Election 2020: WaPo, NYT Issue Giuliani Retraction

A light Sunday morning assortment, starting with the NYT (cited at Hot Hair) whining about Republican interest in poll watching: GOP seeks to empower poll watchers, spurring intimidation worries

As Republican lawmakers in major battleground states seek to make voting harder and more confusing through a web of new election laws, they are simultaneously making a concerted legislative push to grant more autonomy and access to partisan poll watchers — citizens trained by a campaign or a party and authorized by local election officials to observe the electoral process. This effort has alarmed election officials and voting rights activists alike: There is a long history of poll watchers being used to intimidate voters and harass election workers, often in ways that target Democratic-leaning communities of color and stoke fears that have the overall effect of voter suppression. During the 2020 election, President Donald J. Trump’s campaign repeatedly promoted its “army” of poll watchers as he publicly implored supporters to venture into heavily Black and Latino cities and hunt for voter fraud. Republicans have offered little evidence to justify a need for poll watchers to have expanded access and autonomy. As they have done for other election changes — including reduced early voting, stricter absentee ballot requirements and limits on drop boxes — they have grounded their reasoning in arguments that their voters want more secure elections. That desire was born in large part out of Mr. Trump’s repeated lies about last year’s presidential contest, which included complaints about insufficient poll watcher access.

Poll workers and watchers, I would guess, historically have been predominantly Democratic, especially in the important places where fraud is likely to occur, the five important cities in this last election. Democrats are right to worry that oversight by citizens on the other side will be apt to infringe on their right to rig the vote.

And more bad news for Democrats from Mike Brest at WaEx, Joe Manchin won't support HR 1 in its current form

Manchin railed against the idea of passing the party-line vote on Tuesday.

“How in the world could you, with the tension we have right now, allow a voting bill to restructure the voting of America on a partisan line? I just believe with all my heart and soul that’s what would happen, and I’m not going to be part of it," he told Vox.

Passing election reform without bipartisan support would "guarantee" that the number of people who don't trust the election system would increase, Manchin said.

NYPo, New York Times, WaPo, NBC forced to retract false claims about Giuliani

The New York Times, Washington Post and NBC News all issued retractions Saturday for their coverage of Rudy Giuliani following a raid of his Manhattan apartment by the FBI.

The Times appended their correction to a story about the role Giuliani may have played in the 2019 recall of ambassador Marie L. Yovanovitch and whether he received a warning from the FBI about Russian disinformation.

“An earlier version of this article misstated whether Rudolph W. Giuliani received a formal warning from the F.B.I. about Russian disinformation. Mr. Giuliani did not receive such a so-called defensive briefing,” The Times wrote Saturday in a note attached to the piece.

The Washington Post’s correction, on a story about prominent Americans being targeted by Russian disinformation, was similar.

Twitchy, WaPo runs ‘major retraction’ for story on FBI, OAN and Rudy Giuliani (NY Times stealth edited theirs); Updated. Gee, I wonder how so many important "news" outlets got the story wrong? And sundance at CTH digs deeper, and come up with the suspicion that Four Connected Stories Last Week Indicate Rudy Giuliani Was Likely One of The 2019 Victims of FBI FISA Abuse, and Mary McCord is Needed as Insurance

There were four stories that broke in the past week; “broke“as in: were revealed, but not necessarily by media. Yet it doesn’t seem like anyone is putting them into their connected context. I am outlining below (w/ citations) and hopefully everyone can see the connection:

♦(1) The 2020 FISA review and opinion by presiding Judge James Boasberg was declassified. The review is for year 2019 (written October 2020, declassified April 2021). Notice the FISC review is for FBI conduct in 2019.

Within the outline Boasberg notes ongoing abuses by FBI officers of the NSA database. Boasberg specifically called attention to the FBI use of that database for warrantless searches of public and private officials. {LINK}

♦(2) Judge Boasberg hires former DOJ National Security Head Mary McCord as an Amicus Curiae for the court. McCord is a known corrupt actor within the DOJ with political motives and intentions. Including her work and efforts with the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG Atkinson) during the first impeachment effort against President Trump. Notice, Boasberg hired McCord for the role at the same time the 2020 opinion is declassified. {LINK}

♦(3) The FBI raids the home of Rudy Giuliani with a search warrant for his electronic devices. Notice the reports of the search warrant highlight the FBI must have something of substance -or at least the appearance of something of substance- in order to get a judge to sign-off on a search warrant. {LINK}

♦(4) Rudy Giuliani reveals during an interview that the search warrant included a reference to supportive evidence obtained by the FBI in 2019. Giuliani then explains that when his lawyer questioned the FBI they said they searched his iCloud account in 2019 WITHOUT a warrant. {LINK}

Put these stories together and what you realize is a likelihood the warrantless 2019 FBI search of Giuliani’s iCloud account is likely one of the 2019 violations noted by Judge Boasberg in his review…. which would explain the motive of the FISC to hire Mary McCord in the event this series of events goes sideways in front of the public.

Sometimes I think he's too paranoid. Sometimes I worry I'm not paranoid enough. If they searched Giuliani's (the President's lawyer) iCloud account without a warrant, anything they think they have on him as a result of that search should be thrown out as fruit of the poisonous tree and somebody should be going to jail. Abuse won't end if the abusers aren't punished.