Election - Poor Norman News

Steps are being taken to remove Trump from office before his term ends

Norman Gregory — Sat, 09 Jan 2021 02:52:59 +0000

Poor Norman News-January 8, 2021, Washington DC

Speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi has indicated that the House of Representatives will most likely initiate a second impeachment against Donald Trump for inciting insurrection against United States government, when he urged his followers to go to the United States Capitol building and use force to overturn the election.

The majority of Americans are shocked at what unfolded when the United States Capitol building was attacked by traitorous seditious minded Trump supporters attempting to interfere with the United States government certification of a lawful election. Both Democratic and Republican leaders have expressed outrage.

Both Democratic and Republican leaders have expressed deep concern about what Trump may be capable of in his last couple of weeks in office.

Some members of Trump’s cabinet have met to discuss invoking the 25^th amendment to the Constitution which in part states that if a majority of cabinet members and the vice president agree that the president can no longer discharge their function as president, that they can present those findings to the Congress who can then after a vote remove the president from office.

It is said that Vice President Pence is against invoking the 25^th Amendment.

National leaders both past and present feel that it is important to remove Trump from office to ensure the national security of the nation, and to ensure that he does not do any more damage to the nation.

Trump has for months brainwashed his followers into believing that there was no way he could lose the 2020 election unless there was rampant fraud. Once he lost the election, he claimed that he lost by fraud, and the constant brainwashing type of propaganda to his followers, have caused tens of millions of Americans to believe that the election was stolen even though there is absolutely no evidence to show wrongdoing in the election, and Trump has loss approximately 62 court cases including two Supreme Court cases.

The United States of America is in an unprecedented situation at the present time. We will report more as facts come out.

By Norman Gregory

The post Steps are being taken to remove Trump from office before his term ends first appeared on Poor Norman News.

The most serious attempt to overthrow our democracy in the history of our of country is underway

Norman Gregory — Mon, 04 Jan 2021 09:35:45 +0000

“Right now, the most serious attempt to overthrow our democracy in the history of our of country is underway.

Those who are pushing to make Donald Trump President, no matter the outcome of the election, are engaged in a treachery against their nation.” pic.twitter.com/FE7K91nlSD

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) December 11, 2020

The post The most serious attempt to overthrow our democracy in the history of our of country is underway first appeared on Poor Norman News.

An Analysis of the Nightmare the Republicans have brought to our Nation in this Election

Norman Gregory — Mon, 04 Jan 2021 09:01:56 +0000

On Saturday, the current short-term resident of the White House threatened a Georgia elected official with vague “criminal consequences” if he refused to find some way to assign at least 11,780 votes (just enough to overcome Biden’s margin in Georgia) to Trump. Let’s get a couple of preliminary things out of the way: 1) Georgia is a one-party consent state for recording conversations. Trump’s permission to record was not required, and Raffensperger clearly knew the conversation was being recorded. There was nothing remotely inappropriate about the recording being made. (Indeed, under the Presidential Records Act, there may even have been an affirmative obligation to record the conversation and retain the recording). 2) The claim that the conversation was a “confidential settlement discussion” is just another lie. First, there was no case filed to be negotiated. If there WAS a case to be negotiated, Trump is not appropriately a party to the case, so he’s not entitled to participate in a confidential settlement discussion. And third, even if it WAS a settlement negotiation, Trump had already broken the confidentiality of the discussions by tweeting about them before the audio was released. So let’s move on to substantive matters. I’ve said some of these things on other people’s feeds as responses to posts there, but figured this was a good opportunity to collect some thoughts about issues that seems to be raised on a recurring basis these days.

1. A number of loyal Trump supporters, and indeed perhaps Trump himself, honestly believe that he did win the election. They’re entitled to that belief. They can believe it all they want. But no one’s beliefs – not theirs, not the beliefs of legislators like Josh Hawley, not even the beliefs of Supreme Court Justices are relevant to the transition of power due to the results of this election. The only thing relevant to preventing the transition of power is specific evidence of illegal activity sufficient to change the outcome of the election.

2. Let’s talk for a minute about WHY it’s so important that election challenges require specific evidence of specific wrongdoing. Trump proxies and supporters seem to be advancing an argument that the state obligation to “certify” their vote count means that, in effect, nothing counts until the state says it does. (Or, by extension, because the final counts are received by Congress and there are provisions to reject “invalid” slates of electors). That’s a gross misrepresentation of what the vote total “certifications” are about.

The kind of conduct that the Trumpians allege happened on a rampant and widespread basis is all conduct that, if their allegations are true, are felony Federal crimes. Our core criminal legal principle, embedded in the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, is the presumption of innocence. The accused is innocent unless and until every element of an allegedly criminal act is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, every ballot that is cast MUST be accepted as valid, unless and until evidence can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the ballot was not legally cast. There seems to be a great deal of confusion about this, but there’s no reason there should be. It’s entirely self-evident. The Trumpians own claims are that ballots were cast “illegally.” If that’s the claim, then the obligation is on THEM to PROVE the allegations, beyond a reasonable doubt. Anything less violates the Due Process Rights of every voter whose ballot is invalidated without proof of guilt. (I’m not a big fan of slippery slope arguments, but think about this for a moment. If it’s OK for Trumpians to invalidate votes without due process, what other legal rights can be abrogated without due process? There are few rights in the United States that are more fundamental than the right to vote. Think about all of the legal status matters that would be in jeopardy if they can be voided based on self-interested allegations, without factual evidence.

3. That brings us to the subject of the Trumpian claims that are still being made. I’ve seen Trump claim that “we know” that we won Georgia. I’ve seen Trumpians say that they “know” that voting machines changed ballots or that dead people voted or that the number of votes cast exceeded the total pool of possible voters. More than 50 lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts around th country by Trump surrogates. Those represent 50 opportunities to put EVIDENCE that would support these allegations on the record, before a judge. Despite these opportunities, ZERO evidence has been supplied that supports the allegations of these lawsuits.

Let’s talk for a minute about what “evidence” is. Because I’ve seen lots of posts talking about the hundreds of sworn affidavits filed with various of these lawsuits and how those “prove” the claims of election law violations. The affidavits submitted with these lawsuits are, at most, CLAIMS o ALLEGATIONS. If you look at the substance of the affidavits themselves, virtually all of them are not sharing information in a way that would allow the affidavits to be accepted directly as evidence.

It’s notable that, one time, the Trumpians stopped filing the affidavits with the lawsuits, and instead referred to them as being available in the lawsuits. They made for good theater to wave around from the podium. But in the few cases where the affidavits were subjected to any examination in open court, they proved to be a big pile of nothing. They offered inadmissible hearsay (the affiant wrote that they heard person x say thing y). The only thing that affidavit “proves” is that the affiant says it happened. The Hearsay rules mean that the affidavit cannot be accepted either as proof that “y” was exactly what was said, OR that the repeated statement is true. Other affidavits offered “statements” that did not amount to violations of election law. A third group of affidavits attempted to offer as factual testimony what was actually an interpretive evaluation. Such evaluations require that the person offering the interpretation be accepted by the court as an expert on the subject matter. Claims who the affiants were have turned out to be consistently overstated.

That’s a lot of wordy theory explanation, so here’s some specific examples from the court cases so far:

a. A Nevada voter said in an affidavit that she was prevented from voting for Trump. Upon examination, it was learned that she showed up to vote on election day, claiming that her ballot had been stolen. The election workers did exactly what they were supposed to do – they told the voter that she needed to file a police report stating that her ballot had been stolen (they even provided her with the form to file the report), and then they could allow her to replace her ballot. She refused to file the police report. Bottom line – no violation. Election workers did everything exactly as they should have.

b. An affidavit in Pennsylvania where a postal worker said they heard a supervisor tell another employee to backdate late-arriving ballots. Did the supervisor tell the affiant to change postmark dates? No. Who was the supervisor who gave the order? I don’t know. Who was the other postal employee to whom the order was given? I don’t know? Were any dates changed? YES!!! Did you see them get changed? Um, no. Did you see any ballots that arrived late that were not properly segregated? No. So the only basis for the statement you made that ballots were backdated is that you overheard a nameless supervisor tell a nameless employee to backdate postmarks, and you did not at any time observe the changing of postmarks or late ballots not being segregated? Correct. (Conclusions: useless affidavit).

c. A Dominion “insider”, who asserted in front of a partisan legislative hearing (not in court) that she knew that the Dominon voting machines were affiliated with the Venezuelan communist government and were changing votes from Trump to Biden. Her affidavit made significant expert claims. Look just a little bit into her background and you learn that she was a seasonal hire by Dominion whose job pretty much amounted to cleaning the scanner glass on a lot of machines to get them ready for use in elections. She has no firsthand knowledge of the internal workings of the Dominion voting machines. She’s doesn’t know how they function. She doesn’t know anything about how their data is stored or moved – she had no basis of knowledge from which she could be offering expert testimony about Dominion voting machines (or any other voting machines, for that matter).

4. As the Trumpians ran out of courts where they could file claims (because they’d already been denied). They’ve turned to increasingly wild and desperate attempts to manipulate the process. The set the stage for these manipulations with a series of “hearings” in contested states. These were used to try and build public support for their attempts. The nature of these “hearings” is important to consider. These were ad hoc “hearings,” many held without any participation by Democratic lawmakers at all, and some not even held in official state buildings – they were essentially Republican party meetings in hotel ballrooms. They called them “hearings” and they had the witnesses take an oath. But the “testimony” offered in these hearings was not subject to cross-examination or even close scrutiny. Witness after witness offered statements pretty much like the affidavits – allegations of things that they heard or saw, with their interpretations of what they saw being the key to the allegation of illegality (and in many cases, the exact things they were complaining about had already been publicly explained and were totally innocent and innocuous).

The one “new” witness that created some new energy behind the Trumpian claims was what appeared to be an advanced mathematical analysis of voting patterns and voter names. An investment advisor (and sometimes Republican political candidate) named Bobby Piton gave impassioned testimony about his “findings”, including sharing the Excel spreadsheets that he used to show off those findings. (Notably, he showed the spreadsheets, but did not volunteer the sources of his data).

Poking around it bit, it wasn’t too hard to find Piton’s data sources. And once it was clear what the data sources were, the credibility of his claims drop to about zero. In Pennsylvania, he testified at one of those ersatz hearings that a huge proportion of Pennsylvania votes were cast by people with “unique names” that exist nowhere else in the state and never existed in the state before election day. But the data he compared to reach his conclusions was 1990 Census data compared to pre-election voter registration rolls. Both 2000 and 2010 Census data is readily available. But he chose to use 1990 data because using that data generated a MUCH larger factor that he claimed suggested massive election impropriety.

Similarly, he testified in Arizona, allegedly just three days after starting his analysis of the Arizona vote. He appears to have combined 1998 voter registration data and state demographic data and compared it to 2020 voter registration and state demographic data. He then claimed that his analysis of the rate of demographic change in Arizona, combined with the voter registration numbers, meant that it was simply impossible for Biden to have gotten more votes than Trump in the state. So he claims that his analysis is evidence of massive fraud.

In both Arizona and Pennsylvania, Piton alleges systematic fraud, but can’t point to any specific ballot that was cast illegally. He can’t provide any reason why his mathematical analysis says that Biden getting more votes than Trump is “impossible” other than his own predictions of voter behavior based on ethnicity, age, and party registration (the data for which are coming from different sources). It’s basically incredibly basic demographic profiling – it’s polling, before actually asking any poll questions. There’s nothing about his “analysis” that even materially supports the allegation that something illegal was going on, and it certainly fails to identify any particular illegally-cast ballots.

Why do I run through all of this AGAIN. Because elected officials like Josh Hawley and Roger Marshall are making noise about trying to prevent the Electoral College votes from being counted as submitted by the States. And it’s important that you understand, at a fundamental level, exactly what doing that means. They say they’re trying to prevent a “stolen election.” But the only reason they have for calling it a stolen election is their BELIEF that Trump could not have lost a free and fair election. They don’t have any factual evidence of any specific illegally cast ballots. So what is it that they’re really doing?

Go back up to #2. Senators Josh Hawley and Roger Marshall are attempting to violate the due process rights of every voter in every state where they attempt to reject the electoral votes as submitted by the state. At its core, their argument is that the undisputed violation of the Constitutional Due Process rights of over 150 million voters is less important than their BELIEF that there were election shenanigans. Understand that, if they reject the Georgia slate of electors (for example), they are presuming at least 11,779 federal crimes were committed. They’re rejecting one of the fundamental principles of American justice – innocent until proven guilty – and substituting their devotion to one person for devotion to the principles that protect us all.

The post An Analysis of the Nightmare the Republicans have brought to our Nation in this Election first appeared on Poor Norman News.

Trump Tried to Get Georgia Official to Change Votes to Give Him the Election

Norman Gregory — Mon, 04 Jan 2021 06:49:09 +0000

From the Associated Press: President Donald Trump pressured Georgia’s Republican secretary of state to “find” enough votes to overturn Joe Biden’s win in the state’s presidential election, repeatedly citing disproven claims of fraud and raising the prospect of “criminal offense” if officials did not change the vote count, according to a recording of the conversation. Click Here to Read Full Story.

The post Trump Tried to Get Georgia Official to Change Votes to Give Him the Election first appeared on Poor Norman News.

Republicans and their supporters would rather tear down our nation than lose an election.

Norman Gregory — Sat, 02 Jan 2021 23:19:21 +0000

It is January 2, 2021. In four days, Congress is set to meet on January 6, 2021 to officially count the electoral college votes, and to certify the election.

Our nation has gone through this process for approximately 231 years plus or minus with no problems. Even when the southern states adamantly opposed Abraham Lincoln when he was elected, the process worked albeit the southern states seceded from the union which precipitated the Civil War.

What is going on now in 2021 could be the beginning of the end of the American representative democratic experiment that our founding fathers put into place when they founded this nation.

What is mandatory for any democratic nation, whether it be a representative democracy like the United States, or a pure democratic nation like other countries to survive, is that everyone must abide by the results of an election.

If you have one side who will not accept losing, and that side is big enough, it could take down the whole system. This is starting to happen in the United States now as I write this.

As for me, in my early adult life at the age of 18 I registered as a Republican because Ronald Reagan was my commander-in-chief, I was in the military, I liked him, but I did not really know what the Republicans stood for. I know I did not like the fact that Jimmy Carter allowed US hostages to be taken by the Iranians, and they were held for a significant amount time, and I liked the fact that Ronald Reagan apparently got the hostages released on the day he took office. I was 17 and not yet able to vote. I was ignorant.

After the military, I went to college and law school and became educated, I changed parties.

Much like most Americans there are aspects of what both parties want, that I like. I am more of a middle of the road type of guy, and I believe that most Americans are the same as me.

It seems like the radicals in both parties are at the forefront at the present time raising havoc. But it seems to me like the majority of Republicans as it stands right now have become radicalized.

For those men like me who have served in the military, woke up in the morning and went to bed at night saluting old glory, it is inconceivable that we may lose our nation as we know it but unfortunately it appears that time has come to pass, with what is happening now.

The first subversive president in United States history, Donald Trump has caused such a divide in our nation, coupled with constant right-wing media disinformation, that tens of millions of people believe falsely that our election was rigged against Donald Trump.

Donald Trump proudly proclaimed months before the presidential election that the only way he could lose was if there was fraud or cheating. He claimed this notwithstanding the fact that he was behind in every major poll predicting who would win the presidency. Joe Biden always led in the polls, so Trump knew he was going to lose months before the election when he made the prediction.

When Trump lost the election, he fabricated allegations of fraud when no fraud existed except for a few Republicans who actually committed fraud, not Democrats.

Donald Trump is a sore loser, he created a false outcome, i.e., mass voter fraud, and tried to fabricate a narrative to support his false outcome. When you tell people a lie enough times, they will believe the lie. That is what is happening with Republicans right now.

There is literally no evidence to support the claim of Donald Trump that he lost due to mass fraud, and over 50 court cases that have been filed by the Trump campaign have been dismissed for failure to provide competent evidence or failure to provide a valid claim that is supported by facts or evidence that there was fraud.

The Courts and even Trump’s own Attorney General Barr have concluded there was no widespread fraud.

It is apparent to all intelligent Americans that Donald Trump fabricated claims of voter fraud to justify his loss, and his supporters without any basis in fact or evidence, believed his false allegations. No other American president that I know of has ever acted in such a manner.

It appears now that unpatriotic members of Congress who are Republicans, have now drank the Donald Trump Kool-Aid, and will object to the United States democratic election results notwithstanding the fact that Joe Biden won the election, there is no evidence to support any objection to his election, it is apparent that Joe Biden not only won the popular vote by over 7 million votes, but he also won the electoral college by a substantial number.

It appears that Congress members are objecting to the election because they lost the Presidency and are not willing to go along with the will of the American people anymore.

Luckily, this time around the House of Representatives is controlled by the Democrats so it is doubtful that these unpatriotic members of Congress who do not want to abide by the election results will be able to overturn the results of the American presidential election.

However, what if in the future both houses of Congress are controlled by the political party that loses the presidential election? Will those members of Congress not abide by the presidential election? If this were to occur that would be the end of the American experiment.

This is not a joke; this is deadly serious. It is 2021 and we are on the cusp of losing our nation as we know it. If we cannot vote for the president that we want, and get the president that we want, we are no longer the United States of America that our founding fathers created.

For whatever reason Republicans are now unwilling to abide by our presidential election and are trying to subvert the will of the people by overturning the results of the election. These cowards are not abiding by the Constitution that they swore to defend and are willing to tear our country apart to maintain power.

I am not sure what is going to happen, maybe a Civil War is necessary in this country to keep it a free country, I hope this is not the case.

Those of you who want to keep a free United States of America remember that the Republicans are trying to take away your vote and install Donald Trump as president for another four years when he lost the election, after we free Americans fired this man. This is not Russia; this is the United States of America.

Those congress members who object to the free American election must be voted out in masse and never shall we accept what amounts to sedition to be seated in our congress again.

By Norman Gregory

The post Republicans and their supporters would rather tear down our nation than lose an election. first appeared on Poor Norman News.