Election 2020: Adventures in Legoland

Heh!

After taking a day off of cataloging the follies of the 2020 election cycle, my digital bin is stuffed to the gills. For the title subject, lets consider the case of the Jan. 6 protester who, in the DOJ charging documents was accused of having an assemble model of the US Capitol, the implication being that he was using the model (available as a kit) to plan his nefarious plot, that is, wander aimlessly through the Capitol for 13 minutes and leave peacefully. Now it turns out, the DOJ has filed new documents indicating the kit was unassembled and still sitting in the original box. Breitbart, DOJ Retracts Claim of ‘Fully Constructed’ Capitol LEGO Set; LEGO of Riot Suspect ‘in a Box’. Insty, VIA INSTAGRAM, THOUGHTS ON THE LEGO INSURRECTION: Ashe Schow at Da Wire, Botched: More Embarrassing Details Emerge In FBI’s Snag Of Rioter With Lego Set

“Federal investigators seized an unusual piece of evidence from a Pennsylvania man indicted last month for his role in the Capitol riot — a Lego replica of the building he allegedly stormed,” The Daily Beast originally reported. “Robert Morss, 27, is accused of leading fellow rioters in what prosecutors say was ‘one of the most intense and prolonged clashes’ with officers on Jan. 6.”

But in a new court filing, highlighted by Julie Kelly of American Greatness, it is said that the original detention memoranda, which denied bail Morss of Pennsylvania, was inaccurate.

“In original detention memoranda, the undersigned stated that law enforcement found a ‘fully constructed U.S. Capitol Lego set.’ That statement appears to be inaccurate. The Lego set was in a box and not fully constructed at the time of the search,” the new filing says.

So, the DOJ lied in the original charging document? Lift the law license of any DOJ attorney who had anything to do with this document. Just to be sure.  Insty, “LEGO INSURRECTION” CHARGING DOCUMENTS FAIL TO IMPRESS:

Stephen Kruiser, PJ Media, FBI: Narc on Your Loved Ones to Battle 'Homegrown Violent Extremism'

Your agency thought MLK was a domestic terrorist.

Please sit back down. https://t.co/PlHPSUvz5n

— Being Libertarian (@beinlibertarian) July 11, 2021

Kevin Downey at PJ, Feds Spend Millions Building Massive Database on January 6 Riot, None on Antifa. NYT, cited at Hot Hair, Oath Keepers leader sat for FBI questioning against legal advice. Beware of perjury traps. 

Taylor Day at Am Think worries about Nationalizing the Capitol Police. Me too. "Do we really want a nationwide federal police force accountable solely to a small number of legislators, not subject to FOIA and other citizen protections applicable to the executive branch? " No. 

At Red State, Nick Arama is on to the twitter thread by podcaster Darryl Cooper, @MartyrMade that I linked to last time, Tucker Carlson Highlights Must-Read Thread About the Regime vs. Trump

Tucker Carlson Reading @martyrmade's Viral Thread On Why So Many Trump Supporters Have Questions About The 2020 Election & Their Distrust Of The Mainstream Media pic.twitter.com/HY6MECgd3s

— The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸 (@ColumbiaBugle) July 10, 2021

Althouse, "This makes it postable!"

ET,  Pennsylvania Department of State Tells Counties Not to Allow Outside Access to Voting Systems

Directive comes after state senator initiated forensic investigation into 2020, 2021 elections.  At Am Think, Tom Lifson thinks he sees Definite sign of panic as Pennsylvania acting Secretary of State issues illegal orders to obstruct audit of 2020 election. Sundance at CTH, Pennsylvania Acting Secretary of State and State AG Warn Philadelphia Not To Comply With Senate Authorized Ballot Audit, Senator Mastriano Responds and During Speech President Trump Reveals Letter from Pennsylvania U.S Attorney Detailing Bill Barr Blocking Philadelphia Vote Fraud Investigation

In previous comments attributed to AG Bill Barr, he claimed to have seen no evidence of election fraud. The Atlantic Article cites Bill Barr stating to an AP journalist December 1st 2020: ” To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election,” and then the article covers the fallout with the White House from that AP interview.

However, there’s a big difference between not seeing election fraud and purposefully blocking a United States Attorney Office from investigating allegations of fraud with an institutional motive not to discover or see it.

Also, Joe Biden Heading to Philadelphia July 13th, Will There Be Protests?

Joe Biden is responding to the Pennsylvania Senate likely conducting a forensic audit of Philadelphia ballots by urgently traveling to the city of brotherly love on Tuesday July 13th. Other than the original announcement the White House has not announced any details.

Perhaps it would be remarkable to see several thousands of people in the tri-state area show up to express their voice. It would appear there is plenty of time to organize some grassroots activity.

Then again, perhaps a large scale response from voters is exactly why the White House is keeping the details of the trip quiet.

ET reports the Arizona Senate Conducting New Count of Maricopa County Ballots and Stu Cvrk has some Key Questions While We’re Waiting for the Arizona Audit Report

The questions are obvious:

• Why don’t the certified vote total and the county totals reconcile (a 9,999-vote difference)?
• Where did the ~106K decline in minor party ballots from 2016 to 2020 go?
• How could there be 628,034 more absentee/early votes counted than reportedly received?
• How could there be zero write-in votes in over 3 million total ballots cast in Maricopa County?

NewNeo echos the question  What if the 2020 election audits end up revealing that Trump was actually the winner? Nothing regarding the presidency, but it will justify all of Republicans voting reform efforts (and more) and that's what Democrats are afraid of. Bill Saletan at Slate whines Early Voting Is Secure. So Why Are Republicans Against It? Assuming things not in evidence.

Following the story that Stacy broke the other day, at the Independent Chronical, Houston felon charged with voting twice illegally. Nick Fondacaro at NewsBusters, ABC Whines Texas Prosecuting Dem for Allegedly Casting Illegal Primary Vote, and Althouse read the NYT so you don't need to, "A 62-year-old Texas man who waited hours to cast a ballot in last year’s presidential primary was arrested this week on charges that he had voted illegally." He's facing 2-20 years, but being a Democrat, he'll get a slap on the wrist, I bet. I really don't want to see this guy locked up, but like the Democrats warn the Jan 6 protestors, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time"

At Politico, Top Biden ally pleads with him to scrap filibuster for election reform "Rep. Jim Clyburn said it’s time for the president to embrace more aggressive changes to the Senate rules" which is why, at Am Think, Andrea Widburg thinks Democrats haven’t abandoned the plan to jettison the filibuster. They won't abandon it once it works for them either. 

'Fuzzy Slippers' (I'm betting that's a nom du plume)  at LI asks Why Is Kamala The Last Democrat Still Arguing Against Voter I.D.? "Harris: It’s “almost impossible” for rural Americans to photocopy their i.d."  Insty steps up with the obvious answer, BECAUSE SHE’S VERY VERY DUMB AND VERY VERY EVIL . . . At Da Caller, Kamala Harris Ridiculed For Comment On Why Rural America Has A Hard Time With Voter ID and at Da Fed, Kamala Harris Claims It’s ‘Almost Impossible’ For Rural Americans To Make A Photocopy. I just use my scanner, but the IPad or cell phone work too.

Chuck Sullivan at Am Think maunders on about Trump v. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, et al

Each of the complaints asserts that congressional legislation (47 USC section 230) encouraged the defendants to censor Trump and other class members. The complaints give a history of the statute and assert that it does not give blanket authority to censor what would otherwise be constitutionally protected speech. A Harvard Law Review article is referenced:

As discussed in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Leary, Mary Graw, “The Indecency and Injustice of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,” Vol. 41, No. 2, pg. 564, 565 (2018) Congress expressly stated that th[is] is the policy of the United States ‘to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.’ That said, Congress appeared to recognize that unlimited tort-based lawsuits would threaten the then-fragile Internet and the ‘freedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet medium.’ Although these two goals required some balancing, it was clear from the text and legislative history of § 230 that it was never intended to provide a form of absolute immunity for any and all actions taken by interactive computer services. Section 230 is not ‘a general prohibition of civil liability for web-site operators and other content hosts.’ Rather, Congress sought to provide limited protections for limited actions.

Each of the complaints assert that the defendants willfully participated in joint activity with federal actors to censor Trump and other class members. Specific examples are given of how the defendants refused to publish facts or opinions that contradicted Dr. Anthony Fauci of the CDC including discussions of HCQ and the possible origins of COVID-19 in a lab in Wuhan, China.

Finally, each of the complaints seeks a declaratory judgment that section 230 of the communications decency act is unconstitutional. The complaints assert that Congress is constitutionally prohibited from passing legislation that limits protected speech and cannot pass a statute giving someone else that authority.

Pay attention to these cases. Trump has requested jury trials, class certification, and punitive damages in each of the cases. If any of these cases make it to trial in front of a Florida jury, the defendants could be looking at multibillion dollar judgments along with punitive damages. These cases really are an existential threat to the tech companies if they go to trial.

But Taylor Milliard at Hot Hair also winds on about why Why Texas' social media bills are doomed to fail in the courts. He might be right but I guess only time will tell.

Sundance does a happy dance at Senator Murkowski Tells Alaska Radio She Has Not Decided if She Will Run for Re-election, If She Does She Will Be Crushed Unless She Runs as a Democrat