A Georgia judge ruled Monday that election officials must certify election results even if the results show “more votes than voters.”

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney ruled that “no election superintendent (or member of a board of elections and registration) may refuse to certify or abstain from certifying election results under any circumstance,” even if there is a “non-sensical result.” McBurney did, however, agree that election superintendents have a responsibility to investigate discrepancies and are entitled to review election-related materials as part of this process.

Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections (FCBRE) member Julie Adams, who brought the suit, argued (as described by McBurney’s ruling) in part that “it is proper for her, as a co-election superintendent who has taken an oath to ‘prevent any fraud, deceit, or abuse’ to exercise discretion in certifying election results — a conclusion, which, if correct, would empower her to refuse to certify if she believed the results to be incorrect or not sufficiently reliable to merit certification.”

The Democratic Party of Georgia threatened Adams with legal action after she did not certify the results of the March presidential preference primary. Adams initially filed a suit in May seeking clarification about her role. Adams said she refused to certify the results after she was allegedly denied access to election-related documents and asked that the court clarify her role to be discretionary — meaning members should only certify the results once they are confident the election was administered lawfully — rather than

Legacy media are working overtime to delegitimize a new report indicating Kamala Harris allegedly plagiarized parts of a book she co-authored.

The cover-up began on Monday shortly after the Manhattan Institute’s Christopher Rufo reported findings by Austrian “plagiarism hunter” Stefan Weber, who purportedly discovered that a 2009 book co-authored by Harris and Joan O’C. Hamilton contains passages seemingly lifted from various other published works and websites. The book is titled Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor’s Plan to Make Us Safer.

Rufo noted how “[s]ome of the passages [Weber] highlighted appear to contain minor transgressions — reproducing small sections of text; insufficient paraphrasing — but others seem to reflect more serious infractions, similar in severity to those found in Harvard president Claudine Gay’s doctoral thesis.” The report cited numerous examples in which Harris and her co-author seemingly lifted text from sources such as an NBC News article, a John Jay College of Criminal Justice press release, and a Wikipedia article.

In an effort to run damage control for Harris’ flailing campaign, the anti-speech New York Times dispatched three “journalists” to pen an article aimed at undercutting Rufo’s reporting. Replaying their worn-out “Republicans pounce!” playbook with the headline “Conservative Activist Seizes on Passages From Harris Book,” authors Stephanie Saul, Vimal Patel, and Dylan Freedman attempted to convince Times readers that the massive scandal is just another “right-wing” nothingburger.

“In a review of the book, The New York Times found that none of the passages in question took the ideas or thoughts of another writer, which

Last week, Politico ran a headline. Once upon a time, it would have been tempting to attach some superlative to said headline, such as “astonishing,” “remarkable,” or “crazy.” Now such headlines are commonplace and illustrative of the information warfare that defines American politics. Anyway, here it is:

One of the biggest political problems in America is the complete disconnect between what passes for “conventional wisdom” inside the beltway and how most Americans’ perception of reality affects how they vote. Roughly half the country identifies as politically conservative, and beyond that, there are supermajorities involving good chunks of the Democrat party that think that elite opinion has gone too far left on several key issues.

And yet, nearly all discussions that take place context of our “media-run state” basically start from the premise that radicalism on the right is a clear and present threat to the republic, whereas radicalism on the left is never threatening to prosperity and our way of life. Rather, it’s just a messaging problem, where the establishment left must be given broad latitude to say whatever it needs to say to get elected and stave off the absurdly broad category of candidates labeled dangerous right-wing extremists. And it doesn’t matter if what is said is fundamentally dishonest because the threat justifies the deception.

This is why an army of fact-checkers, misinformation experts, censors, and journalists — and good luck telling the difference between those four ostensible vocations, as they are frequently rolled into one