funkycoldpetina said:
Nothing in the grants violated the law or came close to violating the law. That is the conspiracy.
This is just one state:
https://wisconsinspotlight.com/conditional-election-grants/Not that you will even open this link, nevermind read any of it.
Quote:
CTCL's contract that the Green Bay Common Council approved warns that the grant was to be used "only for" safe and secure election administration, "and for no other purposes."
Under the agreement, Green Bay had to produce a report documenting how it used the outside funding over the course of the grant period, which ran between Jun 15 and Dec. 31.
The Zuckerberg money came with clawback provisions, too.
"CTCL may discontinue, modify, withhold part of, or ask for the return of all or part of the grant funds if it determines, in its sole judgment, that (a) any of the above conditions have not been met or (b) it must do so to comply with applicable laws or regulations," the contract states.
That's a problem, according to Erick Kaardal, an appellate law attorney. In fact, all of the strings in the contract present a big problem: They violate the constitution.
"The city clerk has charge and supervision of the election. Once the city council appoints the clerk they're supposed to leave the clerk alone and let her do her job," said Kaardal, who represents the Wisconsin Voters Alliance, which has challenged the constitutionality of election procedures in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin following November's election.
Signing contracts that place conditions on cities, that ultimately place conditions on local elections officials, usurps a clerks' duty and responsibility to operate fair and transparent elections, Kaardal said.
State Sen. Andre Jacque (R-De Pere) said he was concerned early on about the intervention of "shadowy third party groups" in Wisconsin's elections.
"They basically required election administration changes in exchange for grant dollars, which is quid pro quo," Jacque said.
What do you call it when you donate a large sum of money to "help with election safety", presumably out of nothing but the goodness of your own lizard-person heart....and also threaten that at any time we can take the money back if you dont do what we say?
And what good was all of that extra $, when it still took almost a week to count the gd votes anyway. If the money went to where you really think it went to, this would have been the fastest declared victory in election history. It had Big Tech running the votes.
