In our May 9 report on the judge’s latest rulings in the Michael Sussmann trial, we mentioned the following:

“On the downside, this judge doesn’t want to bring in evidence of the ‘joint venture’ among Sussmann, Joffe and the Clinton campaign to smear Trump with the Alfa Bank story, because Sussmann hasn’t been charged with conspiracy. The judge said he doesn’t want to ‘confuse the jury’ and ‘distract from the issues at hand.’”

At the time, we didn’t buy his excuse—I mean, reason. And sure enough, it’s this ruling that has Margot Cleveland concerned about how politics might be playing a part with this judge, Obama appointee U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper. This judge, she said, “let politics trump the law.” Though she finds his “baseline” to be apolitical, mostly even-handed, sometimes he veers from that. We, too, notice that this happens when the facts at issue tend to get too ‘warm’ –- that is, too close to Hillary and her campaign.

Durham had argued that various emails, even if they were hearsay, were still admissible under the “co-conspirator statement” exception to the hearsay rule. But to rule in Durham’s favor, the judge would essentially be acknowledging that Hillary For America was a co-conspirator.

As Cleveland explains this, a “conspiracy” isn’t necessarily criminal, and that this is why Durham is giving it the more benign term “joint venture. But to make an exception to the hearsay rule, the judge would have to find that “a preponderance of the evidence” supported a conspiracy or joint venture.

Judge Cooper balked at this. He said that for a variety of reasons, his court was exercising “its discretion not to engage of the kind of extensive evidentiary analysis that would be required to find that such a joint venture existed, and who may have joined it.”

Cleveland explains why, given the witnesses from Georgia Tech who are slated to testify at the trial, there would be no need for an “extensive evidentiary analysis.” Durham’s office had even suggested in their brief that the judge could “preliminarily admit hearsay statements of co-conspirators, subject to connection through proof of conspiracy.” In other words, just wait and issue the ruling during the trial. She thinks the evidence of the joint venture is overwhelming, “easily satisfying the preponderance of evidence test.

She says Judge Cooper’s unwillingness to do this suggests politics at work. He’s not touching the issue of whether the Clinton campaign had conspired to peddle the Alfa Bank hoax. He’s even questioning the whole “joint venture” theory, saying the “contours” of it and its participants are “not entirely obvious.” Cleveland senses that this case “is political to its core,” just like the entire Russia Hoax.

I forgot my magic mind-reading cap today, but it sure looks as though this judge is protecting the Democrats, and, specifically, Hillary Clinton, the queen mother of scandal.

The Washington Times got the same impression.

A while back, we reported on the stunning conflicts of interest this judge has, including the fact that his wife, Amy Jeffress, has represented one of the people most closely involved with the Russia Hoax, Lisa Page. We thought then, how does this judge get this case? How can this judge NOT be political?

Congratulations to Dinesh D’Souza and the group True the Vote, for grossing over $1 million in their movie’s first 12 hours on Rumble!

On the Internet Movie Data Base (IMDB) rating system, 2,000 MULES got a very respectable 7.4 audience rating on their 10-point scale.

This much interest is amazing, especially considering the current widespread media blackout. Even the FOX News evening opinion shows went another day without mentioning the documentary. At this rate, we might have to wait for Dan Bongino’s weekend show to hear anything about it. He remains undeterred.

RELATED READING:  2,000 MULES update: Big audience despite media blackout

Earlier, we offered up a spectacular refutation by Politique Republic of the laughable Associated Press “fact”-check of D’Souza’s new documentary film. In case you missed that piece, here it is on Substack.

This is a stunning take-down of AP’s hit-piece, which was a pathetic attempt to discredit the documentary. But leftist “fact”-checkers are like brain-dead zombies in horror movies --- they just keep coming no matter what weapons you fire at them. (This is why we can’t have the government taking that kind of power, as with the “Disinformation Governmental Bureau, which absolutely must go NOW.) Leftists never stop, never say they’re sorry and never admit they were wrong. So we’re going to have to hit them with a second round today, in the form of this additional critique of the AP.

Wendi Strauch Mahoney interviewed True the Vote’s Catherine Engelbrecht about what the AP had called TTV’s “flawed analysis of cell phone location data and ballot drop box surveillance footage.” They had tried to say that geospatial tracking data with cell phones was too imprecise to support the conclusions made by this study. But Engelbrecht pointed to a Supreme Court case, Carpenter v. United States from 2016, that concluded differently. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that tracking the location of a cell phone “achieves near perfect surveillance as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone’s user.”

Roberts also acknowledged the technology’s ability to “reconstruct a person’s back in time to retrace a person’s whereabouts.” Since location information is continually logged for everyone with a cell phone (an unsettling thought, but I digress), trackers “need not even know in advance whether they want to follow a particular individual, and when.” In other words, the tracking can be done after the fact.

Justice Roberts blasts to smithereens the main premise of the AP’s “fact”-check.

In the movie, Engelbrecht and cyber expert Gregg Phillips go through the methodology of their study, showing how they limited their search to the most specific traffic patterns they found, to make sure they didn’t accidentally include “false positives,” people who had innocently been dropping off ballots. To be included, a person had to have not only visited a dropbox but also had at least five visits to one or more of the “stash houses” used by the nonprofits involved in the scheme. Heck, even three visits to one of those offices, in between visits to dropboxes, would have been a very unusual traffic pattern.

The tracking is so precise, it’s not enough for a person to drive to a drop box. He does have to get out of his car and walk up to it. As Phillips says in the film, “The fact of the matter is, these techniques are used every single day by law enforcement, intelligence community [and] Department of Defense.”

I would add that this technology was used by the government to track the movements on January 6, 2021, of hundreds of individual Capitol Hill protesters.

True the Vote was extremely conservative in deciding whom to include. In Engelbrecht’s words: “Larry Campbell, dropping off six ballots for his big family, wouldn’t be in our study. Going once to a dropbox wasn’t in our study. Our mules averaged 38 dropbox visits and 8 NGO [non-governmental organization] visits.” They didn’t even include people who traveled between NGOs and regular U.S. Postal Service boxes. “That’s how we know this was this tip of the iceberg,” Engelbrecht told the interviewer.

And so, how did True the Vote know these people were cheating on behalf of Democrats? Maybe the cheaters were those “ultra-MAGA domestic terrorists" we’ve been hearing so much about. Well, considering many of these mules have been identified as participants in the violent Antifa riots in Atlanta earlier in the year, that seems extremely unlikely. When they looked at their 242 mules in Atlanta, “dozens and dozens and dozens of our mules showed up on the ACLED databases.” (ACLED is the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project.)

Engelbrecht had perfectly reasonable answers to the AP’s other criticisms as well. Her organization didn’t set out to litigate or change the election outcome, she said. They wanted to make a stringently controlled scientific inquiry into the question of drop-box security. And they ended up with evidence of “election fraud on an astonishing scale” in Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Arizona. If True the Vote uses the “lower bar” of five drop-box visits and three ballots per drop to determine how many votes were fake, Trump would have won all these states, with the final electoral count 305 to 233.

Paula Bolyard at PJ MEDIA has a piece that addresses the challenge of proving the fraud. “It’s the perfect crime,” says Sebastian Gorka in the film, “...the evidence has no connection to the person who’s meant to be voting. That’s the problem. As soon as it gets taken out of the [security] envelope, the identity disappears.”

But D’Souza has the answer: True the Vote has the cell phone identification of every one of these mules. So law enforcement needs to step up and interview them. Who paid them? Where’d they get the money? That seems like a lot of effort, but look at the manpower they put into tracking down and investigating people from the January 6 rally who didn’t even go inside the Capitol building. If we had someone running the Department of “Justice” who wasn’t a political hack, the FBI might be tracking down those vote traffickers. If they don’t pursue this –- if they just let it go –- we won’t be a real democracy. We’ll just be going through the motions, pretending to be one.

I’d venture to say that someone who watches only mainstream media might not have even heard of the eye-opening new film, 2,000 MULES. Sorry to say, that’s likely true even if they watch FOX News and Newsmax, as those audiences are hearing nary a mention of it, either. (That perplexing fact might be a story for another time. Needless to say, the left is loving it.)

But even with that, Dinesh D’Souza’s new documentary, which disrupts the mantra that the 2020 election was ‘the cleanest, safest and most secure election in American history,’ has been doing gangbusters business at the box office and on home video since its debut.

If you haven’t yet seen it, this link will tell you all the ways you can. It is an absolute must-see, as anyone who has watched it and is not an idiot will tell you.

On Rumble, even though it premiered at noon on Saturday, May 7, it did well enough to be in the top ten for the weekend of May 6 to May 8. That is marvelous for a production that's considered a "niche" movie --- even one that HASN'T been suppressed on social media the way this has.

My writing team tried to see it in a theater in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area, where it debuted the previous week, but it was largely sold out, and they had to wait till Saturday for the streaming premiere.

The so-called “fact”-checks released by the propagandists at Politifact and the Associated Press have been --- to phrase our assessment with a politeness they don't deserve --- remarkably inadequate. But, yes, that’s the absolute best they or any debunker can do. They must be ripping out their hair in fistfuls, because when confronted by evidence like this, there’s only so much they can do to try to tear it down. In case you missed our commentary about that, here’s the link.

Speaking of election fraud –- and, by the way, we intend to speak of it many times before the next election –- we came across a news story from the New York Post in August 2020 (note: WELL BEFORE THE 2020 ELECTION) called “Confessions of a Voter Fraud: I was a master at fixing mail-in ballots.” Viewed in light of the revelations in 2,000 MULES, this story really comes into focus now.

Reporter Jon Levine interviewed a top Democrat operative who said he’d been doing it on a grand scale for decades. This person, speaking anonymously because he feared prosecution, said fraud was “more the rule than the exception.” And in the months leading into the 2020 election, with mail-in balloting being greatly expanded, (ostensibly) because of COVID, this meant there would be much more fraud.

“An election that is swayed by 500 votes, 1,000 votes --- it can make a difference,” this tipster said. “It could be enough to flip states.”

It’s a big operation. He said he had not only altered ballots himself but had led teams, mentoring at least 20 operatives who were active in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, which, of course, would turn out to be one of the battleground states at issue on Election Day 2020.

This operative, who said he'd been a Bernie Sanders supporter and no longer had a stake, said he’d come forward in the hope that states would fix their glaring security problems with mail-in ballots, because November 3 was going to be “a (bleeping) war.” I wonder if he had any idea then how bad it was going to get.

The Post includes his descriptions of how election-riggers do their stuff. For example, they can just make copies of the ballot itself, but they have to collect actual envelopes, because it's not possible to recreate those. That’s where vote harvesters come in, going from house to house, “helping” people by mailing their ballots for them, but steaming them open and using the real envelopes to mail the phony ballots. These they would “sprinkle” around numerous mailboxes in town.

He said sometimes postal employees are in on it. If they don’t like Trump, for example, and they work in an area that’s predominantly GOP, they can just “lose” those ballots. They can either dump all the mail in the trash or, if they have time, sift through their mail for ballots, and throw the ballots in the trash. (Or I would think they could take them to be steamed open if more envelopes are needed.)

Then, of course, there are the nursing homes. We’ve discussed how that works, but the Post article provides details.

Sometimes, if they’re in a state that doesn’t require ID, operatives will even go to polling places and vote in person. They go through publicly available information to find the names of registered voters who routinely skip elections, and vote using those names.

They also buy the votes of homeless people. This tipster went on to say that Michael Bloomberg's campaign spent roughly $174 per vote to win his third term as New York mayor. He likened this effort to a mafia organization, with the candidate himself typically kept in the dark about the details, to maintain “plausible deniability.”

This particular political insider even took credit for a helpful little idea that he says was put into practice: bending one corner of the ballot, where the signature appeared, to signal to Democrat Board of Election counters that this was one of “their” ballots and to let it go through.

We learn from this story that systemized election fraud has been going on for a very long time, mostly to affect smaller and/or close races, but also that now, with the expanded use of mail-in ballots, the problem is growing, affecting elections on a larger scale. Just this weekend, Christina Repaci was walking her dog in East Hollywood and came upon something interesting sitting on the sidewalk: an entire box full of ballots.

These 104 unopened mail-in ballots were in a U.S. Postal Service box, just abandoned there on the sidewalk. Sacredness of the vote, indeed.

Ms. Repaci didn’t know what to do about this; it was only thanks to her persistence that an official picked up these ballots from her. Of course, the chain of custody had long since been shot. The registrar’s office said not to worry, they’ve reissued ballots to all the people affected. But what if someone not quite as conscientious as Ms. Repaci had found the ballots and used them for, I don’t know, bird cage liners?

“Early signs indicate that this was an incident of mail theft and not a directed attempt at disrupting the election,” the registrar’s office said in a statement. To that I say, “How do you know?” I also say, So what?” because either way, a box of votes that doesn't get counted can affect the outcome of a close election. Doesn't say much for mail-in voting.

And neither does 2,000 MULES. What if that box HAD been part of a scheme to commit fraud? An entire box of mail-in ballots can go missing, and no one will be the wiser. Steam open the official envelopes, stuff them with copied ballots marked with your candidate, hand them over to paid "mules" who don gloves to avoid transferring fingerprints and "sprinkle" them in mailboxes or dropboxes all around the county. In some states, even the late-arriving ballots will still count as long as they're postmarked on Election Day.

If this tipster is correct, the process has been honed to a fine art. The art of the steal.

Election Results

May 11, 2022

Former President Trump’s perfect record of wins by candidates he endorsed is no more: Tuesday in Nebraska, his pick for the GOP gubernatorial race, Charles Herbster, came in second in a multiple candidate race to University of Nebraska Regent Jim Pillen (33-30%.) Pillen will face Democrat Carol Blood in November. There were almost 261,000 votes cast in the GOP primary and 93,000 in the Democratic primary, so do your own “bloodbath” joke.

But Herbster was Trump’s only miss so far. And Herbster had a lot to overcome, including a late-race accusation of sexual harassment by eight women, which he denies. In House District 1, Republican Mike Flood will face Democrat Patty Pansing Brooks.

Meanwhile in West Virginia, Trump-endorsed Rep. Alex Mooney won in a 66-34% landslide over Rep. David McKinley, in a new 2nd District that pitted two GOP incumbents against each other. McKinley was also dragged down by his record of voting with Democrats on the infrastructure bill and on certifying the 2020 election and investigating the January 6th riot.

In the only other national race in West Virginia, for House District 1, Carol Miller easily won the Republican nomination with 66% of the vote. She’ll face Democrat Lacy Watson, who ran uncontested.

Here are the results of all the races in Nebraska:

And in West Virginia:

And in an unexpected development, New York Republican Rep. Tom Reed announced his resignation. He’d already chosen not to run for reelection, but now he’s leaving office seven months early. Reed has been accused of sexual misconduct by a female lobbyist, but he gave no reason for his leaving early. New York’s Democrat Governor will have to call a special election to fill Reed’s unfinished term.

Recent stories about the investigation in Delaware into Hunter Biden’s finances have mentioned that Hunter paid his huge delinquent tax bill with help from a loan. Until now, however, the details of this arrangement weren’t known. Now they are, at least the essentials.

According to the New York Post, which broke the original laptop story that was suppressed by the media prior to the 2020 election, Hunter has a “sugar brother” –- that’s what Hunter’s friends call him –- who paid it all off. And the bill wasn’t $1 million as first reported, but more like $2 million.

This generous friend is mega-rich Hollywood entertainment lawyer and novelist Kevin Morris. The firm he founded has represented numerous A-list celebrities such as Matthew McConaughey and Scarlett Johansson. This man represented Matt Stone and Trey Parker, creators of SOUTH PARK, negotiating blockbuster deals for them reportedly worth nearly $1.5 billion, and he also co-produced their hit Broadway musical, THE BOOK OF MORMON.

So out of his pocket change, Morris has apparently been covering Hunter’s $20,000-a-month rent and other living expenses. He lives there in Malibu near Hunter. His office told CBS that he’s helping Hunter with his “legal and image problems.” Reportedly, it was Morris who advised him on how to structure the sale of his “art” so it would be sold to “anonymous” (mm-hmm) donors.

It’s likely that having a paid-up tax bill will cause a grand jury to look more favorably on Hunter, if not on the question of guilt or innocence, then at least on the severity of punishment, and that surely was the idea. Will they assume this reimbursement was done on Hunter's own initiative, or will they be told the truth: that it was a fabulously wealthy friend covering for him by bailing him out?

According to FOX News, Morris is a big Democrat who has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrat Super PACS and candidates since 2007.

He has even been producing a documentary film on Hunter’s life, which I seriously doubt you'll want to take your kids to. And CBS News reports that Morris is serving as Hunter’s “attorney and trusted adviser” to investigate how his all-too-revealing laptop became public. (Hunter’s criminal defense is being handled by another attorney, Christopher Clark.) Morris reportedly is conducting a forensic investigation of the laptop, while, in interviews, Hunter has seemed utterly clueless about what happened to it, or even if the one being investigated was really his. Why, sure, maybe it WAS Russian disinformation! Golly, who can say?

Has Hunter been feigning ignorance about the laptop all this time, trying to weasel out of answering questions about it? That’s likely. On the other hand, according to computer shop owner John Paul Mac Isaac, Hunter reeked of alcohol when he brought it in, so that might explain his mental blank.

The New York Post has more details on the Hunter documentary. Morris wants to tell the story of Hunter’s life since he came under scrutiny for his lifestyle and controversial overseas business dealings while “dad” was Vice President.

Finally, there’s a senior Department of “Justice” official whose conflicts of interest should, at least in a sane world, keep him far away from the Hunter Biden case. But since the world we’re currently living in is certifiably insane, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin have been looking into the issue

Nicholas McQuaid, head of the DOJ Criminal Division, used to work with Hunter’s criminal attorney, the above-mentioned Chris Clark, at...(drum roll, please)...Latham and Watkins.

Last year, Grassley and Johnson wrote to Attorney General Merrick Garland three times about McQuaid’s possible recusal from the case, and he ignored all three letters. So they wrote to U.S. Attorney David Weiss, the presiding judge in the Biden financial case, to try to find out if McQuaid has recused himself. They also asked for copies of communications between the office and McQuaid, plus information on whether any employees of the U.S. attorney’s office in Biden’s home state of Delaware had recused themselves.

As of this writing, Weiss has not responded, and AG Garland still ignores them. I expect they'll hear from Judge Weiss, but Garland is much too busy tracking the movements and communications of "domestic terrorists" in MAGA hats to deal with this.