Connect with us

Politics

Why Kanye West Could Face an Election Fraud Investigation

Published

on

  • Kanye West could be subject to an election fraud investigation because of issues with petitions he submitted to get on the ballot in three states.
  • In New Jersey and Illinois, West has been accused of collecting hundreds of invalid signatures.
  • West removed himself from the race in New Jersey over the matter, and Illinois’ Election Board is expected to remove him from the ballot because of the nearly 2,000 invalid signatures he sent in.
  • In Wisconsin, the Democratic Party filed a complaint accusing West’s campaign of turning in petitions with fake signatures. It even included testimonies from multiple people who accused his campaign of tricking people into signing his petition.

West Withdraws Election Petition in New Jersey

Since announcing his run for president in July, Kanye West’s campaign has been an uphill climb. Now, the rapper and his team could be facing the possibility of an election fraud investigation.

At the end of last month, West’s campaign filed a petition to appear on the presidential ticket in New Jersey. However, a few days after that paperwork was sent in, a lawyer found that over 700 of the 1,327 signatures West collected had multiple issues. Those issues included having no last names listed, including people who were not registered to vote in New Jersey, and including people who did not even live in the state at all.

Last Monday, just hours before a scheduled hearing to determine the validity of his petition, West’s team withdrew the application. 

“At this time, Kanye 2020 has no further option than to regrettably withdraw from New Jersey and cease further efforts to place Mr. West’s name on the New Jersey ballot,” his campaign wrote in an email to the judge overseeing the matter.

Issues in Illinois

On Friday, an election board in Illinois ruled that 60%— or nearly 2,000 of the 3,218 signatures West collected— were invalid. The decision was handed down after it was reported that three different whistleblowers asked the state to take a closer look at the end of last month.

If the findings of the board hold up, West will fall 1,300 signatures short of the 2,500 he needs to be able to appear on the ballot in his home state. However, the board’s ruling is just preliminary, and their findings still have to go to a hearing examiner, who will make a recommendation as to whether or not West should stay on that ballot.

After that, the Illinois State Board of Elections will vote on the recommendation, which they are expected to do late next week. 

According to reports, the election board’s preliminary decisions historically have had a lot of weight on the hearing examiner’s recommendation. Ed Mullen, one of the lawyers who challenged West’s petition, said the determination means that West “is virtually certain to be kicked off the ballot.”

Both this ruling in Illinois and the New Jersey incident have prompted experts to speculate that West and his campaign could be subject to an election fraud investigation.

“Two states declaring #KanyeWest inelligible to be on #POTUS ballot due to faulty signatures could open him up to an #ElectionFraud investigation,” political analyst April Ryan said in a tweet. “I would imagine other states where reported GOP operatives assisted him to get on the ballot will soon be reviewing. #Election2020”

Complaints in Wisconsin 

However, that’s not where this story ends. The same day that the state board in Illinois announced the results of their review, the Wisconsin state Democratic Party filed a complaint asking state officials to keep West off the ballot.

In their complaint, they allege that West’s campaign was late in submitting their paperwork and that there were numerous issues with those filings, including problems with signatures he collected.

According to reports, the complaint claims that the papers he filed included incorrect addresses for the people who circulated it, and that the petitions contained bogus signatures like “Mickey Mouse,” “Bernie Sanders,” and even two for “Kanye West.”

Very notably, the complaint also included affidavits from six people who say they were tricked into signing West’s petition. One of those affidavits was from a woman who said she unknowingly signed his papers outside a Walmart when one of West’s circulators told her signature was needed to ensure she was registered to vote in the general election.

“If I had known that, I wouldn’t have signed the papers, absolutely not,” she said in her affidavit. “Kanye West would not get my vote and I think it is a joke that he is running for president.”

Duping people into signing a petition is a serious allegation. “If the affidavits are true … crimes were committed by the West campaign,” the lawyer who collected those affidavits for the Democratic Party told reporters.

In this case, it appears that West’s team is pushing back. On Monday, his campaign filed a counter-complaint, where they alleged that the state Democratic Party filed their complaint because they “fear the candidacy of Kanye West and seek to silence him.”

The complaint also accused the Party engaged in an “organized effort of harassment and intimidation” against his candidacy and claimed they hired a private investigator to “track and spy” on his signature gatherers.

Now, the complaints will be reviewed by an Elections Commission panel is made up of three Democrats and three Republicans, who will then make a recommendation regarding West’s filings and if he should be on the ballot.

While these incidents may open West up to legal issues, it is already mathematically impossible for him to win. So far, West has only filed petitions to appear on the presidential ticket in 10 states.

While he was able to get on the ballot in Oklahoma, he also withdrew his filings to appear on the ticket in New Jersey. Now, regardless of if he makes it on the ballot in Illinois or Wisconsin, he already will be on enough ballots to yield get 270 electoral votes.

See what others are saying: (Vanity Fair) (Mic) (Milwaulkee Journal Sentinel)

Politics

Biden Calls on Congress To Extend Eviction Moratorium

Published

on

The move comes just two days before the federal ban is set to expire.


Eviction Freeze Set To Expire

President Joe Biden asked Congress on Thursday to extend the federal eviction moratorium for another month just two days before the ban was set to expire.

The request follows a Supreme Court decision last month, where the justices ruled the evictions freeze could stay in place until it expired on July 31. That decision was made after a group of landlords sued, arguing that the moratorium was illegal under the public health law the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had relied on to implement it.

While the court did not provide reasons for its ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued a short concurring opinion explaining that although he thought the CDC “exceeded its existing statutory authority,” he voted not to end the program because it was already set to expire in a month.

In a statement Thursday, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki cited the Supreme Court decision, as well as the recent surge in COVID cases, as reasons for the decision to call on Congress. 

“Given the recent spread of the delta variant, including among those Americans both most likely to face evictions and lacking vaccinations, President Biden would have strongly supported a decision by the CDC to further extend this eviction moratorium to protect renters at this moment of heightened vulnerability,” she said. 

“Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has made clear that this option is no longer available.”

Delays in Relief Distribution 

The move comes as the administration has struggled to distribute the nearly $47 billion in rental relief funds approved as part of two coronavirus relief packages passed in December and March, respectively.

Nearly seven months after the first round of funding was approved, the Treasury Department has only allocated $3 billion of the reserves, and just 600,000 tenants have been helped under the program.

A total of 7.4 million households are behind on rent according to the most recent data from the Census Bureau. An estimated 3.6 million of those households could face eviction in the next two months if the moratorium expires. 

The distribution problems largely stem from the fact that many states and cities tasked with allocating the fund had no infrastructure to do so, causing the aid to be held up by delays, confusion, and red tape. 

Some states opened portals that were immediately overwhelmed, prompting them to close off applications, while others have faced technical glitches.

According to The Washington Post, just 36 out of more than 400 states, counties, and cities that reported data to the Treasury Department were able to spend even half of the money allotted them by the end of June. Another 49 —  including New York — had not spent any funds at all.

Slim Chances in Congress

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) urged her colleagues to approve an extension for the freeze Thursday night, calling it “a moral imperative” and arguing that “families must not pay the price” for the slow distribution of aid.

However, Biden’s last-minute call for Congress to act before members leave for their August recess is all but ensured to fail.

While the House Rules Committee took up a measure Thursday night that would extend the moratorium until the end of this year, the only way it could pass in the Senate would be through a procedure called unanimous consent, which can be blocked by a single dissenting vote.

Some Senate Republicans have already rejected the idea.

“There’s no way I’m going to support this. It was a bad idea in the first place,” Senator Patrick Toomey (R-Pa.) told reporters. “Owners have the right to action. They need to have recourse for the nonpayment of rent.”

With the hands of the CDC tied and Congressional action seemingly impossible, the U.S. could be facing an unprecedented evictions crisis Saturday, even though millions of Americans who will now risk losing their homes should have already received rental assistance to avert this exact situation.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (The Associated Press)

Continue Reading

Politics

Mississippi Asks Supreme Court To Overturn Roe v. Wade

Published

on

The Supreme Court’s decision to consider Mississippi’s restrictive abortion ban already has sweeping implications for the precedents set under the landmark reproductive rights ruling, but now the state is asking the high court to go even further.


Mississippi’s Abortion Case

Mississippi filed a brief Thursday asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade when it hears the state’s 15-week abortion ban this fall.

After months of deliberation, the high court agreed in May to hear what will be the first abortion case the 6-to-3 conservative majority will decide.

Both a district judge and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit had ruled that Mississippi could not enforce the 2018 law that banned nearly all abortions at 15 weeks with exceptions for only “severe fetal abnormality,” but not rape and incest.

If the Supreme Court upholds the Mississippi law, it would undo decades of precedent set under Roe in 1973 and upheld under Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, where the court respectively ruled and reaffirmed that states could not ban abortion before the fetus is “viable” and can live outside the womb, which is generally around 24 to 28 weeks.

When the justices decided to hear the case, they said they would specifically examine the question of whether “all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.”

Depending on the scope of their decision on the Mississippi law, the court’s ruling could allow other states to pass much more restrictive abortion bans without the risk of lower courts striking down those laws.

As a result, legal experts have said the case will represent the most significant ruling on reproductive rights since Casey nearly three decades ago, and the Thursday brief raises the stakes even more.

When Mississippi asked the justices to take up its case last June, the state’s attorney general, Lynn Fitch (R), explicitly stated that the petition’s questions “do not require the Court to overturn Roe or Casey.”

But that was before the court’s conservatives solidified their supermajority with the appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett — who personally opposes abortion — following the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

New Filing Takes Aim at Roe

With the new filing, it appears that Fitch views the high court’s altered makeup as an opportunity to undermine the constitutional framework that has been in place for the better part of the last century.

“The Constitution’s text says nothing about abortion,” Fitch wrote in the brief, arguing that American society has changed so much that the previous rulings need to be reheard.

“Today, adoption is accessible and on a wide scale women attain both professional success and a rich family life, contraceptives are more available and effective, and scientific advances show that an unborn child has taken on the human form and features months before viability,” she added, claiming the power should be left to state lawmakers. 

“Roe and Casey shackle states to a view of the facts that is decades out of date,” she continued. “The national fever on abortion can break only when this Court returns abortion policy to the states.”

The Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents Mississippi’s sole abortion provider in the suit against the state’s law, painted Fitch’s effort as one that will have a chilling effect on abortion rights nationwide.

“Mississippi has stunningly asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe and every other abortion rights decision in the last five decades,” Nancy Northup, the president and CEO of the group said in a statement Thursday. “Today’s brief reveals the extreme and regressive strategy, not just of this law, but of the avalanche of abortion bans and restrictions that are being passed across the country.”

The Supreme Court has not yet said exactly when during its fall term it will hear oral arguments on the Mississippi case, but a decision is expected to come down by next June or July, as is standard.

An anticipated ruling just months before the 2022 midterms will almost certainly position abortion as a top issue at the ballot box.

See what others are saying:  (The New York Times) (The Washington Post) (Politico)

Continue Reading

Politics

Republicans Boycott Jan. 6 Committee After Pelosi Rejects Two of McCarthy’s Picks

Published

on

The House Minority Leader said that unless House Speaker Pelosi reinstated the two members, Republicans will launch their own investigation into the insurrection.


Pelosi Vetoes Republicans

Republicans are boycotting the select committee to investigate the insurrection after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) rejected two of the five GOP members Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Ca.) picked to serve on the panel Wednesday.

In a statement, Pelosi cited the “statements and actions” of Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Oh.) and Jim Banks (R-In.), whose nominations she said she was opposing “with respect for the integrity of the investigation.”

Jordan and Banks — both staunch allies of former President Donald Trump — have helped propagate the previous leader’s false election claims, opposed efforts to investigate the insurrection, and voted not to certify the election for President Joe Biden. 

A senior Democratic aide also specifically told The Washington Post that Democrats did not want Jordan on the panel because he reportedly helped Trump strategized how to overturn the election and due to the fact he spoke to the then-president on Jan. 6, meaning there is a possibility he could be called to testify before the very same committee.

The aide also said that Democrats opposed Banks’ selection because of a statement he issued after McCarthy chose him.

In the statement, the representative compared the insurrection to the racial justice protests last summer, implied that the rioters were just normal American’s expressing their political views, and claimed the committee was a political ploy “to justify the Left’s authoritarian agenda.”

Notably, Pelosi did say she would accept McCarthy’s three other nominees — including Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Wi.), who also voted against certifying Biden’s win.

McCarthy Threatens Separate Investigation

McCarthy, however, refused to select new members, and instead opted to remove all his appointees from the would-be bipartisan committee.

In a statement condemning the move, the minority leader said that Pelosi’s action “represents an egregious abuse of power.” 

“Denying the voices of members who have served in the military and law enforcement, as well as leaders of standing committees, has made it undeniable that this panel has lost all legitimacy and credibility and shows the Speaker is more interested in playing politics than seeking the truth,” he said.

“Unless Speaker Pelosi reverses course and seats all five Republican nominees, Republicans will not be party to their sham process and will instead pursue our own investigation of the facts.”

Pelosi defended her decision during a press conference Thursday, where she said that Banks and Jordan were “ridiculous” choices for the panel. 

“When statements are ridiculous and fall into the realm of, ‘You must be kidding,’ there’s no way that they’re going to be on the committee,” she added.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (CNBC)

Continue Reading