EMILY MURPHY’S SIGNATURE IS NOT THE SAME ON THESE TWO DOCUMENTS!
Letter to Biden – 11/23/2020
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm…
GSA Management Assurance – 11/13/2019
gsa.gov/reference/repo…
Letter to Biden – 11/23/2020
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm…
GSA Management Assurance – 11/13/2019
gsa.gov/reference/repo…
Look how the “m” and the “u” are NOT clearly written in the Biden letter.
Look how the “m” and the “u” ARE clearly written in the GSA Management Assurance.
Look how the “m” and the “u” ARE clearly written in the GSA Management Assurance.
Look how there is NO period after the middle initial in the Biden letter.
Look how there IS a period after the middle initial in the GSA Management Assurance.
Look how there IS a period after the middle initial in the GSA Management Assurance.
Look at how the “y” in “Emily” has an unclear half-loop at the top and a closed loop at the bottom in the Biden letter.
Look at how the “y” in “Emily” is clearly drawn with a “u” at the top and an open curl at the bottom.
Look at how the “y” in “Emily” is clearly drawn with a “u” at the top and an open curl at the bottom.
Look how the “i” in Emily has no dot in the Biden letter.
Look how the “i” is dotted in the GSA Management Assurance.
This reminds me of the Christine Blasey-Ford letter. How it was written in English as a Second Language even though she is a well-published Ph.D.
Look how the “i” is dotted in the GSA Management Assurance.
This reminds me of the Christine Blasey-Ford letter. How it was written in English as a Second Language even though she is a well-published Ph.D.
Look how the capital “M” in the Biden letter has no loop.
Look how the capital “M” in the GSA Management Assurance letter has two loops.
–Something else about this is bothering me.
Look how the capital “M” in the GSA Management Assurance letter has two loops.
–Something else about this is bothering me.
The initial “E” and “M” look similar enough that I wonder if she signed this with a gun to her head, literal or figurative.
She said she had been threatened, within the letter.
It looks like her hand was shaking when she signed it.
Would duress invalidate this?
She said she had been threatened, within the letter.
It looks like her hand was shaking when she signed it.
Would duress invalidate this?
The “p” in the Biden letter has a triangular loop.
The “p” in the GSA Management Assurance looks almost like non-script.
That is a very strange difference.
I don’t know what to make of it.
Was someone maybe holding her hand to the paper when she signed it?
The “p” in the GSA Management Assurance looks almost like non-script.
That is a very strange difference.
I don’t know what to make of it.
Was someone maybe holding her hand to the paper when she signed it?
The repeating “m” and “u” in the Biden letter is really weird. It’s like “mm” and “uu” or “uuu.”
Versus in the GSA Management Assurance letter it’s very clearly enunciated.
Versus in the GSA Management Assurance letter it’s very clearly enunciated.
Also, if you look very closely at the signatures, the Biden letter is blurry and has a xeroxed edge around it = like Scotch tape.
The GSA Assurance letter is fine and clean.
The GSA Assurance letter is fine and clean.
This letter does not appear to be posted at the GSA.gov website on its Presidential Transition Page.
I searched for the letter on Google. It gave me Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia the source of the letter is CNN, not the Federal government (e.g., not GSA).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2020…
cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/image…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2020…
cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/image…
My method was to take the name of the document and search for that in Google. See below.
2020_GSA_Emily_W_Murphy_letter_to_Biden.pdf
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm…
2020_GSA_Emily_W_Murphy_letter_to_Biden.pdf
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm…
Of the six results, only 1 was the PDF of the letter, and it was parked on Wikipedia.
I just searched “gsa.biden.pdf” and see 3 letters.
Let’s subtract one because that’s the one from CNN, with a different name, parked on Wikipedia.
What are the other two?
Let’s subtract one because that’s the one from CNN, with a different name, parked on Wikipedia.
What are the other two?
The first one is a Memorandum of Understanding from September about what Biden gets as a candidate. It can’t be that one.
gsa.gov/cdnstatic/2020…
gsa.gov/cdnstatic/2020…
So we are left with this one.
My heart is literally pounding.
d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2020/11…
My heart is literally pounding.
d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2020/11…
This is not the GSA website.
The letter is also named differently.
GSA-biden-transition-letter-11.23.20.pdf
d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2020/11…
The letter is also named differently.
GSA-biden-transition-letter-11.23.20.pdf
d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2020/11…
When I search for just the name of the document (the third name) and restrict it to the past 24 hours, it takes me to this page. The top two results are the Daily Kos and MSNBC.
google.com/search?q=GSA-b…
google.com/search?q=GSA-b…
When I search Whois for that domain, this is what I see.
whois.com/whois
I tried ICANN lookup and it said “the domain name entered is not valid.”
lookup.icann.org/lookup
whois.com/whois
I tried ICANN lookup and it said “the domain name entered is not valid.”
lookup.icann.org/lookup
But according to the media (search Google for “GSA Biden”), Emily W. Murphy, the head of the GSA, just authorized Biden to get transition funding, legitimizing him as the President-elect.
google.com/search?newwind…
google.com/search?newwind…
Before ending this thread I just want to point out a couple of anomalies in the letter itself.
Before doing that – look at the GSA Presidential Transition Page: “Last Reviewed: 2020-09-30”
That’s months ago.
Do you notice also that their dating convention is different than the one “signed” by Murphy?
gsa.gov/governmentwide…
That’s months ago.
Do you notice also that their dating convention is different than the one “signed” by Murphy?
gsa.gov/governmentwide…
Also if she “signed” a letter, it would be named the same way, consistently, wherever it appeared.
The GSA logo is not the same logo as the one on the letter.
The logo on the letter is not in use by the GSA for its website or its letters.
Here is the official GSA branding guide, which shows how GSA stationery is supposed to look. You can see that the standard logo appears on the upper left, and “General Services Administration” appears on the upper right.
Not “The Administrator.”
gsa.gov/cdnstatic/insi…
Not “The Administrator.”
gsa.gov/cdnstatic/insi…
“By featuring the GSA Monogram as a part of the Star Mark, we clearly identify ourselves.”
“The GSA Star Mark is the official and sole identifying mark for the agency and all agency programs.”
“The official elements are fixed and should never be redrawn or altered in any way.”
“The GSA Star Mark is the official and sole identifying mark for the agency and all agency programs.”
“The official elements are fixed and should never be redrawn or altered in any way.”
Here is an official GSA letter from April 2018 (response to a FOIA request). You can see that the official GSA logo is used. The name of the office does appear on the upper right.
governmentattic.org/33docs/GSAsPPR…
governmentattic.org/33docs/GSAsPPR…
Within the letter itself:
“I have dedicated much of my adult life to public service, and I have always strived to do what is right.”
The whole sentence is odd. In correspondence, government officials just state their business. They don’t write manifestos.
“I have dedicated much of my adult life to public service, and I have always strived to do what is right.”
The whole sentence is odd. In correspondence, government officials just state their business. They don’t write manifestos.
It would never occur to a government official to say they were not being held hostage.
“Please know that I came to my decision independently….I was never directly or indirectly pressured by any Executive Branch official….To be clear, I did not receive any direction”
“Please know that I came to my decision independently….I was never directly or indirectly pressured by any Executive Branch official….To be clear, I did not receive any direction”
Compare with the dry FOIA letter, which is standard – “This letter is in response to…Under the law we are doing XYZ.”
As the Administrator of the GSA, Ms. Murphy absolutely can consult with Counsel before sending a letter. It would be very odd indeed if she did not. Why is she talking about looking up the law herself? Does any Cabinet official do that? She doesn’t operate as an individual.
Can you imagine the Presidentially appointed head of any agency talking about their pets?
“I did, however, receive threats… directed at my safety, my family, my staff, and even my pets”
It’s like the language was intended to make this believable.
“I did, however, receive threats… directed at my safety, my family, my staff, and even my pets”
It’s like the language was intended to make this believable.
Lobbying for change to the law? To Congress?
“I do not think that an agency charged with improving federal procurement and property management should place itself above the constitutionally-based election process. I strongly urge Congress to consider amendments to the Act.”
“I do not think that an agency charged with improving federal procurement and property management should place itself above the constitutionally-based election process. I strongly urge Congress to consider amendments to the Act.”
This doesn’t make sense either. Nobody knows the status of the legal disputes. How would she decide that they are irrelevant?
“As stated, because of recent developments involving legal challenges and certifications of election results,
I have determined that you may access…”
“As stated, because of recent developments involving legal challenges and certifications of election results,
I have determined that you may access…”
Now there are some things to review with respect to deviations from the GSA Style Guide.
References here.
Sample letter
governmentattic.org/33docs/GSA-OIG…
Online style guidance
usa.gov/style-guide/st…
Old fashioned style guide
governmentattic.org/12docs/GSAstyl…
Sample letter
governmentattic.org/33docs/GSA-OIG…
Online style guidance
usa.gov/style-guide/st…
Old fashioned style guide
governmentattic.org/12docs/GSAstyl…
Most current
It’s “NW,” not “N.W.”
The most current guidance is not to put periods in “DC.”
The most current guidance is not to put periods in “DC.”
U.S. Government Publishing Office Style Guide (2016), p. 222 – periods go inside the parenthesis, not outside.
govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GP…
govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GP…
These things do matter, and we get graded every month for our adherence to the standards. (Please note that all opinions here are always my own unless otherwise indicated. I do not speak for my employer.)
On looking this up, Ms. Mary D. Gibert is the Federal Transition Coordinator at the GSA in addition to being the Associate Administrator for the Office of Civil Rights.
cre.org/wp-content/upl…
citizensforethics.org/wp-content/upl…
cre.org/wp-content/upl…
citizensforethics.org/wp-content/upl…
(End.)
By Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal. All opinions are the author’s own. Public domain.
2020 Diary - Dannielle Blumenthal 