In important news, Judicial Watch sent official notice letters to
election officials in 14 counties and five states—Arkansas,
California, Illinois, New York, and Oregon—notifying them of evident
violations of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA).

[WEEKLY UPDATE]

BIDEN COVER-UP EXPOSED!

[[link removed]]

Judicial Watch Warns 14 Counties in Five States to Clean Voter Lists
or Face Federal Lawsuits
Biden Administration Illegally Censored Afghanistan Reports?
Secret Service Travel Cost $2,252,600.50 For President Biden

JUDICIAL WATCH WARNS 14 COUNTIES IN FIVE STATES TO CLEAN VOTER LISTS
OR FACE FEDERAL LAWSUITS

In important news, Judicial Watch sent official notice letters
[[link removed]]
to
election officials in 14 counties and five states—Arkansas,
California, Illinois, New York, and Oregon—notifying them of evident
violations of the National Voter Registration Act
[[link removed]]
of 1993 (NVRA).

The letters detail how these states’ own reported data show that
their counties removed an “absurdly low” or “impossible”
number of inactive voter registrations under key provisions of the
NVRA. The letters threaten federal lawsuits unless the violations are
corrected in a timely fashion.

The NVRA requires states to “conduct a general program that makes a
reasonable effort to remove” from the official voter rolls “the
names of ineligible voters” who have died or changed residence.
Among other things, the NVRA requires registrations to be cancelled
when voters fail to respond to address confirmation notices and then
fail to vote in the next two general federal elections. In 2018, the
Supreme Court confirmed that such removals are mandatory (_Husted v.
A. Philip Randolph Inst_.,
[[link removed]]
138 S.
Ct. 1833, 1841-42 (2018)).

States are required by federal law to report data concerning their
removal programs to the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC).
Every few years the EAC publishes this data as part of a report it
provides to Congress. The most recent report and accompanying datasets
were released in August
[[link removed]]
of
this year.

The data show that many U.S. counties reported mere handfuls of
removals—and often no removals—of registrants who failed to
respond to an address confirmation and failed to vote for two
consecutive elections. To identify counties that are chronically
behind in removing outdated registrations, we looked at the last four
years of reported data, from November 2016 through November 2020. We
found that some of the largest counties in the country reported
absurdly low removal numbers under the NVRA’s statutory removal
procedure for change of address during that period. The 14 counties
receiving notice letters, the size of their registration lists, and
the NVRA removals they reported are:



COUNTY
TOTAL VOTER REGISTRATIONS IN NOV. 2020
4-YEAR TOTAL OF REGISTRATIONS REMOVED AFTER NOTICE AND 2 ELECTIONS

San Bernardino County, Calif.
1,294,038
14

Sacramento County, Calif.
1,049,495
0

Contra Costa County, Calif.
735,818
1

Fresno County, Calif.
573,873
2

Stanislaus County, Calif.
356,744
2

Solano County, Calif.
338,764
4

Kings County (Brooklyn), N.Y.
1,735,372
0

Queens County, N.Y.
1,366,759
0

New York County (Manhattan), N.Y.
1,250,793
2

Nassau County, N.Y.
1,089,467
0

Bronx County, N.Y.
867,716
1

Richmond County (Staten Island), N.Y.
344,375
0

Multnomah County (Portland), Ore.
571,383
5

Lane County, Ore.
274,054
2

TOTAL
11,848,651
33



Robert Popper, our senior attorney and director of our voting
integrity efforts, observed that, “About 10% of Americans move every
year. Those counties should generate hundreds of thousands of
cancelled registrations. There is simply no way to comply with federal
law while removing so few outdated registrations under its key
provision.”

Popper, formerly Deputy Chief of the Voting Section of the Civil
Rights Division of the Justice Department, emphasized that these
numbers come directly from state reports to the EAC.

We also sent notice letters threatening lawsuits against statewide
election officials in Arkansas and Illinois on the ground that many
counties in those states reported similarly low numbers of statutory
removals.

Once again, we are leading the charge for clean voter rolls and
election integrity. These letters are just the beginning of another
sweep, in federal court if necessary, to clean voter rolls throughout
the country.

As you know, in the past our actions have led to a number of voter
roll cleanups and successful NVRA lawsuits.

A 2020 letter from us to Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
[[link removed]]
led
to the removal of 69,000 outdated registrations. In 2018, the Supreme
Court upheld
[[link removed]]
a
voter roll cleanup program that resulted from our settlement of a
federal lawsuit with Ohio. Kentucky
[[link removed]]
began
cleaning up hundreds of thousands of old registrations in 2019 after
it too entered into a consent decree in 2018 to end another Judicial
Watch lawsuit. California also settled
[[link removed]]
an
NVRA lawsuit with us and began the process of removing up to 1.6
million inactive names from Los Angeles County’s voter rolls.

In 2020, we sued North Carolina
[[link removed]],
Pennsylvania
[[link removed]],
and Colorado
[[link removed]]
for
failing to clean their voter rolls.

In October 2020, we released a study
[[link removed]]
that
found 353 counties nationwide that had more voter registrations than
citizens old enough to vote, _i.e_., counties where registration
rates exceed 100%. Based on this research, in 2020, a federal
court ordered
[[link removed]]
the
State of Maryland to produce complete voter registration records for
Montgomery County that include the registered voters’ dates of
birth.

In September 2020, we filed a lawsuit
[[link removed]]
on
behalf of the Illinois Conservative Union (ICU) and three of its
officers, after Illinois state officials refused to allow them to
obtain a copy of the state’s voter registration database. In June
2021, a federal court ruled
[[link removed]]
the
lawsuit could proceed.

We expect to take other action soon in other states, so be sure to
stay tuned!

BIDEN ADMINISTRATION ILLEGALLY CENSORED AFGHANISTAN REPORTS?

The Biden surrender in Afghanistan was a catastrophe, and it was
deadly for many Americans. Also, the Biden administration may have
broken the law to hide details of the consequences of Biden’s
decision-making.

We received 119 pages
[[link removed]]
of
records from the office of the Special Inspector General For
Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), which show Special Inspector
General John Sopko
[[link removed]
opposition to the Biden administration’s order to remove Internet
access to hundreds of pages of public reports on the weaponry and
training the U.S. provided to Afghan security forces.

Judicial Watch obtained the records in response to a Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request sent on September 13, 2021, for records
related to the scrubbing of reports about Afghanistan from the SIGAR
web site.

On August 16, 2021, at 3:18 p.m., one day after the Taliban seized
control of Afghanistan’s capital Kabul, Carole Clay, an official at
the State Department’s Bureau of the Comptroller and Global
Financial Services, emails
[[link removed]]
SIGAR
official Matt Dove
[[link removed]]
to
inform him of the State Department’s “unprecedented request” to
SIGAR “to suspend large portions of your website and public access
to reports and records:

> We request urgent assistance in identifying and temporarily removing
> (and potentially redacting on a longer term basis) all potentially
> sensitive and identifying information on U.S. government assistance
> programs/projects in Afghanistan. A great many of your historical
> publications contain extensive details about activities and partners
> that could put individuals at risk in the current environment.

***

> We are also making requests to the GAO and OIG communities to assist
> in this effort. Because SIGAR is probably the most extensive source
> for vendor and other information in Afghanistan through the
> information available for your website, it might be easiest to
> disable the website functionality for accessing reports and other
> publications and notifications. Obviously we request this as soon as
> possible.”

Dove responds at 3:43 p.m. and includes Sopko and others: “Thanks
Carol and appreciate the chat.”

> Mr. Sopko, Gene, and John,

***

> Bottom Line: State thinks some of the information in our reports
> (think Afghan companies/contract information) could put individuals
> at heightened risk given recent developments in Afghanistan. From my
> perspective, scrubbing OUR reports would be onerous and not timely
> (consider the work to just scrub our published financial audits).
> One option may be to temporarily disable certain portions of the
> website while the dust settles in Afghanistan and we decide on a
> long‐term solution—I am not sure the implication of such action
> given our Congressional mandate to make our reports public, though.
> This decision is obviously above my paygrade. For what it is worth,
> my advice would be to consider working with State on this; State is
> already taking action websites it/USAID controls and the other
> OIGs/GAO may be taking similar action. I am standing by to move out
> as instructed or to pass the ball to you for action.

On August 16, 2021, at 4:06 p.m. Sopko writes
[[link removed]]
to
SIGAR staff: “Do not take anything down until we receive an official
request in writing”

At 4:15 p.m., Sopko notifies
[[link removed]]
Dove
that Clay’s approval of removing the reports is “not
sufficient. I want it from the secretary or deputy secretary or as
the minimum her boss. She is a mere office director. What is the basis
of her conclusion that reports that have been public for years are now
causing a risk. I repeat do not pull anything down until we get a
better and more authoritative request.”

In an email
[[link removed]]
to
SIGAR staff, also on August 16, Sopko reiterates his opposition to
removing the reports:

> Let me repeat. Do not do anything on her request until and unless we
> receive something in writing from her boss or a senior political
> appointee. You can advise her if your prior mistake I [sic] agreeing
> without first clearing it with the IG. Pulling old public documents
> make no sense since they have been available for years. It also
> violates the IG act.

At 4:51 p.m. on August 16, Dove writes
[[link removed]]
to
Clay: “The IG would like a formal request from the Comptroller, or
above, that outlines the request, the reason for the request, and
how/why the Department came to the conclusion that reports that have
already been made publicly available now pose a new/heightened risk.
Standing by to chat if you’d like to discuss.”

In an August 18, 2021, email
[[link removed]]
to
SIGAR Deputy IG Eugene Aloise
[[link removed]],
Dove notes that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) removed
over 400reports from its website:

> FYSA, I just talked to Carole Clay at State (the originator of this
> request). As I mentioned when this all first came up, State was
> working with GAO/IGs to get them to take similar action.
>
> GAO agreed (as you and I did). Since the request on Monday, GAO has
> temporarily pulled 424 reports dealing with Afghanistan down from
> its site.
>
> I thought that would further confirm the sound reasoning for our
> action.

On August 18, 2021, Sopko notes
[[link removed]]
to
Clay and others, that scrubbing the SIGAR website
[[link removed]]
of public reports would be a “violation of
the IG Act.” After a plea from top State Department officials, the
reports were removed from the SIGAR site:

> Carole, this is a highly unusual request without any explanation or
> justification for why you are requesting that we review and delete
> certain documents that have been posted on our web site — all in
> violation of the IG Act [see here
>
[[link removed]]].
> Many of the records you are talking about have been up on our web
> for 10 or more years and my IT people tell me even if we delete them
> they are still out there in the internet since there are numerous
> programs readily available that regularly sweep and capture such
> material. I would prefer someone at State who is a political
> appointee explain in writing why you are making such a request as
> well as what is the basis of the threat and how this very labor
> intensive request will accomplish anything other than waste taxpayer
> dollars. John Sopko, SIGAR
>
> On August 19, 2021, the State Department’s Comptroller Jeffrey
> Mounts writes
>
[[link removed]]
to
> Sopko, claiming that it was necessary to remove the reports from
> federal websites over concern for “the welfare of vendors and
> individuals who have conducted work with the Department and who have
> yet to exit Afghanistan:”

Dear Mr. Sopko:

> The Department of State is concerned about the welfare of vendors
> and individuals who have conducted work with the Department and who
> have yet to exit Afghanistan. Identifying information regarding
> these individuals is well documented among your audit, inspection,
> and financial audits/costs incurred audit reports. The Department
> formally requests that you temporarily suspend website access to
> these reports until these individuals can safely exit the country.
>
> We acknowledge that the information has already been made publicly
> available, but we have reason to believe that this week’s events
> represent extraordinary circumstances of heightened risk and that
> temporarily removing access to reports with identifying information
> could possibly shield some of these individuals from harm. The
> potential benefit of keeping State partners out of harm’s way
> during these evacuations far exceeds the temporary loss of access to
> SI GAR reports, and we hope you will help us do what we can to make
> the current situation safer for our partners.

On August 31, a spokesperson for SIGAR admitted
[[link removed]]
to
the media that the agency pulled reports offline: “In recent days,
some SIGAR reports have been temporarily removed from the agency’s
public website due to ongoing security concerns in accordance with
guidance received from the U.S. Department of State. This is in line
with actions taken by other U.S. federal agencies and is out of an
abundance of caution.”

These extraordinary emails document a cover-up and unprecedented
government censorship to protect Joe Biden from further humiliation
over his surrender in Afghanistan.

SECRET SERVICE TRAVEL COST $2,252,600.50 FOR PRESIDENT BIDEN

When the president travels, he takes security with him, and it costs
big money, but the government isn’t keen on publicizing the costs of
presidential security.

So Judicial Watch digs and gets the facts.

We just obtained records
[[link removed]]
from
the Secret Service in response to FOIA requests for all records
concerning the use of U.S. Government funds to provide security and/or
any other services to President Biden and any companions. These
records detail Secret Service travel costs of $2,252,600.50 for
President Joe Biden through August 8 for travel to Delaware and other
domestic locations.

The Secret Service travel records show:

* Biden’s August 6-8, 2021, trip
[[link removed]]
to
Wilmington, Delaware, cost $176,183.00 in hotels; $18,652.00 in car
rentals; $24,322.39 in air/rail travel for a total of $219,157.39
* Biden’s July 23-25, 2021, weekend trip
[[link removed]]
to
Wilmington cost $88,575.00 in hotels; $7,378.00 in car rentals;
$14,319.69 in air/rail travel for a total of $110,272.69
* Biden also took a trip to Wilmington earlier
[[link removed]]
in
July from July 9-11, 2021. That trip cost $74,289.00 in hotels;
$23,727.72 in car rentals; $27,561.53 in air/rail travel for a total
of $125,578.25
* Biden’s July 3, 2021, trip to Michigan to celebrate progress
[[link removed]]
against
COVID-19 cost $151,395.70 in hotels; $18,992.00 in car rentals;
$9,388.26 In air/rail travel for a total of $179,775.96
* Biden’s June 18-20, 2021 trip
[[link removed]]
to
Wilmington cost $158,818.70 in hotels; $24,475.00 in car rentals;
$19,896.21 in air/rail travel for a total of $203,189.91
* Biden’s Delaware trips from January 20, 2021, to June 4, 2021,
cost $1,125,646.50 in hotels; $10,893.40 in car rentals; $159,966.28
in air/rail travel for a total of $1,296,506.18
* Biden’s April 29, 2021 trip to Atlanta to celebrate
[[link removed]]
his
first 100 days in office cost $11,141.00 in hotels; $22,581.30 in
car rentals; $47,659.56 on air/rail travel for a total of $81,384.86

The Air Force has so far failed to respond to requests for information
on Air Force One travel costs for these and other Biden trips. And the
Secret Service has not yet provided records for other Biden weekend
travel to Delaware.

The costs of presidential travel and security is of obvious public
interest. It is frustrating that after years of litigation through two
presidential administrations, the Secret Service and Air Force are
still stonewalling the costs of presidential travel.

Until next week …

The post Biden Cover-Up Exposed!
[[link removed]]
appeared first
on Judicial Watch
[[link removed]].



<a
href="[link removed]"
target="_blank"><img alt="WU01"
src="[link removed]"
style="width:100%; height:auto;" /></a>

[32x32x1]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x2]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

202.646.5172



© 2017 - 2021, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]