U.S. DOJ v. Arizona State Senate 6/21

 

It seems Today’s Dept. of Justice is now engaged in contradicting its own   Directive*with regard to Arizona Senate/’Cyber Ninjas’ so-called Election “Audit”:

*May 5, 2021 VIA EMAIL The Honorable Karen Fann President, Arizona State Senate 1700 West Washington Street, Room 205 Phoenix, AZ 85007

Pamela S. Karlan Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division pamela.karlan@usdoj.gov :

In the letter, DOJ describes its responsibility for “Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, Eighth Edition 2017 at 75 (noting that “[t]he detection, investigation, and proof of election crimes – and in many instances Voting Rights Act violations – often depend[s] on documentation generated during the voter registration, voting, tabulation, and election certification processes”)*2 https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download

Despite this Directive/ Warning, the Arizona “Audit” proceeded undeterred by Any DOJ Action. The Arizona “Audit” continued without any adherence to Policy required by Law, and notification to Arizona Authorities.

DOJ further directed Arizona Authorities to obey Election Law with regard to ‘Cyber Ninjas’ intention “to conduct an audit of voting history” *3”, and that voters may be contacted through a “combination of phone calls and physical canvassing” to “collect information of whether the individual voted in the election” in November 2020. Statement of Work at ¶ 5.1 https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/cyber-ninjas-statement-of-work/2013a82d-a2cf-48be-8e9f-a26bfd5143e5/

Such “physical canvassing” and “phone calls”, were in fact, then conducted, by ‘Cyber Ninjas’ (?), Republican Officials (?), Random Maga-lytes (?).

DOJ even goes so far as to specifically note the inherent violation of the Voting Rights Act:  “The Department enforces a number of federal statutes that prohibit intimidation of persons for voting or attempting to vote. For example, Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act”

 Further; such action could “potentially can implicate the anti-intimidation prohibitions of the Voting Rights Act. Such investigative efforts can have a significant intimidating effect on qualified voters that can deter them from seeking to vote in the future.”

Bold words, followed up with apparently, No Action.