???
Did you notice anything?
go here and pick the sanction program you want to search for.
Much quicker
https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/
GLOMAG is the one this guy is trying to talk about, but his info is not correct
If you research these sanctioned people and entities you will see something curious
These are the SEIZED ASSETS since President Trump signed the Executive Order in December 2017 that if anyone was involved in Human Trafficking or Corruption, their ASSETS WOULD BE SEIZED.
This is false. As metapriest points out many programs are covered by OFAC sanctions.
OFAC itself was formally created in December 1950, following the entry of China into the Korean War, when President Truman declared a national emergency and blocked all Chinese and North Korean assets subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
This PDF is a list of everyone sanctioned for any reason. A much better way to find which programs are sanctioning who is to go the website.
Banks and other financial institutions are not allowed to deal with sanctioned people or companies. This list is where you check if someone is sanctioned. For example, say someone wants to deposit 10 million dollars in your bank. It's illegal to do business with sanctioned people so how do you check that. You go to the OFAC website. Which is part of the Treasury depart https://ofac.treasury.gov/about-ofac
Anyone who works for investment company knows you have to follow the KYC rules, Know Your Client. Are you about to handle drug money? Terrorists? Traffickers. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/knowyourclient.asp
So the Jack Straw tweet is false. But you can find out who is sanctioned under "Executive Order in December 2017" signed by President Trump. There is A TON OF MISINFO about this.
Jack Straw repeats some of this misinfo
Executive Order in December 2017 that if anyone was involved in Human Trafficking or Corruption
Trafficking is never mentioned in the executive order or the law that brought it about.
Here's the order. It creates a new sanctions program https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-13818-blocking-the-property-persons-involved-serious-human-rights-abuse-or
In the executive order, Trump cites the legal authority he is issuing the order under. This includes the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act and on the OFAC website, these new sactions are called GLOMAG
Here's where you search the sanctions list https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/
If you go to the Programs field and select GLOMAG, you can filter the full list and there are 694 search results.
Every time they add people to the list, they issue a press release, you can see them here. https://www.state.gov/global-magnitsky-act/
Reports have to be sent to Congress on a rountine basis.
This notice contains the text of the report, submitted by the President required by the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, as submitted by the Secretary of State.
OFAC sanctions go back decades. Under many different types of programs.
or it's an indication of a mistake. See my other comments. People on twitter are saying there was a screw up in Orange Count typed in 7 digits for Garvey, when it should have been 6.
Checking the Orange County vote.
DecisionDesk is said to be good site for election results.
As of early this afternoon EST, they have 400K total votes in Orange County.
https://results.decisiondeskhq.com/2024/Primaries/California/
Steve Garvey GOP 177,011 44.0%
Adam Schiff DEM 88,346 22.0%
....
Total 402,144
You can check the CA official page, and they also have Orange county votes over 400K, but no where near a million https://electionresults.sos.ca.gov/returns/status
Apparently there was a typo in Orange County.
https://x.com/memeplops/status/1765726008353735087?s=20
People say there is a community note that will start appearing for this.
Here's another tweet where the math works out
https://x.com/sssdddsda/status/1765485829021913225?s=20
This tweet shows Orange County reporting 1,039,044 votes for Garvey. when it should have been 103,904.
I believe it was an error in orange county where they gave Garvey, 1,039,044 votes instead of 103,904. Maybe maybe not I am not 100% but that’s what it looks like.
How else can we investigate this claim. It seems the original video is using the NY Times election results. Don't know if we could find snapshots of that during the day. Also it would be interesting to see if other sites showed these same numbers, that could narrow it down if the error originated with the NY Times or not.
The numbers don't make sense "before the cheat"
This graphic is showing the top 4 vote getters. The total number of candidates was like 25.
Add up the totals of the top 4. It's over 3.6 million votes. Look at the total votes it's only 3.2 million votes.
So it seems we do have hundreds of thousands of extra votes.
There's also something weird with this video the total number of votes doesn't change. But "AFTER" the top 4 have like 2.9 million votes and with the other 20 candidates that sounds about right.
Why is the Garvey campaign not screaming about this?
It's not like this is some obscure race?
Yes, but Democratic voters had other democratic choices to vote for if they didn't like. Adam Schiff.
California is a pretty blue state these days. I don't see 900,000 voters making that shift.
That's a whole separate election, so pulling this stunt did not gain you anything.
My question is what would be the benefit to the people who pulled the stunt off? Nothing. Garvey is going to be on the ballot anyway.
Look at Garveys votes now.
Look at Haley's votes.
Look at Trump's votes
Garvey has 1,342,948 according to
https://elections2024.thehill.com/primaries/california/
That just about matches Trump's 1.1 million plus Haley's 250,000.
Other wise, Garvey would have 2.2 million votes if you gave him another 900,000. Where would they have come from?
Why is someone “typing” the numbers? How else would votes get reported up the chain?
Results are reported by county, but each county has different precincts.
Here's the county map in CA. https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/map
Click on a county to see how many precincts. A county I never heard of in upper upper CA had 62. San Diego County had over two thousand.
As votes come in and are counted. The precincts report batches up to the county and the counties report batches up to the state. Thousands of precincts. Dozens of counties doing multple counts a day.
Here's info on the counting
https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/upcoming-elections/california-vote-counting-process
Every number you see is a preliminary number.
Nothing is official yet
https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/upcoming-elections/california-vote-counting-process
Election results posted on Election Night are semi-official results based on the in-person ballots cast at voting locations on Election Day, any early voted ballots cast in person prior to Election Day, and any vote-by-mail ballots received and processed prior to Election Day.
The complete tally of votes is never finished on Election Night as vote-by-mail ballots postmarked on or before Election Day and received within seven days after the election, as well as any provisional ballots cast, must still be counted. These ballots are always counted during the official canvass period in the 30 days after Election Day.
While media outlets and others may “call” an election contest, or candidates may “concede” to their opponent, on Election Night or the in days following, these calls and concessions are based on the semi-official results and not the final election results. The election results are never final until the Secretary of State has compiled the official statewide results after all county elections officials have reported their official canvass of the votes.
It's not fraud.
Or let met put this another way.
Do you think people are more excited to vote for Steve Garvey or Donald Trump.
Because if these 900,000 votes are real Garvey got waaaaaay more support than Donald Trump.
The Times reported who cowrote the article went on CNN
And they made the point that Elon could contribute money to a superpac or dark money group. His tweet does cover these.
She also said that campaign money has been a concern for the Trump campaign for months
You can call this "trusting the establishment" which is a way of framing the argument as something else.
But if you know how elections work, this doesn't make much sense as "a steal."
I mean Steve Garvey was one of the winners today. I don't see a benefit
Edit
I guess my point is yes you can easily make a typo that adds an extra digit I do it all time on my phone.
There's no benefit to it and if this was the plan it's super risky and fruitless.
You can easily double check this. Because the ballots exist. And you could check hot many votes came in during that period.
Oh yeah, it does mention Twitter.
I guess it i remember peoples references to it more these days.
Good catch.
A 900K typo is pretty easy to understand.
Without looking at the details, say you meant type 117349
But instead you type 1173490
Hitting both 9 and 0 instead of 9.
that could into a huge error, I'm this case it's 1,056,141
This is not an official count. Counts will get confirmed in a few days.
California has paper ballots
Optical scan paper ballot systems: Voters mark their votes by filling in an oval, box, or similar shape on a paper ballot which are then scanned.
Why would that have to happen on Twitter?
Or by Trump himself?
If Trump put a video on Truth social, tons of folks on Twitter could repost it
Probably for a lot of reasons.
Tactical and otherwise..... IF
This was indeed about campaign finances. You may not want people to know that.
I just read something that Ken Griffin who gave like 60 million in the 2022 political cycle has yet to donate the Trump. He's focusing only on congressional races and had been a Haley contributor.
When a candidate drops out of the race, it's common for consolidation of donors and support and teams to start happening people all working for the nominee. And with super Tuesday behind us that's where we're at
People we don't know are wealthy.
Or people we don't know they exist?
It doesn't apply to Americans.
And human trafficking is not covered by it