PROJECTION Integrity Project . . .
#2020Election #RiggedElection #TransitionIntegrityProject #NoMailInVoting
Click here to enjoy the video: https://youtu.be/uK7WSM7Twog
I’m sure this will be as difficult for you to hear as it has been for me to read without screaming and cursing. Well, Todd McMurtry one of the attorneys for Nick Sandmann posted this ominous project that reeks of PROJECTION. Here goes:
Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election and Transition August 3, 2020 Executive Summary In June 2020 the Transition Integrity Project otherwise known as TIP, convened a bipartisan group of over 100 current and former senior government and campaign leaders and other experts in a series of 2020 election crisis scenario planning exercises. 
Here is the list of so-called bi-partisan supporters: Initially convened by Rosa Brooks, a law professor at Georgetown and former Pentagon senior official, and Nils Gilman, a former vice chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley and historian at the Berggruen Institute, members of the Transition Integrity Project include:
Michael Steele, a former chair of the Republican National Committee; John Podesta, former White House Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton; former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, former Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, former Democratic National Committee Acting Chair Donna Brazile, and journalists William Kristol, Edward Luce, Max Boot and David Frum. .
Here they write: We assess with a high degree of likelihood that November’s elections will be marked by a chaotic legal and political landscape.
Get this: We also assess that the President Trump is likely to contest the result by both legal and extra-legal means, in an attempt to hold onto power. Recent events, including the President’s own unwillingness to commit to abiding by the results of the election [WHAT!], the Attorney General’s embrace of the President’s groundless electoral fraud claims, and the unprecedented deployment of federal agents to put down left-wing protests, underscore the extreme lengths to which President Trump may be willing to go in order to stay in office. In this report, TIP explains the basis for the assessment.
Our findings are bolstered by the historical experience of Bush v. Gore (2000) and other U.S. electoral dysfunctions. The closest analogy may be the election of 1876, a time of extreme partisanship and rampant disenfranchisement, where multiple states proffered competing slates of electors, and the election was only resolved through a grand political bargain days before Inauguration—one that traded an end to Reconstruction for electoral peace and resulted in a century of Jim Crow, leaving deep wounds that are far from healed today.
Among the findings we highlight in the report:
• • • The concept of “election night,” is no longer accurate and indeed is dangerous. We face a period of contestation stretching from the first day a ballot is cast in mid-September until January 20.
The winner may not, and we assess likely will not, be known on “election night” as officials count mail-in ballots. This period of uncertainty provides opportunities for an unscrupulous candidate to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the process and to set up an unprecedented assault on the outcome.
Campaigns, parties, the press and the public must be educated to adjust expectations starting immediately. A determined campaign has opportunity to contest the election into January 2021. We anticipate lawsuits, divergent media narratives, attempts to stop the counting of ballots, and protests drawing people from both sides.
President Trump, the incumbent, will very likely use the executive branch to aid his campaign strategy, including through the Department of Justice. We assess that there is a chance the president will attempt to convince legislatures and/or governors to take actions – including illegal actions – to defy the popular vote.
Federal laws provide little guidance for how Congress should resolve irregularities when they convene in a Joint Session on January 6, 2021. Of particular concern is how the military would respond in the context of uncertain election results. Here recent evidence offers some reassurance, but it is inconclusive.
The administrative transition process itself may be highly disrupted. Participants in our exercises of all backgrounds and ideologies believed that Trump would prioritize personal gain and self-protection over ensuring an orderly administrative handoff to his successor.
Trump may use pardons to thwart future criminal prosecution, arrange business deals with foreign governments that benefit him financially, attempt to bribe and silence associates, declassify sensitive documents, and attempt to divert federal funds to his own businesses. These risks can be mitigated; the worst outcomes of the exercises are far from a certainty.
The purpose of this report is not to frighten, but to spur all stakeholders to action. Our legal rules and political norms don’t work unless people are prepared to defend them and to speak out when others violate them.
It is incumbent upon elected officials, civil society leaders, and the press to challenge authoritarian actions in the courts, in the media, and in the streets through peaceful protest. Specific recommendations include:
• • • • Plan for a contested election. If there is a crisis, events will unfold quickly, and sleep-deprived leaders will be asked to make consequential decisions quickly. Thinking through options now will help to ensure better decisions. Approach this as a political battle, not just a legal battle. In the event of electoral contestation, sustained political mobilization will likely be crucial for ensuring transition integrity.
Dedicated staff and resources need to be in place at least through the end of January.
Focus on readiness in the states, providing political support for a complete and accurate count. Governors, Secretaries of State, Attorneys General and Legislatures can communicate and reinforce laws and norms and be ready to confront irregularities. Election officials will need political and public support to see the process through to completion. Address the two biggest threats head on: lies about “voter fraud” and escalating violence.
Voting fraud is virtually non-existent, but Trump lies about it to create a narrative designed to politically mobilize his base and to create the basis for contesting the results should he lose. The potential for violent conflict is high, particularly since Trump encourages his supporters to take up arms.
Anticipate a rocky administrative transition. Transition teams will likely need to do two things simultaneously: defend against Trump’s reckless actions on his way out of office; and find creative solutions to ensure landing teams are able to access the information and resources they need to begin to prepare for governing.
About the Transition Integrity Project The Transition Integrity Project (TIP)1 was launched in late 2019 out of concern that the Trump Administration may seek to manipulate, ignore, undermine or disrupt the 2020 presidential election and transition process. TIP takes no position on how Americans should cast their votes, or on the likely winner of the upcoming election: either major party candidate could prevail at the polls in November without resorting to “dirty tricks.”
However, the administration of President Donald Trump has steadily undermined core norms of democracy and the rule of law and embraced numerous corrupt and authoritarian practices.
This presents a profound challenge for those – from either party – who are committed to ensuring free and fair elections, peaceful transitions of power, and stable administrative continuity in the United States. The American people have the right to choose their next president without intimidation or interference in the normal electoral process.
Believers in democracy and the rule of law should therefore be prepared to take action to ensure that the results of the 2020 presidential election reflect the will of the American people.
Like many authoritarian leaders, President Trump has begun to lay the groundwork for potentially ignoring or disrupting the voting process, by claiming, for instance, that any mail-in ballots will be fraudulent and that his opponents will seek to have non-citizens vote through fraud.
Similarly, he has frequently expressed the view that he is entitled to additional time in office and that his opponents are seeking to steal the election. If President Trump’s future actions violate long-standing legal and ethical norms relating to presidential elections, there is also a risk that they will push other actors, including, potentially, some in the Democratic Party, to similarly engage in practices that depart from traditional rule of law norms, out of perceived self-defense.
The goal of TIP is to highlight these various electoral and transition-related risks and make recommendations to all actors, individual and institutional, who share a commitment to democracy and the rule of law.
Here’s the quencher: The recommendations shared here reflect input from both Republicans and Democrats committed to these values. However, because the primary threat to the integrity of the election and transition appears to come from the Trump Administration, most of the recommendations in this memo focus on how actors committed to the rule of law can restrain or counter anti-democratic actions the Trump Administration and its supporters may take in connection with the 2020 election. 
To read all pages, go to this link: http://a.msn.com/01/en-us/BB17x0w3?ocid=st