By Cassandra MacDonald Apr. 20, 2024
Stormy Daniels’ former attorney, Michael Avenatti, has said that he is willing to testify on behalf of former President Donald Trump in the New York hush money trial.
Speaking to the New York Post from jail, Avenatti said he is in contact with Trump’s legal team and is willing to speak out against his former client.
“The defense has contacted me,” Avenatti told The Post.
Avenatti is currently being held at Terminal Island, a minimum-security federal prison in Los Angeles, serving a 19-year sentence for a slate of federal crimes that include extortion, tax evasion, fraud, and embezzlement.
“I’d be more than happy to testify, I don’t know that I will be called to testify, but I have been in touch with Trump’s defense for the better part of year,” Avenatti said.
The Post reports that Avenatti would not provide any additional details about the discussion, but an unnamed source “close to Trump” confirmed that the discussions are taking place.
Avenatti used to be one of Trump’s loudest critics, but he has seemingly dramatically changed his position.
“There’s no question [the trial] is politically motivated because they’re concerned that he may be reelected,” Avenatti told the newspaper. “If the defendant was anyone other than Donald Trump, this case would not have been brought at this time, and for the government to attempt to bring this case and convict him in an effort to prevent tens of millions of people from voting for him, I think it’s just flat out wrong, and atrocious.”
“I’m really bothered by the fact that Trump, in my view, has been targeted. Four cases is just over the top and I think there’s a significant chance that this is going to all backfire and is going to propel him to the White House,” Avenatti added.
The former lawyer continued, “Depending on what happens, this could constitute pouring jet fuel on his campaign.”
Trump is on trial in NYC over an alleged $130,000 payment to Daniels to keep her quiet during the 2016 election. She has alleged that she had a tryst with the former president many years ago.
“Stormy Daniels is going to say whatever she believes is going to assist Stormy Daniels and putting more money in her pocket,” Avenatti said. “If Stormy Daniels lips are moving, she’s lying for money.”
Avenatti explained that he feels like he and Trump have both been targeted by politically motivated prosecutions.
“I think that we were both targeted by the justice system,” Avenatti said. “There’s a lot of people on the left that were very concerned about my potential rise within the Democratic Party and my potential rise in Democratic politics. And the fact that I was not someone that was easily controlled.”
The imprisoned former lawyer also claimed that he is not fishing for a pardon in case Trump wins a second term.
“I’m not saying any of this because I’m seeking a pardon,” Avenatti told The Post. “I wish I would have never met Stormy Daniels. I should have left her where I found her.”
Ken Griffin and Sea Island Hedgefunds Short Sell Non-Existent Shares of Trump Stock to Drive Down Price
April 20, 2024 | Sundance |
You know when Ken Griffin is doing sketchy anti-Trump stuff by the response from Ken Griffin.
Remember, this is the vulture capitalist and Citadel hedge fund operator of horrible Robin Hood infamy who was going to lose billions because the Reddit community fought back against Griffin’s short position on GameStop.
In essence, what Griffin is doing now is shorting the Trump stock he doesn’t control or borrow against. He’s naked shorting the Trump media stock, which is illegal and seriously unethical. Devin Nunes, CEO of Truth Social, has tracked the available stock and notes; there is no way for Citadel and others to sell short positions, because there is no stock available for borrowing. Nunes knows the scheme Ken Griffin is attempting.
“Data made available to us indicate that just four market participants have been responsible for over 60% of the extraordinary volume of DJT shares traded: Citadel Securities, VIRTU Americas, G1 Execution Services, and Jane Street Capital,” Nunes wrote.
Griffin and his Sea Island vulture capitalists are just repeating their previous moves. Naked shorting was partially blamed for the GameStop “meme stock” phenomenon of 2021. During the two previous years, GameStop had posted big losses leading to a large drop in its share prices. This problem was noticed by hedge funds, which took out major short positions in the stock. In 2020, at least half of GameStop’s stock was borrowed for short positions. By 2021, 140% of GameStop shares were shorted, meaning 40% of the shares shorted weren’t really out there to trade on; that is, they were likely involved in naked short sales.
Online retail investors soon noticed this giant hedge, setting up the Reddit forum “r/WallStreetBets”, to implement a short squeeze and bid up the stock to counter the shorting of the hedge funds. As the share price increased, it wasn’t just the hedge funds that lost; short sellers who hadn’t borrowed the shares couldn’t deliver. Ken Griffin went bananas and used his power with the Robin Hood trading platform to stop the buyers.
You can tell Ken Griffin is yet again behind this short stock effort by his triggered reaction:
“Devin Nunes is the proverbial loser who tries to blame ‘naked short selling’ for his falling stock price. Nunes is exactly the type of person Donald Trump would have fired on ‘The Apprentice.’ If he worked for Citadel Securities, we would fire him, as ability and integrity are at the center of everything we do.” (link)
Now read that statement and tell me that expression doesn’t scream identical to the Ron DeSantis supporters. Is it any surprise Ken Griffin was Ron DeSantis’ biggest individual donor.
New York’s position on judicial ‘conflicts of interest’
‘Activist judges whose families personally benefit from a case’ should step back
By Around the Web April 21, 2024
President Donald J. Trump and First Lady Melania Trump (Official White House photo by Andrea Hanks)
[Editor’s note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Wire.]
By Matt Whitaker
Real Clear Wire
One of America’s foundational principles is “equal justice under the law,” or the principle that no matter who you are or what you stand for, you are entitled to a fair chance to make your case in a court of law. That’s why the Lady Justice statue outside the Supreme Court wears a blindfold and holds a scale – the blindfold to symbolize her impartiality and immunity from outside influences, and the scale to signify her objective weighing of the evidence in front of her.
Unfortunately, this bedrock principle of American self-government has been put in jeopardy by the upcoming trial President Donald Trump is scheduled to face in New York later this month. While most Americans expect our judges to be neutral arbiters of the law, Judge Juan Merchan, the judge overseeing this trial against President Trump, is anything but.
As it turns out, two major Democratic clients of Judge Merchan’s daughter have raised over $93 million in campaign donations through her firm, several times using the very case Judge Merchan is overseeing in their fundraising pitches. Ms. Merchan, who previously worked for Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign, currently works as the president of Authentic Campaigns, a left-wing political consulting firm based out of Chicago. Two of Authentic Campaigns’ top clients include Senate candidate and congressman Adam Schiff, the radical California Democrat who became famous for his outright lies in pushing the Russian collusion hoax, and the Senate Majority PAC, a major fundraiser for Democratic Senate campaigns.
According to campaign finance records, Schiff’s campaign has raised over $20 million since he began fundraising off President Trump’s indictment last April, and the Senate Majority PAC has raised a whopping $73 million. A deeper dive into the campaign finance reports shows that Authentic Campaigns received more than $10 million from the Schiff campaign over the past year and over $15 million from the Senate Majority PAC since 2019.
The fact that Democratic campaigns and their affiliated consultants are profiting handsomely from the political persecution of President Trump should come as no surprise to anyone who follows money in politics, but the fact that an immediate family member of the judge overseeing this case is also profiting presents an atrocious conflict of interest. When one considers the additional fact that Judge Merchan went out of his way to personally contribute to President Biden’s campaign in 2020, any reasonable observer of this matter will conclude that allowing Judge Merchan to continue to participate in this case is untenable and will be a glaring outrage to all Americans who believe in equal justice under the law, while greatly undermining the credibility of the case.
In an order refusing to recuse himself last summer, Judge Merchan said that he “examined his conscience” and was confident in his ability to rule fairly and impartially. But who could believe him?
If Judge Merchan’s own daughter is profiting from the case he is presiding over – substantially – how can he be trusted to be fair and impartial in his rulings? If tens of millions of dollars is not enough to spur a recusal based on a conflict of interest – or, at least, the appearance of a conflict of interest – what is?
Of course, this isn’t the only case pending against President Trump that is mired by conflicts of interest and ethical violations. Recent proceedings in Georgia demonstrate that prosecutor Fani Willis hired her lover, Nathan Wade, to manage the Trump prosecution even though he had little prosecutorial experience. Over the last few years, Fani Willis has paid him over half a million dollars of taxpayer money through the Fulton County District Attorney’s office – money that Wade then used to take her on luxurious vacations around the globe.
In the federal cases brought by Department of Justice (DOJ) Special Prosecutor Jack Smith, President Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed and empowered Smith to use the full force and resources of the federal government to investigate and charge his top political opponent, with an emphasis on forcing trial dates to directly conflict with the general election.
These political witch hunts are the sort of thing that we expect to see in corrupt foreign authoritarian regimes – not here at home in our constitutional republic. As Americans continue to watch the consequences of these sham indictments unfold, our public officials are doing incalculable damage to the integrity of our justice system and the concept of the rule of law.
As John Adams once said, our constitutional system constructs a “government of laws and not of men.” When political operatives and radical partisans weaponize the justice system to crush their political opponents to maintain power, our entire system of democratic republicanism is thrown into jeopardy.
The sham charges President Trump faces should be dropped immediately – but at the very least, politically biased, activist judges whose families personally benefit from the case have no place overseeing a trial of this magnitude. Judge Merchan should step back from this case so we can put the blindfold back on Lady Justice.
This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.
Trump’s NY Trial is a Sham!
SPERRY: Impeachment ‘Whistleblower’ Was in the Loop of Biden-Ukraine Affairs That Trump Wanted Probed
By Cristina Laila Apr. 21, 2024
The ‘whistleblower’ who sparked Donald Trump’s first impeachment was deeply involved in the political maneuverings behind Biden-family business schemes in Ukraine that Trump wanted probed, newly obtained emails from former Vice President Joe Biden’s office reveal.
In 2019, then-National Intelligence Council analyst Eric Ciaramella touched off a political firestorm when he anonymously accused Trump of linking military aid for Ukraine to a demand for an investigation into alleged Biden corruption in that country.
But four years earlier, while working as a national security analyst attached to then-Vice President Joe Biden’s office, Ciaramella was a close adviser when Biden threatened to cut off U.S. aid to Ukraine unless it fired its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Ukraine-based Burisma Holdings. At the time, the corruption-riddled energy giant was paying Biden’s son Hunter millions of dollars.
Those payments – along with other evidence tying Joe Biden to his family’s business dealings – received little attention in 2019 as Ciaramella accused Trump of a corrupt quid pro quo. Neither did subsequent evidence indicating that Hunter Biden’s associates had identified Shokin as a “key target.” These matters are now part of the House impeachment inquiry into President Biden.
“It now seems there was material evidence that would have been used at the impeachment trial [to exonerate Trump],” said George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who has testified as an expert witness in the ongoing Biden impeachment inquiry. “Trump was alleging there was a conflict of interest with the Bidens, and the evidence could have challenged Biden’s account and established his son’s interest in the Shokin firing.”
Ciaramella’s role – including high-level discussions with top Biden aides and Ukrainian prosecutors – is only now coming to light thanks to the recent release of White House emails and photos from the National Archives.
The emails show Ciaramella expressed shock – “Yikes” is what he wrote – at Biden’s move to withhold the $1 billion in aid from Kyiv, which represented a sudden shift in U.S. policy. They also show he was drawn into White House communications over how to control adverse publicity from Hunter taking a lucrative seat on Burisma’s board.
Yet there is no evidence Ciaramella raised alarms about the questionable Biden business activities he witnessed firsthand, which is in sharp contrast to 2019. In that instance, he was galvanized into action after being told by White House colleague Alexander Vindman of an “improper” phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. During the call, Trump solicited Zelensky’s help in investigating Burisma and Hunter Biden’s role in the company.
Some former congressional investigators say Ciaramella effectively helped cover up a scandal far worse than what Trump was impeached over. What’s more, he failed to disclose that he had a potential conflict of interest stemming from his connection to the matter Trump asked Zelensky to probe when he lodged his complaint against Trump. RealClearInvestigations was the first to identify the then-33-year-old Ciaramella as the anonymous impeachment “whistleblower,” something major media continue to keep under tight wraps.
Ciaramella worked under CIA Director John Brennan when President Obama made Biden his point man on Ukraine in 2014, the same year Burisma hired Hunter. The next year, the CIA detailed Ciaramella, a longtime advocate for aid to Ukraine, to the White House, where he worked closely with Biden and his staff as a top adviser on key Ukrainian policies. After Biden left office, he stayed on at the GOP White House until mid-2017 even though he’s a Democrat, working as a Ukrainian and Russian analyst on Trump’s National Security Council. Co-workers there accused him of trying to sabotage Trump, including allegedly leaking sensitive information to the press.
RealClearInvestigations has reviewed more than 2,000 pages of newly disclosed archived emails from the former vice president’s office related to Ukraine, of which more than 160 contained references to Ciaramella. They reveal that his role advising Biden’s office potentially intersects with the current impeachment inquiry in several areas. Chiefly, Ciaramella focused on aid to Ukraine and anti-corruption reforms in the country. In that capacity, he:
- Hosted, cleared into the White House, and met face-to-face there with senior Ukrainian prosecutors.
- Gave a “readout” of the meeting to his superiors, who in turn pushed for Shokin’s firing.
- Traveled with Biden to Kyiv during the 2015 trip during which Biden demanded Shokin’s firing.
- Wrote media “talking points” for Ukrainian officials.
- Huddled with the top Biden officials involved in discussions concerning the $1 billion aid package and Shokin, including: Amos Hochstein; Victoria Nuland; Geoffrey Pyatt; Bridget Brink; and Michael Carpenter.
- Corresponded with Biden officials coordinating responses to negative media reports about Hunter’s cushy and controversial Burisma job.
Former Obama-Biden administration officials have confirmed in recent closed-door congressional testimony that Ciaramella was a key part of Biden’s process for making policy in Ukraine. In 2016, for instance, a White House photo shows him taking notes at a White House meeting Biden held with then-Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk to discuss Ukraine’s anti-corruption reforms and other issues.
Ciaramella also worked directly with top Obama and Biden administration diplomats on Ukraine, including senior State Department official Victoria Nuland. “Eric was regularly the clearing authority to get me into the White House for interagency meetings on Ukraine,” Nuland revealed in a 2020 Senate deposition. Asked if she ever discussed Ukraine policy and Shokin with Ciaramella, Nuland testified: “Of course, I did. He was part of the interagency process. He was also on my negotiating team for the six, seven rounds of negotiations I did with the Russians on [the disputed Ukraine region] Donbas.”
Ciaramella was directly involved in talks concerning the massive U.S. aid package to Ukraine that Biden conditioned on the removal of Shokin, who at the time had seized the assets of the corrupt Burisma oligarch employing Hunter Biden. He also arranged and participated in White House talks with Ukrainian prosecutors visiting from Shokin’s office.
White House visitor logs confirm Ciaramella escorted Shokin’s deputy prosecutor, David Sakvarelidze, into the White House for a January 2016 meeting. A White House agenda for the meeting lists Ciaramella as “point of contact” for the Ukrainian delegation. He also checked in Andriy Telizhenko, the Ukrainian Embassy official who says they discussed Burisma and Hunter Biden during the meeting and struggled to understand why his U.S. counterparts were suddenly hostile to Shokin after praising him in earlier talks.
Emails from the time show Ciaramella appeared surprised to hear about the linkage between the $1 billion loan to Ukraine and the dismissal of Shokin. Though Biden maintains he insisted Kyiv oust Shokin because he was too soft on weeding out fraud in entities that included Burisma, Ciaramella suggested he didn’t share the view that Shokin was corrupt. “We were super impressed with the group,” Ciaramella added, “and we had a two-hour discussion of their priorities and the obstacles they face.”
On Jan. 21, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt emailed Ciaramella and other White House aides an article from the Ukrainian press – “U.S. loan guarantee conditional on Shokin’s dismissal.”
“Yikes. I don’t recall this coming up in our meeting with them,” Ciaramella replied, referring to the White House meeting he hosted with top Ukrainian prosecutors.
Trending: OMG: James O’Keefe to Drop Bombshell Undercover Video Exposing Intel Officials
But in a closed-door 2020 deposition before the Senate, Pyatt sounded skeptical that Ciaramella was in the dark about the decision. “I think you have to ask Eric what he meant by ‘Yikes,’” Pyatt told Senate investigators. He said that he believed conditioning the loan guarantee on Shokin’s removal “obviously came up in those meetings” hosted by Ciaramella, suggesting that Biden’s aide knew of the quid pro quo before Pyatt circulated the article about it from the Ukrainian press.
The day before he hosted the Ukraine prosecutors, Ciaramella received an agenda from a State Department official that asked him to “note the importance of appointing a new PG [Prosecutor General], reiterating that Shokin is an obstacle to reform,” according to emails. The agenda also called on Ciaramella to “ask the del [Ukrainian delegation] what high-level cases are on the docket for prosecution,” which raises suspicions in some quarters that Biden’s advisers were fishing for information about Shokin’s plans for prosecuting Burisma oligarchs, something Hunter Biden had been asked to find out.
In a Jan. 21 email, Pyatt told Ciaramella to “buckle in” because, as he later explained to Senate investigators, the deal was a “difficult issue” and “there was going to be political controversy around this [news].”
The former ambassador demurred when asked if conditioning the $1 billion on Shokin’s firing was Biden’s idea or came from his office. “It was the – our interagency policy,” he testified, adding, “I don’t remember when the vice president would have weighed in on this.”
However, Pyatt allowed that it was a sudden change in policy. “At the beginning,” he said, “it was not our expectation that Shokin’s removal would be necessary.” Indeed, an Oct. 1, 2015, memo summarizing the recommendation of the Interagency Policy Committee on Ukraine stated, “Ukraine has made sufficient progress on its [anti-corruption] reform agenda to justify a third [loan] guarantee.” Ciaramella was a member of the IPC task force, which monitored Shokin’s office. The next month, moreover, the task force drafted a loan guarantee agreement that did not call for Shokin’s removal. Then, in December, Joe Biden flew to Kyiv to demand his ouster.
If what Ciaramella expressed in his email (which he knew would be part of archived White House records) was a genuine reaction, it appears that Vice President Biden went against the recommendation of one of his top NSC advisers on Ukraine. If Ciaramella were genuinely alarmed, he might have blown the whistle on his boss like he did on Trump, but he stayed mum. If, on the other hand, Ciaramella were a party to the quid-pro-quo discussions, as Pyatt suggests, then he had “a direct conflict,” noted Derek Harvey, the former congressional investigator involved in the first impeachment. Either way, Ciaramella clearly found himself in the middle of a major controversy.
Just weeks prior, White House photos indicate that Ciaramella traveled with Biden on the same December 2015 Air Force Two flight the vice president took to Kyiv to threaten Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to ax Shokin. Republicans have accused Biden of pushing Shokin’s ouster to block scrutiny of his son’s actions.
“Biden called an audible and changed U.S. policy toward Ukraine to benefit his son on the plane ride to Ukraine,” House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer said, and “later bragged about withholding a U.S. loan guarantee if Ukraine did not fire the prosecutor [Shokin].”
Biden and his supporters have repeatedly claimed Shokin had to go because he wasn’t cracking down on corruption and that everyone else in the administration, as well as Europe, agreed Shokin should be fired. This remains the prevailing narrative in major U.S. media. But around that time, Shokin had conducted a raid of Burisma oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky’s home, seizing his house, cars, and other assets.
IRS Special Agent Joseph Ziegler, who examined Hunter’s emails as part of his investigation of Hunter for tax evasion, said Shokin was identified as a “key target” in emails exchanged between Hunter and Burisma officials in November 2015 – the month before Biden traveled to Ukraine to demand Shokin’s removal. Just days before Biden arrived in Kyiv in early December 2015 to demand Shokin’s ouster, Hunter allegedly called his father from Dubai following a meeting there with Burisma official Vadym Pozharskyi, who asked him to pressure his father to shut down Shokin’s investigation. Vice President Biden was familiar with Pozharskyi, having met with him in April 2015 during a dinner at the Cafe Milano in D.C. arranged by Hunter.
“The unstated goal was to have the Ukrainian prosecutor removed in an effort to close the criminal case against [Burisma founder] Zlochevsky,” Ziegler said in recent testimony before the House impeachment inquiry. After Shokin was pushed out of office, the Burisma investigation dried up.
Ciaramella tried to marshal a defense for Biden in the whistleblower complaint he sent to Rep. Adam Schiff in August 2019. He listed among Trump’s concerns at the time of the fateful July phone call “that former Vice President Biden had pressured Poroshenko in 2016 to fire Shokin in order to quash a purported criminal probe into Burisma Holdings.” But Ciaramella attempted to pour cold water on the notion by referencing a Bloomberg News article that quoted a “former senior Ukrainian prosecutor” who falsely claimed “that Mr. Shokin in fact was not investigating Burisma at the time of his removal in 2016.”
White House emails reveal that Ciaramella was looped into messages sent by Biden’s communications team, who were concerned that Hunter Biden taking a position on corrupt Burisma’s board created unseemly optics and undercut their boss’ mission to clean up corruption in Ukraine.
In a Dec. 8, 2015, email, for example, Biden’s communications director Kate Bedingfield copied Ciaramella on a link to a New York Times article headlined, “The Knotty Ties Between Joe Biden, His Son and Ukraine.” Bedingfield is quoted in the story, authored by James Risen, denying Hunter had traveled with his father to Ukraine in an attempt to downplay his influence. She also said Ukrainian officials never raised his position on the Burisma board with Biden as an issue of concern. Risen got spun, however, on the issue of compensation for Hunter, reporting that it was “not out of the ordinary.”
At the time, Burisma was paying Hunter, who had no energy sector experience, $1 million a year just for lending his name to its board. It turns out that Hunter never traveled to Ukraine for a single meeting in the five years he sat on Burisma’s board. Republicans suspect Biden got the prosecutor ousted to keep the money flowing from Burisma to the Biden family.
Career State Department officials led by George Kent, who was stationed in Ukraine at the time, tried to get Biden’s aides to raise the issue of potential family conflicts with the vice president. Despite their concerns, Biden never asked his son to step down from the Burisma board, which would have made all questions go away. And despite Kent and other officials identifying Burisma founder Zlochevsky by name as a corrupt actor in Ukraine, Biden himself never publicly called Zlochevsky out as corrupt while Hunter served on his board and pocketed millions in payments from him. For all his talk of fighting corruption in Ukraine, Biden failed to distance himself from one of the most corrupt oligarchs in the country.
Harvey, who served as the staff investigator for the Republican side of the House Intelligence Committee during the 2019 Trump impeachment hearings, said: “The [Biden] impeachment inquiry should compel Ciaramella to testify since we now know he was involved in communications about Biden using the $1 billion in aid to extort Ukraine into firing Shokin.”
Harvey said Ciaramella would make a valuable material witness against Biden in the probe, which centers on whether Biden used his White House clout or political influence on behalf of his son’s foreign paymasters. White House photos indicate Ciaramella took notes during his meetings with Biden, his staff, and Ukrainian officials – materials that lawmakers could subpoena along with his testimony.
Another former staff investigator noted that Ciaramella is no longer protected by federal whistleblower laws. He has left the government and now works as a senior fellow focusing on Ukraine and Russia for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, where he is consulting with White House officials and pushing for billions more in U.S. aid for Ukraine – including “a Marshall Plan for the Ukrainian military.” Through a spokesperson, Ciaramella declined to comment.
“None of the whistleblower protections apply to this particular situation,” said Jason Foster, former chief investigative counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee and a whistleblower expert. He also noted that the Whistleblower Protection Act doesn’t shield whistleblowers from any other conduct they might have been involved in, including their own conduct. Nor does it give them a legal right to anonymity.
A spokeswoman for the House Oversight Committee, which is leading the Biden impeachment inquiry, declined to say whether Ciaramella is on the witness list. “I don’t have anything for you on this at this time,” said House Oversight Communications Director Jessica Collins. However, Comer has publicly described the “whistleblower” impeachment of Trump as a “cover-up” operation for the alleged Biden blackmail scheme in Ukraine involving U.S. aid and the Burisma corruption probe.
What Ciaramella witnessed and what he documented in notes he took during high-level Biden-Ukraine meetings could now be relevant to the active impeachment inquiry of President Biden. The House may have little choice but to hold the kind of hearings the Democrats blocked during the earlier impeachment by keeping Ciaramella’s identity – and his own potential conflict – secret.
As the catalyst for Trump’s impeachment, Ciaramella could now be a reluctant witness for Biden’s.
This RealClearInvestigations article was republished by The Gateway Pundit with permission.
Paul Sperry is the former D.C. bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily, Hoover Institution media fellow, author of several books, including bestseller INFILTRATION
Related
There must be provisions for elections and election results to be challenged. Even if they are never or rarely used, their presence, and the mere possibility that they can be used, if deemed necessary, provides a sense of legitimacy to the elections they safeguard. And without that security, there is a break between the government and the consent of the governed, a chasm so great that it calls into question the very legitimacy of the government itself.
NarrowPathMinistries 