BREAKING: Wasserman Schultz Denies Role in Ballot Destruction

by Tim Canova

According to POLITICO, Wasserman Schultz’s possible role in the scandal was suggested when the lawyer for the Broward County Supervisor of Elections offered to supply the court with a sworn affidavit from Wasserman Schultz opposing the lawsuit we brought to inspect the ballots. Incredibly, the Supervisor’s offer was made more than two months after the Supervisor had already destroyed the ballots — during which time the Supervisor continued to conceal the ballot destruction from both us and the court.

In destroying the ballots, the Supervisor violated federal and state law, destroyed evidence in an ongoing lawsuit, and concealed all this wrongdoing for months. With the original ballots destroyed, a criminal investigation may be the only way to get to the truth about this election. We contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation to report these federal crimes, but the FBI has yet to return our calls, even after the Supervisor admitted to her illegal conduct in a videotaped deposition!

Should we believe Wasserman Schultz’s denials of any role in the decision to destroy the ballots? Sadly, there’s no reason to believe her. Let’s not forget that Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign in disgrace as head of the Democratic National Committee for violating the DNC’s own rules for fairness and impartiality in the presidential nomination process — violations that she continually lied about!

To remain silent about all the election frauds that happened in the 2016 primaries only serves to normalize election frauds on an ongoing basis. That’s why we’re demanding a federal criminal investigation of the illegal destruction of our ballots and the immediate suspension of the Broward Supervisor of Elections.

Thank you for all your help and for supporting our efforts for election integrity.

It was our lawsuit against the Supervisor of Elections that first revealed the illegal ballot destruction. Now we need your help to continue with our investigation into this scandal. Please donate what you can and help us reveal the extent of the wrongdoing, including any possible role played by Debbie Wasserman Schultz! Your donations, when combined with thousands of other small donations, are making a huge difference in our efforts to reveal the truth about all this corruption.

CLICK HERE TO DONATE

Who’s the Real “Spoiler” in Our Race Against Wasserman Schultz?

By Tim Canova 

In early April, I announced I was running as a No Party Affiliation (NPA) candidate — an independent — on the ballot this November against Debbie Wasserman Schultz and a yet-to-be-determined Republican candidate.

Almost immediately, the Schultz team started a whispering campaign that I was now a “spoiler” — that by running “third-party” (which I’m not), I would help elect the Republican. They whisper it will be just like when Ralph Nader supposedly helped elect George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000.

This “spoiler” attack is revealing. First, there’s no chance of a Republican winning in a three-way race in this particular district which was specially gerrymandered for Schultz. And second, it shows how worried the Schultz camp is that they can’t possibly win in a three-way race at a time when NPAs almost outnumber Democrats in our district.

Florida’s 23rd Congressional District was gerrymandered for Schultz and it’s been a safe Democratic seat — that is, up until now. But the population has been changing here, as reflected in the demographics of registered voters in the district: 25% Republican, 35% indie, and 40% Democrat.

In 2000, when Bush beat Gore, there was about a one percentage point difference between Democrats and Republicans. In Florida’s 23rd, Republicans are 15 percentage points behind Democrats and 10 percentage points behind NPAs. It’s hard to imagine a Republican taking second in a three-way race in this district, let alone ever winning.

That means Democrats can feel free to vote their conscience, vote for change, and vote against an unpopular incumbent. Among every part of the electorate, including among Democrats, voters agree that the status quo has got to go.

Even while running as an indie, we are maintaining strong support among grassroots Democrats. It’s the party leadership we oppose, the ones who have lost touch with the people. We intend to win among grassroots Democratic voters. And that’s because they know I’m the real “New Deal” Democrat in the race and Schultz is now the embodiment of a corporate-owned Democrat.

In addition, a great many Democrats, including in Florida, will always see Debbie Wasserman Schultz as the real “spoiler” — spoiling the Democratic Party and our democracy.

There’s another big difference between Nader’s 2000 campaign and ours. Nader was running as a Green at a time when only a few percent of the population identified as Green. And while I strongly support the Green agenda and I have the support of many Greens, I’m running as an indie at a time when nearly a plurality of my district now identifies as independent.

And here’s the really great news for us: among Millennials, Gen Xers, and younger voters, about 71% are now indie, and they are the most progressive and fastest growing part of the electorate!

The Schultz camp should worry that they can’t win a 3-way race!

I have one last beef with Schultz’s whispering campaign against me as a Nader-like spoiler. It’s very premise is factually incorrect. In 2000, for every one of the 24,000 Democrats who defected to vote for Ralph Nader in Florida, about 12 times as many Democrats (308,000) voted for Bush. Exit polls in Florida showed that if Nader had not run, Bush would have won the state by even more!

After the 2016 election fiasco — with Hillary Clinton losing to Donald Trump after referring to everyone even thinking of voting for him as “deplorables” — Democrats should have learned to stop shaming and blaming the voters. But vote shaming is what this “spoiler” argument is all about and it’s a losing argument. The present political divide is no longer just Republicans versus Democrats. For most of us, it’s insiders versus outsiders, and corruption versus integrity.

I’m not afraid of a three-way race, I’m not afraid of debates, and I’m not afraid of Schultz and the corrupt machine she serves. We have the people on our side, and that’s because we are of, by, and for the people.

Keep the faith and thank you for all your support!

CLICK HERE TO DONATE

LEGISLATION: Bill To Ensure Election Integrity

By Morgan Chalfant | The Hill | June 12, 2018

A group of Democratic senators is introducing a bill aimed at securing U.S. elections from hacking efforts, the latest response to attempted Russian interference in the 2016 presidential vote.

The bill introduced Tuesday is specifically designed to ensure the integrity of and bolster confidence in the federal vote count.

It would require state and local governments to take two steps to ensure that votes are counted correctly. Under the legislation, states would have to use voting systems that use voter-verified paper ballots that could be audited in the event a result is called into question.

State and local officials would also be required to implement what are known as “risk-limiting audits” — a method that verifies election outcomes by comparing a random sample of paper ballots with their corresponding digital versions — for all federal elections.

Both steps have been endorsed by cybersecurity professionals as a way to ensure confidence in the vote count. Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen has also recommended that states transition to voting systems that generate paper backups that can be audited.

“Congress must act immediately to protect our democracy from cyberattacks. Any failure to secure our elections amounts to disenfranchising American voters,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the lead sponsor of the bill, said in a statement.

“For Americans to have confidence that their votes count, and that election results are free and fair, there absolutely have to be paper ballots and mandatory audits for each and every federal election,” Wyden said.

Currently, five states use paperless voting machines that do not produce a paper backup, and many more have mixed voting infrastructure with some localities using paperless systems. Twenty-two states do not legally require post-election audits.

Revelations of Russian meddling have triggered fears about the possibility of future interference efforts that could cast doubt on the outcome of U.S. elections.

The Department of Homeland Security revealed last year that Russian hackers targeted election-related digital systems, such as voter registration databases and websites, in 21 states as part of a broader plot to interfere in the 2016 vote. In a small number of cases, hackers succeeded in breaking into systems.

Officials maintain that none of the targeted systems were involved in actual vote counting, and that there is no evidence any votes were changed.

Some security experts say it would be difficult to wage a hacking campaign against voting machines, which are not connected to the internet and are typically stored in secure facilities. Experts say it’s unlikely that hackers could actually have a material impact on the vote. Others, however, are more skeptical of the security of voting systems.

“Why would we give foreign adversaries the opportunity to hack into our voting systems when we have better, more secure alternatives?” Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), one of the bill’s sponsors, said Tuesday. He added that the legislation represents a “critical step toward protecting one of our nation’s most precious assets: the integrity of our democracy.”

There have been other attempts in Congress to address election security at the state level. A bipartisan group of senators is currently trying to attach election security legislation to a must-pass defense policy bill moving through the upper chamber.

And Congress already sent $380 million to states to upgrade old voting equipment and shore up cybersecurity as part of a massive funding package approved in March.

The bill introduced Tuesday is sponsored by Sens. Wyden, Merkley, Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).