Some of what you say here is true (though not material). I agree that Greg Palast sometimes appears abrasive and/or intrusive, and makes occasional remarks that are more personal than relevant (as with the style of dress). However, the abrasive and intrusive parts are a necessary part of the job, because nobody who removes tens of thousands of v**ers without justification other than they're on some unverified list likes to be questioned about it, but should be questioned about it, and the sooner the better. This is an investigative reporter, with many successes under his belt, and he asks hard questions, "hard" because the person questioned doesn't want to have to explain what she did. But anyone who removes v**ers as she did _should_ have to explain it.

You mention who he works for. Some of his work as been published by The Guardian. He's also written a few best-selling books about his work, and at least one non-fiction movie. One of the entities he "works for" now is Black V**ers Matter: whatsamatter, you think there's something not credible about Black v**ers mattering?

You say, "all the County has to do is refuse to comply", but the original article responds directly to that, saying:

"And just in case county officials attempt to reject these renewed mass challenges, another little-noticed clause in SB202 will enforce the v**er purge.

"Counties, who previously had final say over v**er rolls and the counting of b****ts, must now accept the challenges. If not, the State E******ns Board can dismiss local v****g officials. The newly constituted state board is, according to the new law, under the control of Governor Brian Kemp and legislative leaders, all Republicans.

"The new board just removed v****g rights advocate Helen Butler from the Monroe County E******ns Board. Butler, Executive Director of the Georgia Coalition for the Peoples Agenda, was my co-plaintiff in a successful federal suit against then Sec. of State Brian Kemp."

Some such purges, including this one, _are_ based (as you suggested they were) on supposed changes of residence. But the lists are slapped together carelessly (or worse, presuming moves even when they shouldn't be presumed, to purge the largest number possible of some kind of v**ers). A lot of the people either haven't moved at all or have moved within the county so should not be purged. This particular article gives examples but doesn't say how many; but Palast & those working with him are very right to be suspicious that it's a large number, because a similar trick was done, also in Georgia, in the time when Brian Kemp was Secretary of State (he was also a candidate for Governor _while_ he was Secretary of State, therefore overseeing the e******n in which he was a candidate -- he was therefore asked to step down from that obviously biased position as Secretary of State, but didn't.). Here's what Palast writes about _that_ purge:

"How could I find out exactly how many on the list had ~actually moved~ -- versus how many were simply re-moved by Kemp?" And he describes how to find out. Then he concludes: "More than a third of a million wrongly purged -- in this one state. The list was more than 74% wrong." My source: _How Trump Stole 2020_, by Greg Palast, pages 18-21, but the same book also includes an Appendix with more detail about that.

It's a rough business, and the investigative reporter and his team keep after the officials until they get answers. You're blaming the reporter, but it's the purgers who really are, in your words, "out of control right wing"; but not "lunatic", more like devious or venal. The reporter is basically telling the t***h about them.

You also say, in a hypothetical example, "[if] it turns out 4000 of them are people of color, my challenge is NOT r****t"; and I agree that the fact that a large number are people of color does not imply r****m. But a wrong purge is wrong whether they happen to be of color or not.

There's a logical reason why these purged v**ers would share some characteristics. The excuse for purging them was that they were presumed moved out of county. That excuse is mostly false. But the purged v**ers have something else in common: they "happen to be" of demographics that tend to v**e Democratic.

Another excuse the purgers give is that they're trying to prevent illegal v****g. And yet time and again, the following happens:

"The state’s own investigation of the November p**********l race could not identify a single illegal v**er, let alone hundreds of thousands." (reference: the original article, which I posted in the original post).

You are right about me missing the part about the county's ability to refuse. I apologize for that. And no, I do not have a problem with Black v**ers, who do matter very much. I have a problem with supposedly objective "journalists" imposing slanted and prejudiced views into their articles, and it does not matter whether they are left leaning or right leaning. I have a problem with folks like CNN and MSMBC who both lie, and also cover up information, in order to pursue political goals. This article sure smacks of the same kind of "journalism".
If, and I emphasis IF, what the article alleges is true, then certainly unsubstantiated lists of this sort should not be admitted. However, the law was written as it is for valid reasons, whether everyone agrees with them or not. If the democrats are concerned with so-called v**er 'suppression', then the solution is simple.....bipartisan committees can cooperate in proposing legislation that both stops v**er suppression AND ensures one AND ONLY ONE verifiable and legitimate and LEGAL v**e per v**er.
But I suspect that you know, as I do, that the last 13 words will never be acceptable to the current democrat leadership.

"Bipartisan" is unlikely to happen when the Republicans under the leadership of Mitch McConnell are so bad that, for example, they refuse hearings of Supreme Court nominees in Democrat presidencies and rush hearings of Supreme Court nominees in Republican presidencies.

One "and ONLY ONE verifiable and legitimate and LEGAL v**e per v**er" is already sufficiently ensured. Of the extremely rare instances of an illegal v**e, most of them are v**es for Republicans, because Republican v**ers are the only ones dumb enough to try such a lame thing that's so easy to detect by how the systems are set up. Those are the ones in Pennsylvania that got caught. But even if they didn't get caught it would only have given their candidate so few extra v**es that it wouldn't have made any difference. Meanwhile, other Republicans are still looking for any Democrat v**ers who tried an illegal v**e.

The big action is in v**er suppression. There, it's really easy for officials (such as Brian Kemp when he was Sec. of State of Georgia) to wipe out many tens of thousands of v**es for long enough to throw an e******n. The same investigative reporter found out and reported it in the book I mentioned earlier.

"Bipartisan" is unlikely to happen when the Republicans under the leadership of Mitch McConnell are so bad that, for example, they refuse hearings of Supreme Court nominees in Democrat presidencies and rush hearings of Supreme Court nominees in Republican presidencies.

One "and ONLY ONE verifiable and legitimate and LEGAL v**e per v**er" is already sufficiently ensured. Of the extremely rare instances of an illegal v**e, most of them are v**es for Republicans, because Republican v**ers are the only ones dumb enough to try such a lame thing that's so easy to detect by how the systems are set up. Those are the ones in Pennsylvania that got caught. But even if they didn't get caught it would only have given their candidate so few extra v**es that it wouldn't have made any difference. Meanwhile, other Republicans are still looking for any Democrat v**ers who tried an illegal v**e.

The big action is in v**er suppression. There, it's really easy for officials (such as Brian Kemp when he was Sec. of State of Georgia) to wipe out many tens of thousands of v**es for long enough to throw an e******n. The same investigative reporter found out and reported it in the book I mentioned earlier.

No. Of the two major political parties, Democrats are and have long been the more bipartisan of the two, by far. If Senate Republicans had allowed a hearing on Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court Merrick Garland, Democrats would attend that and would also consent to have hearings on Republican presidents' nominees. In a hearing, arguments from both sides would be presented. Republicans didn't even allow that for Garland.

I've never heard of Democrats behaving like that: to refuse to even hold a hearing so that a Supreme Court nominee could be evaluated. Republicans did that many months before the end of Obama's term, then reversed their excuse in the final weeks of Trump's presidency and rushed his nominee into the Supreme Court.

I haven't heard any Democrats threatening to k**l Republican congresspeople (as Republican r****rs did at the capitol building on J*** 6. Not threatening to k**l is a prerequisite to bipartisanship. Not threatening (or even just plotting) to kidnap a governor also helps (Michigan), as does not invading the state capitol and displaying weapons. That is terrorism. Bipartisanship does not commence with people until they stop using terrorism. When they insist on playing hardball tricks in Congress (e.g., as McConnell did when he led the Senate and refused to even hold a confirmation hearing about Garland) or employing terrorism (J*** 6 and the other time at the Michigan capitol), then increasingly the only thing left to do with them is to simply squash them, either by v**es or by law or, in the end, by any means necessary. They are free to allow bipartisanship at any time and then we will have a chance to work in a bipartisan way with them, rather than getting closer and closer to having to just squash them.

There is no question that republicans have used despicable political tactics. But the democrats are worse. An entire summer of d******c t*******t acts. Dozens k**led. Hundreds injured. Hundreds of Millions of dollars in damage. All aided and abetted by democrats. You mentioned SCOTUS judges. No republicans, EVER, spent months threatening, abusing, harassing, and falsely accusing not one, but TWO fully qualified judges for no other reason than because they disagreed with them politically. I am not aware of ANY republican bills proposed to deliberately violate the Constitution. There are at least TWO such bills before Congress RIGHT NOW, and they are being forcefully pushed by the democrats. I could go on with examples for two pages of d********g "the end justifies the means" actions and words done by democrats.
So please don't set there and try to tell me that the democrats are 'more bipartisan' than the republicans. It will not wash because it is not true. The democrats idea of 'bipartisanship' is when republicans turn their backs on their constituents and give the democrats wh**ever they want.

Sure. How about HR 1 which violates the Constitution by attempting to take e******n authority from the States and hand it to Congress. Plus any and all bills that attempt to establish federal restrictions on guidelines, when the Constitution CLEARLY states that the government SHALL NOT.
Both of these issues can be properly addressed by Constitutional Amendments. But the democrats KNOW they would never get those amendments passed, so they try these inept and illegal attempts to do a run around the Constitution. "Let's pass the laws even though it violates the Constitution, and then we'll have judges in place to rule that the Constitution is a 'living document' and we say it is ok to do this."
Thereby violating their oaths of office, and essentially committing treason, at least morally and ethically.

Thank you. That is a somewhat worthy argument. (I'm not sure how good it is, yet.) I shall focus just on the first part of it:

Suppose that the "e******n authority" constitutionally belongs to the states. (I take your word for that, at least for the sake of the argument.). Further suppose that that means that any state legislature can, for any reason or no reason at all, disregard wh**ever happened in its state's part of a national e******n, and instead declare (as if by divine fiat -- but in the form of a v**e within the state legislature) wh**ever result the state legislature decides. So, for example, all the Republican-majority state legislatures might have decided for Trump, and (if the Democrat-majority state legislatures were also willing to do such) all the Democrat-majority state legislatures might have decided for Biden. Anticipating this, we might have dispensed with the bigger population v****g and simply polled, or even just counted the memberships of, each of the state legislatures, compared those numbers in each case, did the appropriate calculations, and thus known or decided who's president for the next 4 years.

I'm doubtful that that would be a good way to have a national e******n. But, supposing the Constitution definitively gives such a power to the state legislatures, then I guess that's Constitutionally what we'd have to live with. So technically your side of the argument would win, there; but I really don't think that's what was intended by the writers of the Constitution. To me it seems a bit bizarre, in such a way that it opens the door to other things: for example:

Pursuing a similar kind of argument: The Constitution doesn't specify how many judges shall be on the U.S. Supreme Court, but gives the power to decide that to Congress. So, a Democrat president and a Democrat-led Congress (supposing it has sufficiently partisan and sufficiently numerous majorities) might suddenly expand the U.S. Supreme Court to, say, a thousand judges and quickly appoint 991 of them. Since the Constitution allows them to do that, then why not? -- if they want to. I'm in favor of a somewhat smaller number than a thousand; but the Constitution doesn't give the choice to me, it gives the choice to Congress.

I did get to v**e, earlier in the processes; I v**ed for a couple of U.S. Senators and one U.S. Representative; and I also v**ed for a state senator and a state representative, for the state government where I live. Supposing I (and other v**ers in my state) chose all those people wisely, then most of them might do the right things. I'm a lot more doubtful about what the representatives in the other 49 states are doing though -- I have (even) less voice in their processes.