• Home
  • Elections/Vote Fraud

Trump Administration Sues California DMV For ‘Voter Fraud’ After Hundreds of Thousands of Discrepancies Discovered


The Trump administration is suing the state of California for voter fraud involving the Department of Motor Vehicle, citing the agency is failing to verify the citizenship of people applying for voter registration.

By Missy Crane
WayneDupree.com

The Trump administration is suing the state of California for voter fraud involving the Department of Motor Vehicle, citing the agency is failing to verify the citizenship of people applying for voter registration.

Attorney Harmeet Dhillion filed the suit on behalf of the Trump administration after a state audit found that the “motor voter” program was riddled with technical errors that led to hundreds of thousands of discrepancies in voter registrations.

The lawsuit states that the California Secretary of State has “forsaken its duty to ensure that non-citizens are kept off voter rolls.”

A Republican lawyer who has waged lawsuits on behalf of the Trump administration sued the state of California and its Department of Motor Vehicles Tuesday, saying the agency is failing to verify citizenship for voter registration.

A federal lawsuit filed by attorney Harmeet Dhillon comes after a state audit found the California DMV’s “motor voter” program that started last year was riddled with technical problems that led to hundreds of thousands of discrepancies in voter registrations. Dhillon said that audit helped bring issues raised in her lawsuit to light.

The lawsuit alleges that California Secretary of State Alex Padilla and the director of California’s DMV, Steve Gordon, have violated the National Voter Registration Act and that Padilla has “forsaken his duty to ensure that non-citizens” are kept off voter rolls. She said the lawsuit does not allege voter fraud but that the state is neglecting one of its duties as outlined by the voter act. [Washington Post]

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Epoch Times-Look Who’s Interfering With the 2020 Election


Apparently, China can’t take another four years of Donald Trump in the White House. To make sure he’s a one-term president, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is enlisting the help of anti-Trump Americans from Washington to Wall Street and beyond.

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Epoch Times: Will the Fed Crash the Economy to Defeat Trump?


Should the Federal Reserve hold back on trying to avoid a recession? Bill Dudley, a former Federal Reserve member from New York, thinks that’s exactly what the Fed should do. In his recent column for Bloomberg, Dudley proposed the Federal Reserve not lower interest rates to help an economy at the tail end of a long economic expansion and stifled by four years of Fed rate hikes as well as “the trade war” with China. His reasoning is absolutely chilling:

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Dr. Epstein Explains How Alleged Google Bias Manipulates Voters


Psychiatrist and Google search engine expert, Dr. Robert Epstein, speaks with OAN’s Patrick Hussion about his findings that show a Google political bias possibly manipulated millions of voters during the 2016 election in favor of Hillary Clinton.

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Court: Electoral College Members Not Bound By Popular Vote


A U.S. appeals court in Denver said Electoral College members can vote for the presidential candidate of their choice and aren’t bound by the popular vote in their states. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the Colorado secretary of state violated the Constitution in 2016 when he removed an elector and nullified his vote because the elector refused to cast his ballot for Democrat Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote.

The ruling applies only to Colorado and five other states in the 10th Circuit: Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming.

It could influence future cases nationwide in the unlikely event that enough Electoral College members strayed from their states’ popular vote to affect the outcome of a presidential election, constitutional scholars said.

RELATED: Thousands Of Signatures Collected In Effort To Repeal National Popular Vote Law

The Electoral College system is established in the Constitution. When voters cast a ballot for president, they are actually choosing members of the Electoral College, called electors, who are pledged to that presidential candidate. The electors then choose the president.

Electors almost always vote for the popular vote winner, and some states have laws requiring them to do so.

But the split decision by a three-judge panel on the Denver appeals court said the Constitution allows electors to cast their votes at their own discretion. “The state does not possess countervailing authority to remove an elector and to cancel his vote in response to the exercise of that Constitutional right,” the ruling said.

The elector at the center of the case, Micheal Baca, was part of a group known as “Hamilton electors” who tried to convince electors who were pledged to Clinton or Donald Trump to unite behind a consensus candidate to deny Trump the presidency.

After a flurry of filings in state and federal courts, the electors met on Dec. 19, 2016, and Baca crossed out Clinton’s name on his ballot and wrote in John Kasich, the Republican governor of Ohio who also ran for president.

Then-Secretary of State Wayne Williams refused to count the vote and removed Baca as an elector. He replaced him with another elector who voted for Clinton.

Colorado’s current secretary of state, Jena Griswold, decried the ruling Tuesday in Colorado but did not immediately say if she would appeal.

“This court decision takes power from Colorado voters and sets a dangerous precedent,” she said. “Our nation stands on the principle of one person, one vote.”

Baca’s attorneys said the U.S. Supreme Court will likely hear the case because it conflicts with a decision from Washington state’s Supreme Court. That court said in May that electors could be fined for not casting ballots for the popular vote winner.

Constitutional scholars were skeptical, saying a conflicting opinion from a state court system has less influence on the Supreme Court than one from another federal appeals court. No other federal appeals court is believed to have ruled in a similar case.

“The court just might think this isn’t something that demands our attention right now,” said Michael Morley, a professor at the Florida State University College of Law.

The court ruling in Denver could be important if a future Electoral College is so closely divided that a handful of “faithless electors” change the outcome by casting a ballot contrary to the popular vote, said Ned Foley, a professor at Ohio State University’s law school.

“This opinion would be taken very seriously,” he said. “It would be considered judicial precedent.”

But that kind of split in the Electoral College is unlikely, said Morley.

“So many individually unlikely events would have to fall in place for that,” he said.

Hundreds of electors have cast votes in the history of the nation, “and only a handful have been cast by faithless electors,” Morley said.

It wasn’t immediately clear what impact the ruling would have on a new Colorado law that pledges the state’s Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote if enough other states with a total of at least 270 electoral votes do the same.

It would ensure the winner of the popular vote wins the Electoral College and becomes president.

Tuesday’s ruling could undermine the law by prohibiting the state from requiring electors to vote for the popular vote winner, said Frank McNulty, an adviser to Protect Colorado’s Vote, which wants voters to overturn the law. But the ruling could also free electors to decide on their own to support the candidate with the most votes nationally, he said.

“It is a double-edge decision,” he said.

 

 

Continue Reading

Video: How Google Will ‘Actively Interfere’ in 2020 Elections

(Exactly How! Trump must act to save this nation from the left)


ALERT AMERICA: A researcher who has spent more than half a decade monitoring Google’s influence said he believes the tech giant will “actively interfere” in the 2020 elections/

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Liberal Professor Warns: Google Manipulating Voters 'on a Massive Scale'


Dr. Robert Epstein told Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Tuesday that Google can manipulate votes by using tools that they have at their disposal exclusively, and that no one can counteract them. Epstein warned the senator of big tech election meddling during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on "Google and Censorship through Search Engines" on Tuesday.

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: The Incredible Victimhood of Kamala Harris

Will the oppression of the privileged millionaire never end?


This new edition of The Glazov Gang features the Daniel Greenfield Moment with Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Daniel focuses on The Incredible Victimhood of Kamala Harris, and he asks: Will the oppression of the privileged millionaire never end?

Don’t miss it!

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)