No wonder the main stream media hid these statements – Senators Lankford & Paul

Considering the bolstering effect of the words of the following senators, it is no wonder that the main stream media has hidden the research, suggestions, and leadership contained herein.

From the establishment wing of the GOP, Senator Lankford lays out the numbers on Nevada’s election fraud

Speaker	Testimony
Lankford	In December 2016, there was a poll that was done on if the American people believe that the Russians interfered in and changed our elections. At that time, 32% of the people believed that the Russians had influenced the outcome of the election in December of 2016. Based on that belief and what was going on, there was launched a whole series of hearings. Certainly the Russians were trying to interfere in our elections, but we spent millions and millions of dollars investigating it, going through it, ramping up entities like CISA (and others) to be able to go engage to be able to make sure we protect our next election. Senator Klobuchar and I worked for years on election security legislation and worked to be able to get that implemented. We did six different public hearings on Russian interference (just on that one topic) to make sure that we were paying attention to it — when it all started with 32% of Americans in December of 2016 believing the Russians at interfere in our election. A few days ago another poll asked the question: “Do you believe that was election voter fraud in a presidential election between Joe Biden and Donald Trump?” This December, 46% of the voters in America have said “Yes” and 45% said “No.” Interestingly enough, Trump voters say there was fraud 80%. Biden voters also said 16% that they believed that there was voter fraud. The reason I bring that up is we watched what happened in 2016 and what the American people thought and saw and so we engaged with hearings. We looked at the issues and determined to do things need to change. Much of the work that’s gone on the last several years to be able to get paper ballots into states happened because this Congress engaged on this issue where we saw an obvious problem. And so we distributed federal dollars, assistance, and a constant drumbeat to say these states have got to fix the areas where they don’t have paper ballots and we have the potential for problems. That is the question: is there a potential for a problem. The answer was “Yes, there’s a potential and we ought to fix that.” Now, amazingly, after this election, all kinds of issues have come up and said there are potentials for problem and everyone seems to be saying “move on.” The only reason I can think that that would be different was because the election outcomes seem to be different. And one side is now saying “let’s just move on and ignore this.” In my state on election night, like 27 other states in the country, by that evening, we were counting votes and all absentee ballots had been received. There was much less opportunity for accusations of fraud because all of our ballots were in. Amazingly enough, a week after the election was completed this November Oklahomans were listening to other states saying things like “We don’t know how many more ballots there are left to count.” We had been done for a week — we and 27 other states had been completed for a week. That gives opportunities for fraud and questions and problems. That’s a reasonable question to ask. It’s reasonable to be able to ask “If people can drift around and gather ballots from other people, and do ballot harvesting (and in some states that’s legal), does that provide an opportunity for fraud? I think the obvious answer is “yes.” If you mail a ballot to everyone in the state, even if they didn’t ask for it, does it provide an opportunity for fraud? Especially when the state did not first purge or verify those addresses and they sent thousands of ballots to people that no longer live there. I’ve talked to Nevada residents that received multiple ballots at their home for people that no longer live there. That’s a problem and we should at least admit that’s a problem. And for some reason, the other side was very focused on “We’ve got to fix the potential for problem from 2016,” but in 2020 when there’s potential for problem and things that they’ve been shown everyone seems to say “move along, let’s not discuss this.” There’s a system called the Eric system that’s in place that 30 States cooperate with. It helps them verify people have moved and they’re registered in two different states or if they’ve moved into your state in their registered somewhere else. It helps you then determine if they’re voting in two different states. Only 30 States use that. Other states are not. Even of the 30 states that use it, not all of them are actually using it. They literally are on the system, but they’re not actually purging their roles when they know there are people that have moved out of their states and have been informed of that. Just this last year in the Eric system, they identified 91,000 people that are registered voters that are dead. 91,000 that that one system had recognized. There are problems in the system and in this conversation that I’ve had with so many people and I’ve said “Is that a problem that people are voting in two states?” “Is it a problem that people are voting at their dead?” And this is what I hear over and over again: “This has been going on for years.” “So why don’t we fix it?” should be the next statement instead. The statement seems to be “Well, let’s just move along.” Mr. Bernal, 42,000 people in Nevada voted more than once 1,500 people voted in Nevada that were dead 19,000 people voted though they did not live in Nevada and they weren’t a college student 8,000 people voted from a non-existent address 15,000 people voted though they were registered to a commercial address or a vacant address 4,000 people voted in Nevada that are non-citizens My question to you is in my state when someone votes twice (and we do have that occasionally [about 50 times a year that that actually occurs in our state]), we prosecute individuals that vote twice. This 130,000 instances that you have identified from the 2020 election in Nevada. do you know of any prosecutions currently going on in Nevada for a new voter fraud?
Bernal	Not yet Senator, and that’s extremely important. This has to be … these laws have to be enforced. We, of course … I represent the Trump campaign and the campaign’s electors. I don’t represent the government. We can’t bring prosecutions. But if we are going to enforce voter integrity laws, they must be enforced. And we are confident that although it often takes a long time to put together a fraud case, … Although it takes prosecutors months, sometimes even years, to go through subpoenas and warrants and using the the FBI to go investigate these things. Once a good hard look at these cases is examined and honest look, if we do that, there should be charges brought because (as the ranking member brought up in his remarks) that when you lose the the principle of one person one vote — the end result is as authoritarianism.
Lankford	Judge Star you’ve raised twice this issue about Pennsylvania and if the laws of Pennsylvania were changed. In Oklahoma, we did State bill 210 and state Bill 1779 because we saw with the pandemic there were going to be problems. So our legislature came into session, made a change to be able to adjust for how we were going to do early ballots in early voting. So because we knew that was the law that need to be followed was that done? Was that done in Pennsylvania and does it matter who sets the rules for elections?
Starr	No, it was not done. Unfortunately in Pennsylvania, the governor sought to change the law the general assembly Pennsylvania had met were reviewed and made very specific changes. And then the Pennsylvania Supreme Court building what the governor had done made additional changes and those in my judgment will complete violations of the United States Constitution and flagged as such Touch on the narrowly by Justice Samuel Alito. So of the Oklahoma Legislature did it the right way to store. Thank you very much senator

Senator Paul questions Judge Starr on irregularities in Pennsylvania

Speaker	Testimony
Paul	Judge Starr, it’s been alleged that 60 courts have refused to hear these cases; therefore, there was no fraud in the election. I guess another way of looking at this is that the court cases have been refused for procedural and technical reasons. When you see the 60 court cases rejected, do you think that’s a conclusion by our court system that there is no fraud or do you think that the court cases were primarily rejected for procedural reasons?
Starr	Senator Paul, it is my understanding that the vast majority of these cases were rejected for (rightly stated) procedural reasons (as opposed to a merits-based or substantive-based evaluations). And of course, we saw that very recently and I think most dramatically by the Supreme Court’s unanimous rejection of the bill of complaint filed by the Texas Attorney General on my home state here. And the entirety of the decision was based upon the legal concept of standing. You just don’t (Texas) have standing to object to what happened in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania or whatever and that is a reasonable ruling. There are those who would quarrel with it and that we are a United States of America. And if something bad happens in one state that ends up having an effect on another state, we have such respect for our state’s as sovereign entities within our Union. That is the argument is I think quite reasonable and I think others think it’s quite reasonable that at least matters should have been heard under the original jurisdiction. I think that’s a key example.
Paul	Yeah, and I think it’s important though that we look at this and understand what courts are saying and not saying.The courts have not said there wasn’t fraud the courts just simply didn’t rule on or hear from the fraud. I do think there’s an important issue here though. The fraud is one aspect of this and I think courts have historically been reticent to get involved in elections and to look at fraud, But moving forward, we’ve got to change the rules or re-evaluate our state rules in order that this doesn’t happen again. We can’t just sit by and say we’re going to let it happen again. There is another important aspect to this though. That is a legal aspect that I think does need to be heard by the courts. And I don’t know if it can be heard beyond the election, but I think should. This is the question of whether or not people who are non-legislators can change the election law. This happened in many, many states. Probably two dozen states decided to accept ballots after the election. Two dozen states decided they could accept mail-in applications or mail out ballots all without the will of the legislature. Do you think there’s any hope for any of this being heard, Judge Starr, outside of the concept of changing the election? Is there any possibility any course going to ever hear this and say that it was wrong that secretaries of State change the law in the middle of this pandemic without the approval of the legislature or do you think there’s no hope because it’s mixed up in electoral politics, Judge Starr?
Starr	I think there is a possibility, because this issue may return in light of the use this unprecedented use of mail and balance and the concern that is a bipartisan concern. Again, the Carter Baker commission, that we need to look at these issues. And so I think there is a doctrine, Senator Paul, to essentially say this issue may recur again, so it should not be washed out as being moot, because there’s a very important principle here as I made in my opening statement and my written statement. The Constitution is very clear that it is the prerogative of state legislatures to determine what these rules and laws are. And that was I must say flagrantly violated in Pennsylvania and perhaps elsewhere as well.
Paul	Yes. I think the legal question there is a very easy one to decide I think even as a physician I can figure out that the Secretary of State cannot create law. I do think though that many of us who wanted this to be heard by the Supreme Court and are disappointed. Actually also might be disappointed by the precedent of Bush versus Gore and the sense that I think Bush versus Gore is precedent is shutting down elections that have been certified. They weren’t going to continue to count the hanging chads. The Secretary of State and certified and so I actually think that the Bush versus Gore precedent actually argues against the Supreme Court overturning certified elections. Do you have an opinion on that?
Starr	I don’t have an opinion on that specifically. I think that Bush V Gore stands for this basic proposition: You cannot have changes in election laws after the fact. You must in fact be faithful to what the state legislature has done. That’s also what Justice Alito said in his opinion. I think essentially condemning but certainly identifying as a huge issue what had happened in Pennsylvania. So I think all in all Bush V Gore is just a reiteration of our constitutional structure.
Paul	Thank you. Mr. Chairman as we go on with this. I think it’s important that we not stop here. A lot of the laws that have to be confirmed and I think reaffirmed our state laws. So it’s not in our purview but the state laws are set and then we have Federal elections. So what we’ve heard about what happened in Wisconsin, what happened in Nevada, I think is absolutely true. We have to prevent it from happening again. I think state legislatures legislators will need to reaffirm that election law can only be changed by a state legislature. So I think there’s a lot of work to be done while we will not dictate it to the states. I think we should have hearings going into the next year hearing from state legislatures. And what they’re going to do to make sure election law is upheld not changed by people who are not legislators and I we do have an interest in that I don’t want it to be federalized many on the other side of the aisle would just send federalize it and mail everybody a ballot will have this Universal corruption throughout the land. But what I think we need to do is keep it at the state level but we can’t just say it didn’t happen. We can’t just say oh four thousand people voted in Nevada that were non-citizens and we’re just going to ignore it. We’re going to sweep it under the rug. So the courts have decided the facts?? The Courts have not decided to facts. The courts never looked at the facts. Courts don’t like elections. They stayed out of it by finding an excuse standing or otherwise to stay out of it, but the fraud happened. The election, in many ways, was stolen and the only way it’ll be fixed is by in the future, reinforcing the laws. The only last comment I would say (on what Mr. Krebs said) he can speak for himself, but I think his job was keeping the foreigners out of the election. It was the most secure election based on security of the internet and Technology, but he never has voiced an opinion on that. He’s welcome to today on whether or not dead people voted. I don’t think he examined that. Did he examine on citizens voting? So to say it was the safest election sure, I agree with your statement if you’re referring to foreign intervention). But if you’re saying it’s the safest elecion based on no dead people voted, no non-citizens voted, no people broke the absentee rules — I think that’s false. And I think that’s what’s upsetting a lot of people on our side is that they’re taking your statement to mean: “Oh, well, there were no problem in the elections.” I don’t think you examined any of the problems that we have heard here. So really you’re just referring to something differently is what I the way I look at it. Thank you. Mr. Chairman