DELAWARE'S SHAME
OBAMA & DENN: WHAT VOTER FRAUD? WHAT BLACK INTIMIDATION OF WHITE VOTERS?
THE PRESS: THE CORRUPT FOURTH ESTATE
18 U.S. Code § 594 - Intimidation of voters
EXCERPT: "Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, at any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing such candidate, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
__________________________________________________________
THE LIBERAL NEWS JOURNAL WILL NOT REPORT THIS:
ALL THE INTIMIDATION & VIOLENCE SO FAR HAS BEEN FROM SANDERS & CLINTON SUPPORTERS DIRECTED TOWARD TRUMP SUPPORTERS, AS WELL AS BLACK LIVES MATTER AGAINST WHITES
___________________________________________________
WILL TRUMP'S POLL OBSERVERS BE PROSECUTED (whites only)? FOR JUST "OBSERVING"?
COMPARED TO HITLER'S "STURMABTEILUNG":
EXCERPT: And until he’s stopped, it seems like Trump is at least planning to do more than merely complain about this alleged voter fraud – he’s actively going to stop it. In a move that is eerily similar to the formation of the 1920s Nazi Sturmabteilung (a group formed to “protect” the Nazi Party from disruptors)
EXCERPT: The consent decree, which arose out of a 1981 voting rights lawsuit against the RNC, bars the organization from using voter challengers, poll watchers, and vote caging plans to target and intimidate voters of color. It specifically precludes the RNC’s poll watchers from overstepping their role as election observers and prohibits them from asking voters for identification, filming or recording voters, and distributing literature about voter fraud penalties. After a federal district court denied the RNC’s request to dissolve the consent decree in 2009, the RNC appealed to the Third Circuit.
In unanimously rejecting the RNC’s appeal, the Third Circuit highlighted the continuing threat that voter intimidation poses to our election system. The court’s opinion described how poll watchers and poll challengers have the potential to disenfranchise lawful voters by causing delays, crowding, and confusion inside the polling place and creating a charged partisan atmosphere that can intimidate many new voters.
The Following Liberal Screed From The DE "News Journal" Follows CNN Method of Making Generalizations, Opinions, Statements & Obfuscations Without Sources, Citing Alleged Federal DOJ Release, Based on Non-Existent And/Or Biased Court Cases
Voter Fraud is Presented as a Minor Issue and Blame Placed on Republicans For Wanting Fraud Protections & Voter Identification Laws
"AG: No Delaware voter fraud vigilantes, please"
BY MATTHEW ALBRIGHT
SEE: http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/politics/2016/08/19/voter-intimidation/88989176/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
State officials say they will be on the lookout for people accosting voters to question whether they are qualified to cast a ballot.
"In the upcoming primary and general elections, no citizens should take it upon themselves to interfere with people attempting to vote, but should report any concerns to state or county elections officials," Attorney General Matt Denn's office said in a statement.
The release says the Department of Justice will investigate any of the following actions, which federal courts have said could qualify as voter intimidation:
- Questioning anyone about whether they are qualified to vote.
- Asking for identification
- Photographing or videotaping voters and their vehicles
- Distributing literature at polls emphasizing that voter fraud is a crime and detailing punishments for it.
Poll workers will be told to report anyone doing these things to the Office of Civil Rights and Public Trust. The office can be reached by e-mail at publictrust@state.de.us or by phone at (302) 577-5400.
"Voter intimidation" is not specifically defined in Delaware law, so DOJ would need to investigate on a case by case basis before deciding to prosecute.
The primary election will be held on Sept. 13. The general election is Nov. 8.
Clashes over voter fraud and voting rights have erupted throughout the country in the run-up to the presidential election.
Several Republican-led legislatures have passed laws creating stricter voter identification requirements, arguing they are necessary to prevent people from voting multiple times or voting illegally. Democrats have blasted those plans as political ploys to tamp down turnout, and courts have struck down some of the laws.
Some Democratic states re-wrote the rules this year to make it easier for those convicted of felonies to vote. Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe issued an executive order that restored voting rights to 206,000 felons, but his state's Supreme Court nixed the move, saying McAuliffe did not have authority to do so unilaterally.
Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump drew condemnation for publicly saying he thought elections could be rigged against him.
"Nov. 8, we'd better be careful, because that election is going to be rigged," Trump said at an Aug. 1 rally in Columbus, Ohio. "People are going to walk in and they're going to vote 10 times, maybe, who knows?"
Later that night, Trump told Fox News host Sean Hannity: "I’m telling you, Nov. 8, we better be careful because that election is going to be rigged and I hope the Republicans are watching closely, or it’s going to be taken away from us."
In Delaware last year, a state lawmaker asked the Department of Justice to investigate potential voter fraud in a successful Red Clay School District referendum to increase property taxes. Some residents said they overheard parents saying they intended to vote multiple times to ensure the referendum passed.
The investigation found that three people voted twice. State officials declined to make Red Clay re-do the referendum vote.
__________________________________________________
TEXT OF RELEASE FROM DE ATTORNEY GENERAL MATT DENN:
SEE:
Enforcement of Voter Intimidation Laws During 2016 Elections
Date Posted: Thursday, August 18th, 2016
Categories: Department of Justice Press Releases
Categories: Department of Justice Press Releases
With Delaware’s primary elections coming up in less than a month and the general election shortly thereafter, the Attorney General wishes to notify the public that the Delaware Department of Justice will be strictly enforcing the voter intimidation provisions of the Delaware Constitution. Those provisions make it a crime in Delaware for a person to “by force, threat, menace or intimidation, prevent or hinder, or attempt to prevent or hinder, any person…qualified to vote from voting according to said person’s choice at any such general, special or municipal election.”
The DOJ Office of Civil Rights and Public Trust has provided written guidance to the state Department of Elections that will be provided to poll workers that requests that any observed cases of voter intimidation be reported to the Office for investigation. The guidance states that “among the activities that have been identified by a federal court as potential election-day voter intimidation are the following: persons other than duly-appointed election officers questioning voters about their credentials; persons impeding or delaying voters by asking for identification, videotaping, photographing, or otherwise making visual records of voters or their vehicles; or persons distributing literature at the polls outlining the fact that voter fraud is a crime and/or detailing the legal penalties for impermissibly casting ballots.”
DOJ notes that the Delaware Code has detailed provisions, which are administered by elections officials, allowing each political party to ensure the absence of election day fraud by challenging the eligibility of persons to vote within polling places in a proper fashion. In the upcoming primary and general elections, no citizens should take it upon themselves to interfere with people attempting to vote, but should report any concerns to state or county election officials. The Office of Civil Rights and Public Trust will be prepared to respond on the primary and general election days to reports of possible voter intimidation.
__________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO DELAWARE'S OWN "OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS & PUBLIC TRUST" (2015):
__________________________________________________________
THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION HAS ISSUED THIS RELEASE IN 2010, WHICH DOES NOT PLACE GREATER EMPHASIS ON VOTER INTIMIDATION OVER VOTER FRAUD, AS DOES THE ARTICLE ABOVE FROM THE DELAWARE NEWS JOURNAL, AND THOSE THEY TAKE THEIR MARCHING ORDERS FROM IN GOVERNMENT:
EXCERPTS:
The Civil Rights Division’s Voting Section enforces civil provisions of federal laws that protect the right to vote including: the Voting Rights Act; the National Voter Registration Act; the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act; and the Help America Vote Act. Among other things, these laws prohibit discrimination based on race or membership in a minority language group; prohibit intimidation of voters; provide that voters who need assistance in voting because of disability or illiteracy can obtain assistance from a person of their choice; require minority language election materials and assistance in certain jurisdictions; provide for accessible election machines for voters with disabilities; require provisional ballots for voters who assert they are eligible but whose names do not appear on poll books; provide for absentee ballots for service members and U.S. citizens living abroad; and require states to ensure that citizens can register at driver license offices, public assistance offices and other state agencies; and include requirements regarding maintaining voter registration lists.
The Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section and the Department’s 94 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices are responsible for enforcing the federal criminal laws that prohibit various forms of election fraud, such as vote buying, multiple voting, submission of fraudulent ballots or registrations, destruction of ballots or registrations, voter intimidation, alteration of votes and malfeasance by election officials, as well as federal civil law prohibiting voter intimidation that does not involve discrimination or intimidation on grounds of race or color.
___________________________________________________
WHEN IT IS REAL INTIMIDATION, OBAMA INSTRUCTS D.O.J. TO BACK OFF:
FEDERAL COURT CASES WHICH SHOW FEDERAL D.O.J. INFLUENCED BY OBAMA TO SHIELD BLACK VOTER INTIMIDATORS:
SEE:
Federal Court Rules Against Obama Administration in Black Panther FOIA Case: https://jonathanturley.org/2012/08/01/federal-court-rules-against-obama-administration-in-black-panther-foia-case/
___________________________
THE PREDOMINANCE OF ELECTION FRAUD, NOT INTIMIDATION, CLEARLY SHOWN HERE:
_______________________________________________________________
Fewer Poll Monitors Could Put Voters at Risk
Obama Administration Plotting to Usurp Control Over Elections
BY ALEX NEWMAN
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Under the guise of providing increased “security” for “critical infrastructure,” the Obama administration is plotting to insert itself and the federal government into the American elections process. While voting is constitutionally the responsibility of state and local officials, Obama's Homeland Security Secretary, Jeh Johnson, pointed to the alleged threat of cyber attacks to justify the latest proposed usurpation of power. The controversial scheme was floated amid growing national concerns, fueled in part by GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump's warnings of a “rigged” election, that America's electoral system might be vulnerable to major manipulation. Critics and experts, though, warned that the White House scheming may be a first step toward illegally nationalizing the electoral process — with all the dangers that would entail.Homeland Security boss Johnson, a leading luminary behind Obama's illegal amnesty plot, has said repeatedly said in recent weeks that the administration was thinking of issuing a decree declaring elections to be “critical infrastructure” in need of supposed federal oversight and “protection.” “We should carefully consider whether our election system, our election process is critical infrastructure, like the financial sector, like the power grid,” Johnson told reporters in Washington earlier this month. “There's a vital national interest in our electoral process.” In a phone call with state officials, he reiterated those comments, offering “help” with elections.Details about what, exactly, an Obama designation as “critical infrastructure” would mean for elections remain hazy — probably deliberately, with Johnson's DHS also declining to comment on what specifically the scheme would entail. But, ironically, if the plan were to standardize or centralize the elections process, it would make the elections much easier to manipulate at the national level. Instead of clarifying, Johnson simply said that designating elections as “critical infrastructure” would raise “several implications” that would make the election system “very much a part of our focus.” One thing is sure: Such a designation would result in more federal spending and control over the process.White House spokesman Josh Earnest did not add much additional light to the proposed takeover of elections. “I know this is an idea that other members of the president’s national security team have also discussed,” Earnest said, as if the “president's national security team” was all powerful. “The president has confidence in the integrity of our electoral process and everybody else should, too.” Earnest also suggested that the fact that each state has its own systems makes the job for hackers more difficult, because “it's difficult to identify a common vulnerability.” Perhaps by declaring it “critical infrastructure,” Johnson and Obama can change that — if not legally or constitutionally, at least practically.Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and former member of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), blasted the proposed scheme. First of all, there is “no credible threat of a successful cyber attack on our voting and ballot-counting process because of the way our current election system is organized,” said von Spakovsky, who also served at the U.S. Justice Department as an elections expert and manages Election Law Reform Initiative at Heritage. Citing unnamed sources, he added that DHS boss Johnson had admitted as much to state officials.“But designating the nation’s election system as 'critical infrastructure' under a post 9/11 federal statute may be a way for the administration to get Justice Department lawyers, the FBI, and DHS staff into polling places they would otherwise have no legal right to access,” von Spakovsky continued. And that, he said, would “enable them to interfere with election administration procedures around the country.” Despite acknowledging some areas in which security could be improved, von Spakovsky painted a picture of a decentralized system that would be very difficult, if not impossible, for hackers to interfere with in any meaningful way.However, if the Obama administration were to declare elections systems to be “critical infrastructure” under a 2001 statute and a revised “Presidential Policy Directive” issued by Obama in 2013, federal officials would try to insert themselves into state and local elections. “If Jeh Johnson designates our election system as 'critical infrastructure,' then according to this directive, the Justice Department is given the authority to 'investigate, disrupt, prosecute, and otherwise reduce' threats to that infrastructure,” von Spakovsky said. “DHS will 'coordinate the overall Federal effort to promote the security and resilience of' the infrastructure.”The former federal elections official goes on to suggest that designating elections “critical infrastructure” would allow Johnson and the notoriously lawless Obama Justice Department to access any and every election and voting location they consider “threatened.” That would allow the out-of-control Obama administration to “demand changes be made to election and voting systems regardless of the views of local officials,” explained von Spakovsky, noting that Obama's attorney general has already expressed anger over a court ruling banning DOJ operatives from polling places without permission of local officials. “That must be very frustrating to the partisans who inhabit parts of the Justice Department these days and want their staff out there making sure their political friends get elected.”This may be the beginning of a takeover. “The realistic fear is that this is the first step towards nationalizing election administration,” the ex-DOJ official concluded. “Federal officials who have already shown they will not hesitate to use their power to tilt public policy in favor of their own personal political agenda could bring that same bias to decisions that affect the very integrity of our election process.” He also noted that there is a much greater chance of misbehavior surrounding non-citizen voting or absentee ballot fraud than any “hacker” manipulating the system — Russian or otherwise. “But just like in The Wizard of Oz, this administration wants you to pay no attention to that particular man in the corner while it launches its election Trojan horse.”Apparently, state officials have already been pushing back on the Obama administration's proposed takeover of the elections system. There are currently almost 10,000 separate state and local jurisdictions that oversee, manage and administer America's electoral system. While there is some overlap, each state has its own set of procedures, systems, security protocols, and more. That makes national elections much more secure than if they were all controlled from the top down by notoriously corrupt and radical Obama officials, who brag openly about lying to Americans to pursue their agenda.But fears over election integrity are growing. Pointing to hacked DNC e-mails showing shady tricks to get Hillary Clinton the Democrat nomination at the expense of Senator Bernie Sanders — scandals that led to Democrat boss Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's resignation — Trump suggested similar tactics might be used in the general election. “I’m afraid the election is going to be rigged, I have to be honest,” Trump said at a rally in Ohio. He echoed those comments later in interviews with the media. “I wouldn’t be surprised if the election ... there’s a lot of dirty pool played at the election, meaning the election is rigged,” Trump said. “I would not be surprised.”To deal with the possibility, Trump is taking pro-active measures to ensure the integrity of the election. Among other efforts, the campaign is working to recruit a nationwide team of elections monitors to help “stop Crooked Hillary from rigging this election,” his website says. “They will help ensure lawful voters can vote,” said a spokesman for the Trump campaign. “What we’re advocating are open, fair and honest elections.” The GOP itself is also reportedly working on a nationwide effort to stop voter fraud by placing hundreds of observers at polling places.After Trump argued that the election could be rigged, an apparently outraged Obama hit back, calling the comments “ridiculous” and “conspiracy theories.” “Of course the elections will not be rigged. What does that mean?” Obama asked, suggesting a rigged election was impossible because local and state governments oversee elections, rather than the federal government. “If Mr. Trump is suggesting that there is a conspiracy theory that is being propagated across the country — including in places like Texas, where typically it’s not Democrats who are in charge of voting booths — that’s ridiculous, that doesn’t make any sense, and I don’t think anyone should take that seriously.”Allowing the Obama administration and the federal government to usurp control of America's elections under the guise of protecting “critical infrastructure” is a terrible idea on every level. First of all, it is unconstitutional. Elections are a state and local responsibility that was never delegated to the feds. Secondly, centralized control is almost always a recipe for disaster — especially as it relates to elections. Where there are genuine concerns about election integrity, those can and should be dealt with at the state and local level. Americans and their elected representatives must demand that the White House be kept out of the nation's elections.Related articles:
