.
.
The Brennan Center for Justice in New York - home of Tammany Halls historic election riggers - is connected to New York University School of Law, and is on a propaganda mission advocating universal no-excuse mail in ballots, in spite of a glaring chain of custody weakness with mail-in ballots.
In one of their propaganda pieces,
The False Narrative of Vote-by-Mail Fraud, Wendy R. Weiser and Harold Ekeh assert:
Keep in mind they say
" . . . help maintain a secure chain of custody . . . "
But they suspiciously fail to acknowledge there is a loss of chain of custody from the time a mail-in ballot is received by a theoretically legitimate recipient of a mail-in ballot, to the time when that mailed-in ballot is counted.
Additionally, these two authors fail to mention the glaring weakness with a mailed in ballot, there is no practical way to scrutinize a mailed-in ballot when counted, to verify that it was actually filled out, and the choices made thereon, were by a qualified voter who allegedly was issued the ballot.
With in-person voting, and the use of appropriate ID before a qualified voter is allowed into the voting booth, there is an extremely high certainty that the one voting in the booth and checking the choices on the ballot, is a legitimate voter and making their choices.
Finally, the Brennan Center is headed by former Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan, who seems to have lied under oath about the so called “Steele dossier”, and the manufactured Russia Hoax involving former President Trump. See:
Did John Brennan Perjure Himself Over Steele Dossier?
Brennan is also on the list of 51 Intel Officials Who lied About the Hunter Biden Laptop Emails.
The bottom line is, the lack of chain of custody with mail-in voting is a good indication that mail-in voting ought to be limited to those with a legitimate excuse for being unable to vote in person.
By limiting mail-in voting to those with a legitimate excuse for being unable to vote in person, the total number of mail-in ballots would be greatly reduced to a fraction of what is now the case, and in so doing, even though the opportunity for mail-in ballot vote stealing and government perpetrated election fraud would still exist, their effect on an election would be greatly reduced by the reduction in actual mail-in ballots allowed.
The glaring weakness with mail-in ballots, which is an untenable chain of custody problem and an inability to verify if a mailed in ballot was actually filled out, and the choices made there on, were by a legitimate person issued the ballot, is more than enough to want to restrict mail-in ballots to those legitimately unable to vote in person, and for those who want fair elections to say no to no-excuse mail-in ballot voting.
Is it really a good idea to allow political hacks, like John Brennan, run, or influence our election process?
JWK
The troubling truth about allowing no-excuse mail-in voting in one state is, when acts of corruption infect an electoral process in one jurisdiction “they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain.” Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)”.