The US/NATO Alliance scuttled Ukraine/Russia settlement talks

This is a post is about an exceptionally important recent event that was suggested to me as worth looking into. I am not sure most people are aware of this. This bit of news and recent history strikes me as something everyone in America and Europe should know all about, but probably do not. The story has to be pieced together from various sources to get a sense of what happened and how important it was and still is.

Last April, Ukraine and Russia were apparently prepared to reach a negotiated settlement to the war. That was before Boris Johnson, representing the “collective West,” scuttled it. That left us with the prospect of a long war, maybe with the complete destruction of Ukraine.

Alex Jordan,  a policy analyst at the Quincy Institute of Responsible Statecraft, has alerted journalists on Twitter that the consummate national security insider, Fiona Hill, accidentally let slip in her latest article for Foreign Affairs, some important details about the aborted talks to reach a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia in April of 2022 in Turkey. She confirmed in a passing paragraph that at that time (about 5 weeks into the war) Russia and Ukraine agreed on a tentative settlement, that if had it been finalized, would have stopped the war. Ms. Hill writes:

“According to multiple former senior U.S. officials we spoke with, in April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”  

 Hill omits to mention the fact that then-PM Boris Johnson immediately flew to Kyiv to scuttle the negotiation that was in progress. How do we know this? From Ukraine’s own online newspaper, Ukrainska Pravda. An English-language summary of the article by Ukrainska Pravda in English states that the Russian side was ready to negotiate but “two things happened.”

The first thing was the revelation of the atrocities, rapes, murders, massacres, looting, indiscriminate bombings and hundreds and thousands of other war crimes committed by Russian troops in the temporarily occupied Ukrainian territories.

The second “obstacle”[sic] arrived in Kyiv on 9, April. [i.e. Boris Johnson]...According Ukrainska Pravda sources close to Zelenskyy, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson, who appeared in the capital almost without warning, brought two simple messages.

The first is that Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with.

And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not. [emphasis added]

Johnson’s position was that the collective West,  [i.e. the US led coalition of EU, Britain and the US]which back in February had suggested Zelenskyy should surrender and flee, now felt that Putin was not really as powerful as they had previously imagined, and that here was a chance to ‘press him.’ 

Three days after Johnson left for Britain, Putin went public and said talks with Ukraine “had turned into a dead end.” (Original article in Ukrainian here, U. Pravda's English condensed version here) 

In Hill’s account, there is a temporal ellipsis. She goes directly from noting the Russians being prepared to negotiate as summarized above in April directly to words spoken months later in July by feisty Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in an entirely different context. Hill writes:

But as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated in a July interview with his country’s state media, this compromise is no longer an option. Even giving Russia all of the Donbas is not enough. “Now the geography is different,” Lavrov asserted, in describing Russia’s short-term military aims. “It’s also Kherson and the Zaporizhzhya regions and a number of other territories.” The goal is not negotiation, but Ukrainian capitulation. [ibid]

 What is left out, of course, is the fact reported by the Ukrainian press that Boris Johnson, representing the "collective West" on which Ukraine depends for weapons and economic support had given Zelensky an ultimatum--" even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they [the collective West] are not." By the time Lavrov made the statement quoted by Hill in July, Sec. of State Blinken and Sec. of Defense Lloyd Austin had already elaborated on Johnson’s hastily delivered message when they visited Kyiv in late April. They referenced Johnson’s visit, and announced a "new strategy." The New York Times' lead article covering the visit on April 24 states:

WASHINGTON — When Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III declared Monday at the end of a stealth visit to Ukraine that America’s goal is to see Russia so “weakened” that it would no longer have the power to invade a neighboring state, he was acknowledging a transformation of the conflict, from a battle over control of Ukraine to one that pits Washington more directly against Moscow. [emphasis added]   

 Even the generally supportive NYT, in the article noted that:

"Mr. Austin and others in the Biden administration are becoming more explicit about the future they see: years of continuous contest for power and influence with Moscow that in some ways resembles what President John F. Kennedy termed the “long twilight struggle” of the Cold War." 

David Sanger of the NYT wrote that Secretary of State Blinken announced that Putin had “already lost” in the struggle over Ukraine, reflect[ing] a decision made by the Biden administration and its closest allies, several officials said on Monday, to talk more openly and optimistically about the possibility of Ukrainian victory.

The issue here is how to square the scuttling of negotiations, and the high pressure exerted on Zelensky to stop negotiations with the Russians with the official position of the US/NATO that we do not tell Ukraine whether to fight or pursue diplomacy,  or how to fight the war. We are allies and not war planners. 

 As for the optimistic statements made in April, things look a bit different now. About 20% of the total area of Ukraine is controlled by Russia according to Zelensky. Much of that territory is some of the most valuable geo-politically and in terms of resources. About 7 million refugees are scattered throughout Europe, and many more internally displace persons live in abject misery within Ukraine. 

The unprecedented sanctions regime designed mainly in Washington has hurt the West more than it has damaged the Russian War Machine. The Wall St. Journal reported this week that “Moscow is raking in more revenue than ever with the help of new buyers, new traders and the world’s seemingly insatiable demand for crude.” Much of the world (including India, China, Singapore, Saudi Arabia et al.) are more than happy to buy Russian no matter what the “leaders of the free world” in Washington tell them to do. And this was predictable. 

Now it remains to be seen whether or not the citizens in European countries will continue to support a sanctions regime, and a protracted war against Russia, if a cold winter and severe energy shortages cause immense suffering, stagflation and industrial shutdowns as many economists are predicting. In late July, the NYT reported:

As Russia tightens its chokehold on supplies of natural gas, Europe is looking everywhere for energy to keep its economy running. Coal-fired power plants are being revived. Billions are being spent on terminals to bring in liquefied natural gas, much of it from shale fields in Texas. Officials and heads of state are flying to Qatar, Azerbaijan, Norway and Algeria to nail down energy deals.

Across Europe, fears are growing that a cutoff of Russian gas will force governments to ration fuel and businesses to close factories, moves that could put thousands of jobs at risk. 

Somewhat awkwardly, Biden, who called the Saudis “butchers” and “pariahs” during his campaign, was photographed fist-bumping MBS—a man with American blood on his hands-- during a visit during which he pleaded with the Saudis to ramp up production. They have. But according to this week’s WSJ article (cited above), they also buy Russian crude and mix it with other oil to conceal its Russian source—an increasingly common workaround seen in several countries. Biden who had condemned Venezuela’s Pres. Maduro, eased restrictions on Venezuelan oil due to the emergency caused by the sanctions regime intended to paralyze Russia. All of this is exacerbating inflation in Europe, the US, and the global south, which has suffered severe food shortages. Those food shortages arose in no small measure because of the conflict, including both the Russian Black Sea Embargo and the West’s sanctions regime. 

Despite all of this, we are told that “Ukraine is winning.” We are told that Europe will achieve energy independence and put the Russian energy dependency problem behind them. We are told all of this is not bringing us into an escalated conflict, perhaps involving nuclear nightmares. This even as UN Inspectors/IAEA try to delicately work their way into the the nuclear facility in Zaporizhzhia after it explosions there, with Ukrainians operating the plant at gun point.  

The consequences and costs of this war for Ukrainians, and also its global effects have been far more troubling than experts in Washington have maintained, and continue to maintain. It is probably too late for the negotiated settlement previously argued for in a post here. 

It is deeply troubling to see evidence that the US/NATO powers gave Zelensky an ultimatum to stop talking to the Russians in April when there was still one last window of opportunity. We’ll never know if it would have gone anywhere or not. But that’s not the point. It was never—or so we were told—up to the “Collective West,” as Boris Johnson dubbed the US/NATO alliance.

Qs: Since the West blocked settlement talks last April, does that impose a greater moral obligation to support Ukraine and its people, no matter how much it costs? 

How should the US and NATO deal with the risks of protracted war and maybe even nuclear war in view of their role in creating the risks, or are the US and NATO blameless, e.g., because there is no way to know if those talks would have led to the end of Putin’s war against Ukraine?

Is this information about the US and NATO forcing a stop to settlement negotiations between Ukraine and Russia surprising news, or is this something most Americans are fully aware of, e.g., because all of this was published by major professional US news outlets?

Does this story foster any feeling, e.g., a sense of dread, that Western political leaders are out of their depth and incapable of competent governance, or is that interpretation just too bad to be true, e.g., are we being lied to about a dangerous war, yet again?

Although we are told by our leaders that “Ukraine is winning,” does that feel true, or does this sound too much like confident but false assurances from our political and military leaders that the wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan were going well and “we are winning,” when in fact were were losing in both and either knew it (Vietnam) or damn well should have known it (Afghanistan)?

Rampant fraud and climate change chickens are roosting comfortably in Florida

Florida is probably the state most vulnerable to climate change due to its low elevation in some places, susceptibility to hurricanes in all places and eroding limestone (see photo below) all over the place. And, the state is also a mecca for fraud. That toxic combination puts the state in deep doo-doo. Things there are getting really interesting. 

Oops, limestone eroded, crud!

Mabel!! Get the shovel, a bucket and the chopsticks!

We've got some cleaning up to do, darn it!

A local TV station reports:

One of Florida’s largest home insurers is exiting the market, leaving thousands of homeowners scrambling to find new coverage as options continue to dwindle in the Sunshine State.

United Property & Casualty Insurance Company, based in St. Petersburg, announced Thursday that it filed a plan of withdrawal in Florida and also plans to exit three other states.

It comes right in the middle of hurricane season and amid an exodus of companies from the market.

“The situation we’re seeing today with UPC is another chapter in the downfall of Florida’s private insurance market,” Mark Friedlander, the Florida spokesperson for the Insurance Information Institute, said.

Friedlander calls Florida’s property insurance market the “most volatile in the U.S.” and says virtually every homeowner in Florida will be impacted, either scrambling to find coverage, or those who have coverage paying more for what they have.

Coconut Creek insurance agent Dustyn Shroff said the insurance market in Florida has “collapsed.”

“Citizens Insurance, the company of last resort, was not designed to take on this many policies,” Shroff said. “As a local insurance agent, we find out about these cancellations at the same time the homeowner does.”

“We had a good amount of time to find other insurance, however, they won’t insure us because our roof is too old,” Lavina said. “We signed a contract to have our roof done, but we were told ‘supplies are delayed’ and it will take months until it’s done. Unfortunately, we are now under hazard insurance with our mortgager which of course is not ideal given our limited income at this time.”

David Quinones started a Facebook group for Floridians dropped by their homeowners’ insurance. It’s called Forced Out Florida.

“I’ve been dropped by my homeowners insurance effective in July and was also refused by Citizens because of an arbitrary rule they passed in February disallowing new policies if the dwelling has ever had more than two non-weather related water claims,” Quinones said. “So we are truly locked out of the market and our mortgage and home itself is imperiled.”

Friedlander said Florida’s elevated hurricane risk isn’t to blame for the crisis.

“We look down the road in Louisiana and see they’ve had seven storms strike the state in the last few years, Florida has had no direct strikes,” he said. “So you can’t blame hurricanes. This is 100% a man-made crisis driven by years of rampant risk fraud replacement schemes and excessive litigation filed against insurers.”

Friedlander zeroed in on roof repair fraud.

“Roof repair fraud schemes are the fuel that’s lighting the fire behind the rampant litigation being filed against Florida property insurers,” he said.

Fortunately for the citizens of Florida, they have Republican politicians to look to for help. The usual help those folks provide is advice to stop whining and pull yourself up by your bootstraps. 

Sooner or later, a big climate change-fueled storm will hit Florida. Why is it that one gets the feeling that in the next few years, US taxpayers and the evil federal government are probably going to wind up paying billions to the fine citizens of Florida so they can pull themselves up by their bootstraps with our money? Nah, that would never happen. Would it?

Normal South Florida high tide flooding --

expect this kind of fun 45-70 days/year! 

Book Discussion: Hatchet Man

 

The C-Span program Book TV broadcast a discussion by author Eli Honig about his 2021 book, Hatchet Man: How Bill Barr Broke the Prosecutor's Code and Corrupted the Justice Department. Honig is a former federal and state prosecutor, and now an expert commentator for CNN.

This discussion is useful to (1) help people recall what Barr did as US Attorney General (AG), and (2) why and how he was, as Honig describes it, so deceptive. Yes, Barr was deceptive, but a special kind of deceit describes it more precisely, he was a liar. Lies were often a key part of his deceit tactics. 

What Barr was hiding not just political corruption of the DoJ to serve the interests of the ex-president. We was also hiding the fact that he was and still is a hard core anti-democratic authoritarian Christian nationalist. He was also hiding his own personal agenda. Barr’s Christian fundamentalism and its hostility to secularism and non-heterosexuality came out in Honig’s research on speeches Barr gave in the 1990s. In my opinion, Barr was and still is an elite Republican Party Christian nationalist fascist.

Garland’s and Biden’s fatal flaw

Honig argues that Barr’s legacy was infliction of serious, long-lasting structural damage to the DoJ. Specifically, Barr attacked and undermined both the credibility and the independence of the DoJ. He argues that Barr damaged the DoJ in that way to serve his own deeply-rooted, extremist legal and personal (Christian fundamentalist) beliefs.

Honig also argues that Merrick Garland’s approach to fixing the DoJ is too weak. Garland is crippled by a desire to avoid political conflict or controversy whenever possible. That is presumably driven by Garland’s, and in my opinion Biden’s, tragically mistaken belief that conflict avoidance will somehow lead Republicans to be more trusting and more democratic. In other words, Garland is deeply flawed by the same false belief that his boss, Joe Biden probably has. Neither of them understands that the Republican Party is irreparably anti-democratic and irreparably morally corrupt. That leaves Garland’s and Biden’s efforts to fix the damage the GOP and the ex-president caused to the federal government to be too little and maybe too late.

Honig argues that people “better” than ones like Barr and his ilk are necessary in the DoJ to fix the damage and repair its broken pro-democratic institution status. Unfortunately, Honig doesn't use the word moral. Instead he just leaves it at better. IMO, that is a mistake.

Barr & the Mueller Report

Two matters related to the Mueller report that Honig discusses at length about obstruction of justice by the the ex-president are worth remembering.

• Barr was corrupt and mendacious from the start. His first significant act as AG was to distort the findings of Special Counsel Robert Mueller on (1) obstruction of justice by the ex-president, and (2) the role of Russian significant efforts to throw the election to T**** (which really did happen, but the GOP and T**** still deny to this day). Mueller himself had written an accurate summary of his own report for the public, but Barr refused to release it. Instead, Barr wrote and released his own summary of Mueller’s findings. Barr’s summary falsely asserted that the Mueller investigation had exonerated the ex-president. Lies of omission underpinned that propaganda. Barr received a public rebuke for his lies to the public from both Mueller himself and a federal judge. Barr also directly lied to congress when asked if anyone “from the Mueller team” disapproved of how Barr distorted (lied about) the Mueller report. He said nope. A couple of days after that lie to congress, Mueller’s letter of disapproval became public. Barr was hauled back into congress to explain his lie. Mueller’s defense was insulting nonsense: He said to congress that Mueller himself was not part of “the Mueller team.” Because of that, he did not lie to congress when he said that no one “from the Mueller team” disapproved of how Barr distorted and lied to the public about the Mueller report.

• When Barr released to the public his own summary of the Mueller report with his lies in it, that was just the first half of his propaganda and lies plan. The second half was brilliant. It was about as effective as mendacious, immoral mind manipulation can be. What Barr did after publicly lying about what the Mueller report contained and concluded, he withheld the report from the public for 28 days. Why did he delay releasing the truth? Those 28 days gave the public time to come to believe that the Mueller report exonerated the ex-president. Barr defended the 28 day delay as time needed to redact the report, but Honig argues that should have taken no more than a week at the very most. Worse, public release of the Mueller report should have been timed with the release of a summary. That unjustifiable time gap left plenty of time for the ex-president, Republican elites and their propaganda Leviathan to keep saying over and over and over that the Mueller report exonerated the ex-president. By the time the redacted Mueller report was released with an explicit statement that the ex-president was not exonerated, tens of millions of minds rejected that factual truth as a Democratic lie.

Barr really was a hatchet man. Honig argues that Barr was the worst AG in US history. He managed to convince tens of millions of Americans that the Mueller investigation exonerated a sitting president of obstruction of justice, despite an investigation that did not say any such thing. 

Barr also corrupted the DoJ’s independence and credibility. The loss of credibility seems to apply to some extent to both sides in American politics-culture wars. Many liberals, and independents like me, are now less trusting of DoJ motives and its professionalism. Many conservatives distrust the DoJ partly because they falsely believe that the ex-president committed no crimes, when in fact he did. 

Whatever it is that Garland thinks he is doing, it is not reassuring to to least some Americans. Honig’s argument that Garland is ineffective in repairing the damage to DoJ credibility is convincing. However, Honig does argue that Garland’s effort to rebuild DoJ independence is significant and deserves credit. 

But the question all of this raises is obvious: If one authoritarian president appoints one authoritarian AG, what is to stop them from doing the same to DoJ independence and credibility that T**** and Barr did? The precedent for Christian fascism to neuter the DoJ has been set. T**** and Barr set that precedent. It will never go away.

The United States is not on the verge of civil war

 Repeat - not!

I have been a harsh critic of the Right for quite some time (no kidding!) but have to admit the hyperbole on the Left about another Civil War coming is kind of over the top. In my humble opinion of course.

So the following article tackled this question and I highlighted a few snippets that I believe to be true. Though I believe the statements made to be true, YOU can disagree with the premise if you want.

https://www.wamc.org/commentary-opinion/2022-08-26/the-united-states-is-not-on-the-verge-of-civil-war

Snippets:

The right wing lie machine has recently expanded its scope. With the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act by Congress, they have seized on increased funding for the Internal Revenue Service that will lead to the hiring of 87,000 agents --- (half of which will go to replace immanent retirements). To hear the liars at Fox News and too many Republican members of Congress, these agents, armed with machine guns, will be invading the homes of small business owners in search of unpaid taxes. In fact, very few of them will be in the armed enforcement units. Most IRS auditors work in offices at computers and most audits are conducted by mail or on line.

However, despite the outrageous and dangerous misbehavior of the right-wing echo chamber, right-wing pundits and too many members of Congress, a note of caution is in order. Talk is cheap and rhetoric is not the same as action. So far, there has been ONE --- repeat --- ONE attempt to physically harm FBI agents in the wake of the widespread anger stoked by Trump and his minions.

Polling data shows that about 20 percent of Americans believe that violence is justified to protect “our freedom.” Twelve percent said they themselves were willing to be violent.
Of that group, do you think every one of them is really ready to start shooting? I would venture to guess that a large percentage of that group are what the Texans call, “All hat and no cattle,” In other words – big talkers.

Agree or Disagree? Example: no mention of Jan. 6. BUT over 800 arrests. Nothing changed, and now the Capitol has more security. So the wannabees didn't accomplish much. My opinion. BUT could something worse be in the making? OR, as I prefaced, is the rhetoric just "over the top?"

PS; I am NOT talking about other threads to America's democracy, but strictly about the notion that there will be another civil war.

Climate change and the Republican Party’s open support of it

By now it is clear that the US has limited options to deal with climate change. That is despite recently passed legislation that has some anti-climate change measures in it. That legislation was opposed by 100% of Republicans in congress. The Repub Party (RP) has made it explicit and clear that it opposes all meaningful attempts to use government to deal with the problem. The RP says it like this in a recently released political document (quote shown above):

The weather is always changing. We take climate change seriously, but not hysterically. We will not adopt nutty policies that harm our economy or our jobs.

That is reasonably interpreted to be explicit statement that the RP intends to fight all government measures intended to deal with climate change. It is only in that sense that the RP takes climate change seriously. 

It is now also clear that the RP also opposes companies who want to try to deal with climate change. The reason for that is unclear. One possibility is that the RP sees climate change as ordained by God and not something that humans have any business trying to do anything about. 

One article comments on RP attacks on companies making efforts to deal with climate change:

How an Organized Republican Effort Punishes Companies for Climate Action

Legislators and their allies are running an aggressive campaign that uses public money and the law to pressure businesses they say are pushing “woke” causes.

Across the country, Republican lawmakers and their allies have launched a campaign to try to rein in what they see as activist companies trying to reduce the greenhouse gases that are dangerously heating the planet.

“We’re an energy state, and energy accounts for hundreds of millions of dollars of tax revenue for us,” said Riley Moore, the West Virginia state treasurer. “All of our jobs come from coal and gas. I mean, this is who we are. This is part of our way of life here in the state. And they’re telling us that these industries are bad.”

“We have an existential threat here,” Mr. Moore said. “We have to fight back.”

In doing so, Mr. Moore and others have pushed climate change from the scientific realm into the political battles already raging over topics like voting rights, abortion and L.G.B.T.Q. issues. In recent months, conservatives have moved beyond tough words and used legislative and financial leverage to pressure the private sector to drop climate action and any other causes they label as “woke.”

“There is a coordinated effort to chill corporate engagement on these issues,” said Daniella Ballou-Aares, chief executive of the Leadership Now Project, a nonprofit organization that wants corporations to address threats to democracy. “And it is an effective campaign. Companies are starting to go into hiding.”

Wokeness causes is something that the RP document quoted above mentions:

The Democratic Party and their Big Tech allies are not merely secular; they have virtually created a new religion of wokeness that is increasingly hostile toward people of faith, particularly Christians and Jews. They are determined to drive all mention of God out of public view.

Their bizarre policies are intentionally destroying our values, our culture, and the beliefs that hold us together as a nation. They want to replace our culture with government and rewrite history. They are also busy destroying the greatest economy in the world – perverting it into an old, socialist-style system. Our nation can’t survive this combination of wokeness, socialism, and globalism.

Based on wokeness being associated with Christianity in the political document and climate change in the news article, it may be the case that the RP sees climate change as good because it is ordained by God. In that case, the RP could believe that climate change is not something humans should try to deal with or even worry about. 

Or, religion might underpin little or only some of with the hostility. RP lust for the power and wealth that continues to flow from continuing to support pollution as usual could also be a significant factor.

With the modern RP, either or both fundamentalist Christianity and brute capitalism are possible explanations. Other reasons, e.g., protecting jobs, seem unlikely. Those feel like a deflection from the real but unspoken reason(s) for RP’s all-out opposition to dealing with climate change.

THEY NEVER GIVE UP, DO THEY?

 

Arizona GOP candidates lose bid to ban ‘exploitable’ voting machines

The judge called the supposed evidence speculative and noted no actual harm has occurred.

PHOENIX (CN) — A federal judge in Arizona dismissed a suit Friday seeking to ban electronic voting machines ahead of the November midterm election, brought by Republican candidates who claim the machines may have security flaws.

In the suit, Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake and secretary of state candidate Mark Finchem claimed an injunction to stop the use of voting machines was necessary since the "voting system does not reliably provide trustworthy and verifiable election results." Former President Donald Trump — a frequent purveyor of baseless election fraud claims — has endorsed Lake and Finchem in their respective races.

Lake and Finchem claimed that voting on paper ballots and hand-counting those votes was the only efficient and secure method for proceeding in November.

In arguments, the pair contended that contractors found some concerns after completing a partisan audit of the 2016 presidential election. Chiefly, the contractors allegedly found cybersecurity best practices weren’t used, antivirus software patches were neglected, computer logs were cleared, and some files were missing from the election management system.

U.S. District Judge John Tuchi on Friday found the supposed evidence conjectural and not concrete.

“Ultimately, even upon drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs’ favor, the court finds that their claimed injuries are indeed too speculative to establish an injury in fact, and therefore standing,” wrote Tuchi.

Tuchi wrote that in previous election fraud cases, courts have ruled in favor of the plaintiffs when actual fraud had occurred. In Curling v. Kemp, Georgia voting machines had been hacked and the secretary of state refused to act. Tuchi said the plaintiff’s case is nothing like that case.

“Here, as the secretary points out, a long chain of hypothetical contingencies must take place for any harm to occur— (1) the specific voting equipment used in Arizona must have “security failures” that allow a malicious actor to manipulate vote totals; (2) such an actor must actually manipulate an election; (3) Arizona’s specific procedural safeguards must fail to detect the manipulation; and (4) the manipulation must change the outcome of the election,” Tuchi wrote.

None of that has occurred, Tuchi found.

Additionally, Tuchi said if he had entertained the abstract claims for injunctive relief, he would violate the Purcell principle, barring courts from ordering changes to election rules in the period just before an election. The U.S. Supreme Court's 2006 ruling in Purcell v. Gonzalez established the principle.

“In applying Purcell, courts have made clear that it stands for more than just the proposition that federal courts should avoid changes in law that may cause voter confusion,” wrote Tuchi. “The county defendants are correct to assert that courts applying Purcell also ‘caution federal courts to refrain from enjoining election law too close in time to an election if the changes will create administrative burdens for election officials.’ The injunctive relief plaintiffs seek would not just be challenging for Arizona’s election officials to implement; it likely would be impossible under the extant time constraints.”

According to Scott Jarrett, an expert witness during oral arguments and the director of elections for Maricopa County, switching to a hand-only count would devastate the county’s ability to conduct business. The county would require thousands more workers even as they already struggle to maintain enough at a paltry wage. Jarrett also said they’d need much more real estate to conduct a hand count.

Tuchi additionally dismissed motions by the plaintiffs to supplement the record, post-arguments, with video allegedly showing unauthorized individuals accessing the electronic management server (EMS) room without authorization. According to the plaintiffs, the video would discredit expert testimony from Jarrett that the room was secure.

“The request is extraordinarily and inexcusably untimely, and in any event does not remedy the speculative nature of plaintiffs’ claims,” Tuchi wrote. “Plaintiffs initiated this action according to their preference. The court set the hearing by an order issued well in advance, and plaintiffs had ample time to prepare their evidence.”

https://www.courthousenews.com/arizona-gop-candidates-lose-bid-to-ban-exploitable-voting-machines/

Damn those liberal judges!! 😎 Appointed by Barack Obama no less!