—
That Draft Executive Order that would have seized Voting Machines across the nation, was based on claims of “probable cause” of massive “international and foreign interference in the November 4, 2020, election” — based on the flimsiest of unfounded evidence.
First the hyperbolic claims that Mr Orange nearly put into effect … with the full backing of his Executive Office:
— —
December 16, 2020
PRESIDENTIAL FINDINGS
TO PRESERVE COLLECT AND ANALYZE NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
REGARDING THE 2020 GENERAL ELECTION
[...]
I, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, find that the forensic report of the Antrim County, Michigan voting machines, released December 14, 2020, and other evidence submitted to me in support of this order, provide probable cause sufficient to require action under the authorities cited above because of evidence of international and foreign interference in the November 4, 2020, election. Dominion Voting Systems and related companies are owned or heavily controlled and influenced by foreign agents, countries, and interests. [...] The report found the election management system to be wrought with unacceptable and unlawful vulnerabilities — including access to the internet — probable cause to find evidence of fraud, and numerous malicious actions.
There is also probable cause to find that Dominion Voting Systems, Smartmatic, Electronic Systems & Software, and Hart Inter Civic, Clarity Election Night Reporting, Edison Research, Sequoia, Scytl, and similar or related entities, agents or assigns, have the same flaws and were subject to foreign interference in the 2020 election in the United States. There is probable cause to find these systems bear the same crucial code "features" and defects that allowed the same outside and foreign interference in our election, in which there is probable cause to find votes were in fact altered and manipulated contrary to the will of the voters.
[...] Multiple expert witnesses and cyber experts identified acts of foreign interference in the election prior to November 4, 2020 and continued in the following weeks. In fact, there is probable cause to find a massive cyber-attack by foreign interests on our crucial national infrastructure surrounding our election [...]
[Emphasis added]
What is probable cause? It is the principle enshrined in the Constitution — originally designed to prevent a King and his henchmen, from imprisoning his detractors, without significant evidence that crimes had been committed. Evidence is required — suspicions, hunches, or a grudges are not enough to warrant arrest or seizure of any citizen of America ...
[...]
What is probable cause? Probable cause is defined as a reasonable belief that an individual has, is, or will commit a crime. This belief must be based on facts, not a hunch or suspicion. To determine if there was probable cause, the court must find that a person with reasonable intelligence would believe that a crime was being committed under the same circumstances. Probable cause requires stronger evidence than reasonable suspicion.
In order to obtain a search or arrest warrant, a law enforcement agent must prove probable cause to a judge or magistrate. If a search or arrest is made without a warrant, the officer must prove that there was probable cause. Any evidence obtained without probable cause may be suppressed in court.
There are four categories into which evidence may fall in establishing probable cause. These include observational, circumstantial, expertise, and information:
- Observational evidence is based on what the officer sees, smells, or hears. If an officer observes a suspicious person looking into car windows and carrying a baseball bat late at night, it would fall into this category.
- Circumstantial evidence is an accumulation of facts that, when looked at together implies, that a crime has been committed. This is not direct evidence.
- An officer may use his or her expertise in order to gather evidence. An example of this is an officer who can read gang graffiti to conclude that a criminal activity has occurred.
- Evidence may also be obtained through information, such as hearing a call on a police radio or receiving information from a confidential informant.
[...] [Emphasis added]
www.searchandseizure.org
—
And what was their evidence provided of all their “probable cause” accusations:
The only footnote provided in that Draft E.O. to back up the many citations of “probable cause” of crimes so significant — that all Voting Machines must be seized — was this:
November 4, 2020, federal Judge Totenberg — FOOTNOTE 1: Case 1:17-cv-023T5T-AT Document T64 Filed 10/11/20 Page 146 of 147.
The Draft Executive Order selectively cited some “future warnings about possible touchscreen problems” by Judge Totenberg, and extrapolated them to apply to All Voting Machines, asserting they were all subjected to foreign interference on a shadowy “no trace” basis. Thus the desperate need for the supposed “national security emergency” … for ‘Marshall Law on Democracy’.
It is not an oversimplification to say, that the evidentiary threshold of “probably cause” was simply NOT met by their hysterical extrapolations of a nationwide Voting Machine foreign interference crisis — based on isolated cases of a technical glitch rollout, that were subsequently fixed.
— —
Here is a news report on that Georgia Footnote Case, involving Dominion Voting Machines and their reported touch screen problems:
by Kate Brumback, AP News — October 11, 2020
ATLANTA (AP) — A federal judge on Sunday expressed serious concerns about Georgia’s new election system but declined to order the state to abandon its touchscreen voting machines in favor of hand-marked paper ballots for the November election.
The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by voting integrity activists that challenges the election system the state bought last year from Dominion Voting Systems for more than $100 million. The activists argued that the system places an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote because voters cannot be confident their vote is accurately counted.
State officials argued that Georgia has significantly updated and secured its election infrastructure in recent years, and that the new machines have been thoroughly tested and that security measures will prevent problems. They also said last-minute changes would be extremely costly and difficult to implement in time.
In-person early voting begins Monday and Election Day is just over three weeks away.
The new election system uses touchscreen voting machines — known as ballot-marking devices or BMDs — to print a paper ballot with a barcode that is read by a scanner. The activists’ challenge “presents serious system security vulnerability and operational issues that may place Plaintiffs and other voters at risk of deprivation of their fundamental right to cast an effective vote that is accurately counted,” U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg wrote in a 147-page order issued Sunday night.
“The Court’s Order has delved deep into the true risks posed by the new BMD voting system as well as its manner of implementation,” Totenberg wrote. “These risks are neither hypothetical nor remote under the current circumstances.”
The activists have shown that equipment and voter registration database problems during pilot elections last year and this year’s June primary and August runoff elections “caused severe breakdowns at the polls, severely burdening voters’ exercise of the franchise.”
But the judge noted that U.S. Supreme Court precedent recognizes states’ “authority and power to regulate their elections and the voting process itself” and acknowledged that the high court has repeatedly said in recent months that lower courts must use great restraint in ordering any substantial changes so close to an election.
“Implementation of such a sudden systemic change under these circumstances cannot but cause voter confusion and some real measure of electoral disruption,” she wrote.
For those reasons, Totenberg wrote, she must deny the activists’ request for an immediate replacement of the new voting system with one that uses hand-marked paper ballots. But she wa[n]red that “the vital issues identified in this case will not disappear or be appropriately addressed without focused State attention, resources, ongoing serious evaluation by independent cybersecurity experts, and open-mindedness.”
[...] [Emphasis added]
It is highly improbable that nationwide voter fraud has been committed on any significant scale.
NO “probable evidence” has yet been provided to back-up their on-going Big Lie pretense and “Election theft” claims.
It IS highly likely that if nothing is done by the Justice Dept to bring to justice, those who conspired to block the peaceful transfer of power, based solely on lies and unfounded accusations — that the lawbreakers will continue their attacks on democracy, unimpeded, undeterred.
The damage they have already done to the concept of “free and fair Elections” is incalculable — and will likely take a generation to repair.
And it was all based on intentional lies, and a rampant abuse of power, that for some odd reason a fearful and distrustful populace entrusted them with, some 5 years ago. If that distrust continues, they will do so again.
—
As the Washington Post captures in their mission statement slogan:
"Democracy Dies in Darkness"
Is it too much of a stretch to think, that the Rule of Law will … too?
— —
Unproven claims like these are polar opposites to the Oath of Office public officials are sworn to uphold.