withheld critical evidence from other investigators in the case.
A report from the Daily Caller News Foundation said Durham, appearing before the House Judiciary Committee, explained during his review there was an FBI agent who “became emotional” when presented with a memo about the Clinton campaign’s efforts to promote the idea Russia was supporting Trump.
Then-FBI chief James Comey, who had exonerated Clinton earlier after she was caught posting national secrets on an unsecure email server, did not share that information about the campaign’s agenda with agents.
“We interviewed the first supervisor…the operational person. We showed him the intelligence information. He indicated that he’d never seen it before. He immediately became emotional. Got up and left the room with his lawyer. Spent some time there before he came back,” Durham explained.
U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, asked, “He was ticked off, wasn’t he? He was ticked off because this was important information that he should have had working on the case…that the FBI director kept from him while working on the investigation.”
Durham affirmed, “The information was kept from him.”
He also explained other FBI agents expressed regret over the investigation.
Durham told members of the committee reviewing the case that FBI agents “apologized” to him for the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, the bureau’s code name for its look into those Democrat claims that Trump’s campaign was working with Russia.
The facts now reveal the allegations being made by the Clinton campaign and the FBI were themselves linked to Russian sources.
Durham said some of the agents were ashamed of their work on the investigation.
“Let me give you some real-life views: I have had any number of FBI agents…who have come to me and apologized for the manner in which that investigation [Crossfire Hurricane] was undertaken. These are good, hard-working, decent people,” Durham said.
A report from the Daily Mail said the interview came a month after Durham released a “scathing report” that found the DOJ and FBI had “no basis” to investigate Trump.
President Donald J. Trump and First Lady Melania Trump walk across the South Lawn of the White House Wednesday, Dec. 23, 2020, before boarding Marine One to begin their trip to Florida. (Official White House photo by Andrea Hanks)
He said the FBI used “raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated” claims to attack Trump.
Even further emphasizing the partisan status of the FBI, the report said, was the fact that the FBI later raided Trump’s home in Florida over the custody of papers from his presidency.
Some of them were classified, and Trump now has been charged with a long list of counts over the dispute.
However, similarly classified documents have been found in Joe Biden’s garage, stashed next to his Corvette, and there have been no similar counts filed against him.
Durham warned the bureau’s bias means it will “take time to rebuild the public’s confidence in the institution.”
At the time, the collusion to spread false information about Trump went as high as the Oval Office, as then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed Barack Obama about Clinton’s scheme to link Trump to Russia.
WND is now on Trump’s Truth Social! Follow us @WNDNews
Biden, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Comey also were at that meeting.
In other comments, Durham dropped the hammer on Rep. Steve Neguse, D-Colo., who brought up the issue of GOP hopes to defund the FBI and DOJ because of bias.
“That doesn’t make sense to me. But I’ve only been at this for 40 years,” Durham said.
Durham also shot down claims by Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., that Durham’s reputation was damaged by his report.
“My concern about my reputation is with the people who I respect, and my family, and my Lord, and I’m perfectly comfortable with my reputation with them, sir,” Durham shot back.
The Mail reported, “At one point Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., asked Durham about the meeting Donald Trump Jr. took with Russian agents claiming to have ‘very high level and sensitive information’ that would be incriminating to Hillary Clinton.”
Durham said those types of calls are common.
The Mail then reported, “Schiff was one of Trump’s most outspoken critics and spent years trying to prove collusions between him and Russia. In 2018 DailyMail.com revealed that Schiff had been spoofed by Russian comedians posing as Ukrainian officials offering him ‘compromising’ dirt on Trump – including nude photos.”
Andy Biggs and Matt Gaetz Confront John Durham About His Spray Paint Motive to Cover a Corrupt FBI and DOJ
June 21, 2023 | Sundance |
Representative Andy Biggs and Representative Matt Gaetz both confronted John Durham about his role in covering for a politically corrupt and weaponized Dept of Justice and FBI.
Matt Gaetz specifically confronts Durham over his lack of holding people accountable. The confrontation between Matt Gaetz and John Durham should have been the tone of the entire hearing. WATCH:
You can like or dislike the approach by Matt Gaetz, personally I appreciate it, but what Gaetz says in this confrontation is factually accurate and true.
The questioning from Andy Biggs is below.
.
Congressman Tom McClintock Questions John Durham About His Four-Year Investigation
June 21, 2023 | Sundance | 89 Comments
Today, for the first time, the broader American public met the face of the four-year investigation into the origin of the Trump-Russia hoax. Special Counsel John Durham testified before the House Judiciary Committee.
What a larger audience is now recognizing is what people on these pages have been discussing for quite some time. John Durham was/is the institutional preservation officer hired by Bill Barr to carefully navigate the corruption of the DOJ and FBI without actually holding anyone accountable for the corruption within the DOJ and FBI. Put succinctly, Bill Barr was the Bondo application and John Durham was the spray paint.
The rotting and corrupt carcass of our justice system is what remains hidden underneath the efforts of Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham. This is their legacy. Congressman Tom McClintock asks high-brow questions of John Durham, WATCH:
.
VOTE PASSES! US House of Representatives Votes to Censure Adam Schiff – 213 Republicans Vote “Yes” to Seal the Deal!
By Jim Hoft Jun. 21, 2023
The US House is scheduled to vote to censure Adam Schiff on Wednesday night.
Earlier today, the bill to censure Adam Schiff for repeated lies about Trump-Russia collusion survived a motion to table. The vote will now go to the House Floor.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a pregnant freshman Republican lawmaker, pushed the censure.
Dr. Peter McCullough: Understand Spike Shedding Before It’s Too Late
This is FL @RepLuna, the author of the Adam Schiff Censure bill
It’s her 1st term & she isn’t there to play nice
When her Schiff Censure bill died last week, she didn’t quit
She punched back & refiled
Sometime it takes a 34 y/o Veteran who is 7 months pregnant to fight for us pic.twitter.com/XjMMawAHiN
— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) June 21, 2023
The House of Representatives has voted 213-209 to censure Adam Schiff “for abusing and exploiting his official position and bringing dishonor to the House of Representatives.”
Serial liar Adam Schiff will now face an ethics investigation.
213-209: The House votes to censure Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) over his handling and public statements regarding the Trump-Russia investigation and Trump’s first impeachment.
The vote makes Schiff just the third congressperson this century to face that formal rebuke from the House. pic.twitter.com/f8vSJAlrrX
— The Recount (@therecount) June 21, 2023
** The US House of Representatives live stream is here.
Related
NarrowPathMinistries 