January 25, 2017

"President Trump reiterated his false claim that at least three million illegal immigrants cast ballots for Hillary Clinton..."

"... calling on Wednesday for an investigation into voter fraud, even though his own legal team has argued that no such fraud occurred," says the NYT.

I disapprove of the use of the phrase "false claim" in a news article. Trump deserves criticism if he is purporting to know things that he does not know, but the NYT is also asserting that it knows something it does not know. Trump's allegation could be true. How can you know for certain without a thorough investigation?

It would be much stronger for the NYT to say that Trump's statement is unsupported and merely a suspicion (a suspicion that supports his political interests).

The obvious reason for choosing to call it a false claim rather than an unsupported claim is that if we actually already know it's false, then no investigation is needed.

So the question is why would the NYT want to take that position? It makes me suspect that they are afraid something will turn up — if not 3 million illegal immigrants* voting, then other voting problems that are damaging to the Democratic Party.

I can see another reason to want to avoid an investigation: If there is an ongoing investigation, it will keep the question of illegal voting in the public eye. The NYT might want to say: There's no significant illegal voting, so let's just move on (or just talk about how dangerously delusional Trump is). But if there is an investigation, it prolongs our attention to the issue, and people's feelings about illegal voting are kept raw. There's no closure.

And there is resonance with other immigration issues. People hearing about the allegation and the investigation may feel stimulated to see the presence of illegal immigrants as a bigger problem than it actually is and they may increase their support for deportations and wall-building. Whatever the investigation eventually shows, those policies are going forward now and depend on public acceptance.

An investigation takes the pressure off Trump. We needn't dwell on whether he got it completely wrong or just alternative-factishly wrong. We can wait to see what the investigation says. And if the investigation says there is no illegal voting, Trump can take credit for finding that out for us (as he took credit for solving the mystery of whether Obama was born in the United States). The investigation, however, is likely to find at least some problems, and the focus can easily shift to those, causing us to forget about the precise allegation that got the investigation started. (I'm thinking about how the Whitewater land deal started Ken Starr's investigation into President Clinton but led to other things that completely distracted us from the question whether anything was corrupt about Whitewater.)
________________________

*I would normally avoid using the phrase "illegal immigrants," because I think some people find it offensive, but the NYT used it!

352 comments:

1 – 200 of 352   Newer›   Newest»
Robert Roy said...

That's interesting that they've moderates it to "false claim". Last night I was seeing the NYT story for "Trump Lie". I felt that was a bit of an unprecedented line in the sand for a major news organ.

Bob Ellison said...

The NYT does not want to admit their fear: Trump might be correct.

Ambrose said...

Comments not enabled for this NYT article - always a sign they know they are pushing their agenda in a "news" article.

Fernandinande said...

1st link plays proctologist: "Error 503 Backend is unhealthy"

Michael K said...

It makes me suspect that they are afraid something will turn up — if not 3 million illegal immigrants* voting, then other voting problems that are damaging to the Democratic Party.

They "opened the door" as trial lawyers say when they alleged Russian hacking. What goes around, comes around.

Trump has so far trolled the lefties brilliantly.

California has 1/3 of all illegals and the state gave them all, who applied, drivers' licenses which includes voter registration. My wife's DL expired a year ago January and she could not get an appointment to renew until April. The DMV was over run with illegals getting their licenses and voter registration.

I doubt California will cooperate with an investigation but everybody knows Loretta Sanchez won her first election with illegals voting.

My guess is that Hillary's total in CA included several million illegals.

Ann Althouse said...

@Robert Roy

Yes, I think I may have noticed that.

robother said...

Also, I wouldn't trust the NYT's ascribing to Trump the claim "three million illegal immigrants" cast ballots. The three million fraudulent ballots could've been cast by non-citizens here legally as well as illegally. That figure is consistent with the comprehensive Congressional study a few years ago that found 14% of non-citizens were registered to vote. (There are at least 23 million non-citizens in the US.)

Gusty Winds said...

It makes me suspect that they are afraid something will turn up...

Something will turn up. Go to Chicago and make the claim that fraudulent votes aren't cast. Go to Kenosha. I know people that have seen the buses and they are not bullshitting.

Trump's tweet gave some specifics...people registered in two states, dead people still on voter rolls, and people registered illegally.

But the Russians "hacked the election".

Trump has them all running in circles.

eric said...

These news agencies are still living in the past.

Thy write articles like this in order to influence the administration. However, they have no more influence. They are acting like robots whose programming hasn't been changed to adapt to a new reality.

Ultimately, this will hurt them. Why? Because Trump is going to go ahead and investigate voter fraud. And they are going to find it. Lots of it. And their will be some high profile prosecutions. And then we will bring up these idiotic articles.

And the influence of the press will continue to diminish.

So much winning.

Richard said...

CBS was worse. CBS radio news called it a disproven claim. When was it disproven?

Rae said...

37% of districts in Detroit counted more votes than voters. The Democrat party will lose a lot of votes if the rolls are cleared. That's why they oppose it.

Original Mike said...

"It makes me suspect that they are afraid something will turn up..."

The vehemence with which they object is a tell.

mccullough said...

This should be good. The federal government has never investigated it before. They are going to turn up some illegal voting. How much I'm curious to see.

SGT Ted said...

When Jill Stein was challenging the vote tallies back in November, many of my portside friends publically said they wanted to have a FULL INVESTIGATION into possible fraudulent voting to "clear the air". Looks like Trump is taking their advice seriously.

campy said...

CBS radio news called it a disproven claim. When was it disproven?

To CBS, a proven fact = something a lefty says.

SayAahh said...

Trump is continually getting hung up.

O's birth certificate, the crowds dancing in the streets post 9-11, the chubby beauty queen, gold medal parents, inaugural crowd numbers, popular voter illegalities et.al.

Tilting at windmills is non productive and foolish. Unforced errors.

I would advise him to let the obsessions go and focus on realities.

MayBee said...

Media outlets have the ability to do something more than just say it's fake and rely on studies. They could easily interview the California Secretary of State and find out what they do to purge voter rolls and make sure people who register are registering legally. But they don't put that information out there they just squeal "no evidence"

MayBee said...

It would be incredibly easy to register illegally in California and to vote illegally in California. If you knew your whole life depended on voting and you could vote easily, why would you not do it?

Fernandinande said...

President Trump reiterated his false claim that at least three million illegal immigrants cast ballots for Hillary Clinton..."

Notice they don't quote him. IIRC, he didn't refer to "illegal immigrants" at all.

Research commissioned by the Pew Center on the States highlights the extent of the challenge:
- Approximately 24 million—one of every eight—voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate.
- More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters.
- Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.

TWW said...

*I would normally avoid using the phrase "illegal immigrants," because I think some people find it offensive, but the NYT used it!

I find your avoidance offensive.

StephenFearby said...

AA wrote:

'I would normally avoid using the phrase "illegal immigrants," because I think some people find it offensive, but the NYT used it!'

Surprised that you care enough about snowflake sensibilities to avoid the use of the correct term. "Undocumented" conveys the idea they aren't legal yet, but they might be on the way.

Like residing in Purgatory or Limbo.

I didn't know you were so politically correct.




Bad Lieutenant said...

*I would normally avoid using the phrase "illegal immigrants," because I think some people find it offensive, but the NYT used it!


Changing the "conversation!"

He can grab the media by the pussy and they let him!

Rob said...

I believe Trump's allegation more than three million illegal immigrants voted is vastly overstated. However, those who deny there are any illegal votes cast are just plain nuts.

Let's break down the types of illegal voting that can occur: (1) ID fraud - probably very rare. (2) People voting twice, including in two jurisdictions - bound to happen, though probably not often. (3) People voting in the name of registered voters who are dead - probably rare. (4) People who are ineligible as felons who vote - don't know the frequency. (5) Illegal immigrants voting - probably some. (6) Legal immigrants voting - probably happens often.

The big category is the last. How could this happen? It's easy to misunderstand the registration form and check the box for citizenship. People make mistakes in filling out forms all the time. Why would we assume it doesn't happen on registration forms, especially if the registrant is not fluent in English? In most places, there is no requirement for proof of citizenship (as opposed to residency); it's on the honor system. The prevalence of motor voter registrations and registration drives makes it easy to commit the error. And once registered, a substantial percentage of people will vote. In fact, they receive mail-in ballots and are encouraged to vote in a number of ways.

Note that many activist groups and politicians consider it voter suppression even to remind people that it's illegal for non-citizens to vote. See, e.g., this NAACP Special Report, p. 4.

Logic compels the conclusion that a substantial number of people vote illegally, most of them blissfully ignorant that they're not permitted to register and vote. That probably doesn't change national elections, but it certainly can change close local and state elections, especially in areas with high numbers of non-citizens.

Richard Dolan said...

"I would normally avoid using the phrase "illegal immigrants," because I think some people find it offensive, but the NYT used it!"

How odd -- not the use of the phrase but the willingness of Cruel Neutrality herself to forswear the plain-spoken and accurate term for something else, all to avoid giving offense to the faint-of-phrase.

campy said...

They could easily interview the California Secretary of State and find out what they do to purge voter rolls and make sure people who register are registering legally.

Would that be the shortest interview ever? "What? Nothing, of course."

MayBee said...

Campy, that's what's funny. He was actually on CNN today and they didn't even ask him. They just let them keep saying there was no evidence.

MayBee said...

Robother- yes, I thought Trump's claim was that there were illegal votes, not that illegal immigrants voted. Illegal votes could meet a whole host of things

Limited blogger said...

President Trump continually giving the media 'dogs' a ball to chase.

While he MAGA at a rapid pace.

YoungHegelian said...

The claim that there are people voting illegally in US elections is an empirical claim. It thus admits of an empirical solution.

The statistical methods of sampling large data sets (e.g. voter rolls) & projecting from that sampling the contents of the complete data set are well-understood & are in everyday use.

If, e.g. California, says there are no illegals voting, make some of their voting rolls available for analysis. Let whoever does the analysis publish not just their data sets, but also their code, assumptions, & analyses.

The most difficult part of this project would be tracking down proof of citizenship of the sampled subset. Coding-wise & statistically, it's a no-brainer for professional pollsters.

Mike said...

My objection to the DNC-media complex declaring it "debunked" or a "false claim" is that they point to no evidence for their claims. It is a bald-faced lie to assert the issue is debunked because Democrats have made a habit of stonewalling efforts to quantify and qualify voting abuses. That's also why they go all :it's soooooo hard to get ID if your poor yadda yadda" when the subject of voter ID comes up. We are one of two countries in the world stupid enough to let unverified voters cast ballots. Progs are always saying how we should be more like Europe -- but that doesn't extend to common sense voting procedures or abortion law (just check out Euro law on that, progs!).

Nevertheless the useful idiots will be along (if they didn't beat me too it) to cry RACISM because I only want US citizens who are eligible to vote. But I stand by this position because it's right and they are all wrong.

Luke Lea said...

Given that no proof of citizenship is required in order to register to vote or to actually vote, it seems plausible that there might be large-scale illegal voting, especially in states like California where the numbers are large and activists are very active indeed. The only academic study I've seen on the subject is here: https://goo.gl/zki7sv I'm not sure of the methodology but in any case it should be relatively easy to do a thorough investigation of this potential problem since voters are required to identify themselve either at the precinct at which they vote or on their absentee ballot.

I should add that absentee ballots are themselves a potential source of fraud because the secrecy of the ballot can no longer be guaranteed. There is nothing to prevent people from selling their vote to someone who witnesses the filling out of their ballot, or who simply fills it out him- or herself.

The good first step towards preventing non-citizens from registering and voting would be to issue biometric Social Security cards in place of the low-tech ones we now have which are made out of cheap cardboard. Extreme civil libertarians would likely object but there is a good case to be made for citizens having to identify themselves in today's world.

Todd said...

SayAahh said...
Trump is continually getting hung up.

O's birth certificate, the crowds dancing in the streets post 9-11, the chubby beauty queen, gold medal parents, inaugural crowd numbers, popular voter illegalities et.al.

Tilting at windmills is non productive and foolish. Unforced errors.

I would advise him to let the obsessions go and focus on realities.

1/25/17, 11:27 AM


Some of these "windmills" are specifically setup for keeping the media and progressives running in circles. While "folks" complain about this, Trump signs us out of TPP, out of ACA, into a pipeline, freeze on new gov employees but you are right, he is not at all focused on what he and the public that supports him want. And maybe just maybe his administration publicly finds was many of us suspect that not only is voter fraud an on-going issue but it is far bigger than most of us suspect. Project Veritas anyone (http://projectveritas.com/)?

Yep, distracted, that's it, he's distracted...

Michael K said...

Tilting at windmills is non productive and foolish. Unforced errors.

I would advise him to let the obsessions go and focus on realities.


I see you don't understand what is happening.

Trump drops a $100 bill on the sidewalk and walks away. The pandemonium that follows is not his obsession.

While the NYT is obsessing on his statement, he is dismantling the Obama "legacy."

Dave D said...

Per lots of the above comments, Ann: Can you please elaborate on your avoidance of using the term "illegal immigrant"? To a commoner like me that seems interesting coming from an actual legal scholar.

Hagar said...

The vehemence with which they object indeed is a tell.
Such things as Jonathan Karl standing up and asking Spicer to "commit to never telling us a lie" really made me blink. That is way over the top for either of these issues.

And I think Trump referred to "illegal votes," not just votes by illegal aliens.

And I am old enough to remember Democrats crowing over having "stolen" the 1960 election from Richard Nixon. They were proud of it.

So, with that and the reports of 110-20% of the registered voters turning out in strong Democrat precincts in the last several elections, I think a general inquiry into the conduct of elections across the country may well be in order.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Tilting at windmills is non productive and foolish. Unforced errors."

-- And yet he won. I agree. Those were all dumb things to do, but... he won.

I think Jill Stein will regret opening the audit the elections door if Trump drives the point home with bipartisan investigations into voting irregularity.

Lewis Wetzel said...

The response to this 'false claim' nonsense should be to ask the Times, etc, "How many illegal immigrants did vote?"
Because they don't know. No one even knows how many illegal aliens are residing in the United States.

Fernandinande said...

I feel dumb for bothering to look this up since the NYT is a major part of FakeNewsInc, but -

Trump did not mention "illegal immigrants".

holdfast said...

"Let's break down the types of illegal voting that can occur: (1) ID fraud - probably very rare. (2) People voting twice, including in two jurisdictions - bound to happen, though probably not often. (3) People voting in the name of registered voters who are dead - probably rare. (4) People who are ineligible as felons who vote - don't know the frequency. (5) Illegal immigrants voting - probably some. (6) Legal immigrants voting - probably happens often."

(2) I'd think this happens quite a bit. New Yorkers with a second home in Florida. College students who are still registered back home. In some cases they make actually only vote once (in a given election), but may choose to do so in the "swingier" state, regardless of whether it is their primary residence - i.e. NYers voting in Florida for President and in NY for the mayor of NYC.

(3) Probably pretty common - think about places like Philly which are solidly Dem, but are in swing states. Even a few ten of thousands of votes can make a difference. Same for Detroit in Michigan.

(4) Probably pretty common - Motor Voter contributes to this, and in some cases it may be an innocent mistake.

(5) Probably pretty common in places like California with such strong "sanctuary" culture. In other places, they probably keep their heads down, but in Cali there are whole towns run by a Hispanic mafia including illegals.

(6) Some, but probably not that common. If you're on a Green Card, why jeopardize potential citizenship?

rehajm said...

rehajm said...
So now he said it again, despite absolutely no documentation that this is a fact. When is the man going to stop the lying?

Right. There is no documentation that this is a fact. There is also no documentation that this isn't a fact, so no proof it's a lie.
There's a few shaky papers of speculation, but until we require proof of citizenship in order to vote, random voter checks or audits of voter rolls it's a just war of words.

1/24/17, 4:13 PM


The real question is why didn't the left see this coming? Eric may have it right...

eric said...
These news agencies are still living in the past.

Thy write articles like this in order to influence the administration. However, they have no more influence. They are acting like robots whose programming hasn't been changed to adapt to a new reality.



CJinPA said...

It makes me suspect that they are afraid something will turn up

The NY Times knows the when the government launches a high-profile investigation into a politicized issue, it gets the findings it wants. See the recent Obama DOJ probe of Chicago police, which argued that statistics were not required to reach the conclusion that CPD was racist.

Will a study show 3 million illegal immigrants voted? No way. But Trump knows that debating the exact number means he already won.

Chuck said...

Rae said...
37% of districts in Detroit counted more votes than voters. The Democrat party will lose a lot of votes if the rolls are cleared. That's why they oppose it.

I know that story. I have been a Republican Party Poll Challenger in Detroit. The story is representative of Detroit sloppiness, and not voter fraud. It has to do with the treatment of optical scanning ballots, how the machines are tested and set up, etc. The discrepancies were small in number, even if someone wanted to presume, without any other evidence, that it was "fraud."

It had nothing to do with non-citizen voting, by the way, or any in-person vote fraud.

See, I'm all in favor of Republican Party election reform efforts. I just don't think those efforts are helped by Trump spouting off a lot of bullshit that sounds like Breitbart and InfoWars.

Watch what John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky say about this. They are two of the leading Republican/conservative election reform writers. Hans von Spakovsky likes to cite a study showing that about 6% of non-citizens actually vote in US elections. It is not a study that I know very well; and in fact, most of the serious debates that we Republicans need to fight and win (early voting, absentee voting, same-day registration, voter i.d.) have very little to do with non-citizen voting.

I see a grave risk that any DoJ study will simply prove that they cannot find any evidence of 5 million non-citizens voting. Of course, the DoJ produced exactly the kind of report that they wanted, in Ferguson, and in Baltimore, etc. So the DoJ can "produce" investigative reports.


buwaya puti said...

This is not a distraction.
This is or should be a strategic move.
This hits the Democratic party right in their mechanisms of power. I agree that the scale of non-citizen voting is unprovable, but it's certain that there is laxness and fraud of all kinds to be found, and these can easily be used to justify a regime of measures to prevent election fraud, along the lines of international best practices. Which is long overdue.

Matthew Sablan said...

3 million is a large ask, but I believe at least SOME illegal votes were cast.

Mike said...

SayAahh: Trump is continually getting hung up.

That is so funny. You've been played. Why do you think he mentioned illegal votes? Because he knew the DNC-media would jump on it with both feet declaring it wrong, setting the stage for him to say: "You say the election was hacked. I say there is fraud. We need a study to determine who's right."

And in your heart you know he is correct. You know the 60-year-old stories of LBJ stealing votes, of dead Chicagoans voting, of 100,000 Mexicans who put Loretta Sanchez over the top. Every election we here there are more votes counted than registered voters in Democrat strongholds like Detriot and Philly. I've heard Democrats brag about this for years! They called it "the Machine" remember? It was all so amusing when the machine was producing results. But there's always been more live Americans to vote than dead, and real Americans to vote instead of foreigners, and this cycle the legal votes won out (except in California, of course).

But your side is slightly out of power now. Just far enough away from the levers that you can't stop us from lifting up the rug and showing America what was really going on with Al Franken and Oregon's governor and all the other "count until we get enough" operations that worked so well in the past. Fraud will be found. The Press is incapable of stopping the public from learning the truth. And your windmill you think Trump is tilting out will be a blender shredding the DNC-media conspiracy to hide the truth from the public for the last 40 years. I am an eyewitness to much fraud and cheating by Democrats in California. Our state government doesn't care so I'm glad the Feds are coming to save us.

Trump is continually hanging the Left by its own petard.

FIFY

Unknown said...

This is another instance of taking trump seriously but not literally

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...


BTW, and just for the record, and not that it maters much anymore, but we still don't know if Obama was born in the United States, as the birth certificate submitted by Hawaii has been proven to be a copy-and-paste forgery. They even identified the certificate and the person the "cuts" were made from.

Try to keep up.

Hagar said...

A lot of people think that if they pay taxes they are citizens and are entitled to vote, though in fact they are not citizens of the jurisdiction.

In southern California and Arizona there are a lot of Aztlan true believers who think they are entitled to vote because their ancestry is part Aztec - or so they believe.

Roy Lofquist said...

Thomas Lifson, publisher of American Thinker, says that Trump snookered the press. Trump wanted an investigation but if he'd initiated it he would be accused of racism. Now the press is demanding he prove it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/01/why_are_so_many_media_people_puzzled_that_trump_keeps_bringing_up_illegal_votes.html

Unknown said...

The evidence if voter fraud is serious and widespread
Missing ballots, false absentees, felon voters, dead voters

Big deal and trump will be proven right 100%

Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger Rob said...
. . .
Logic compels the conclusion that a substantial number of people vote illegally, most of them blissfully ignorant that they're not permitted to register and vote.

The definition of voter fraud used by the JD and most legal scholars, politicians, and the media was devised by the Brennan Center for Justice: http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/The%20Truth%20About%20Voter%20Fraud.pdf
The Brennan Center for Justice is an extremist advocate of open borders. The Brennan center's definition of a fraudulent vote requires intent on the part of the person casting the illegal vote.
It is, of course, very difficult to prove intent.

Brando said...

They should support an investigation if they're so sure it'll turn nothing up. Hell, the Dems should want to participate in it! To keep saying "nothing to see here" in the face of such a serious charge (we are talking elections after all) just sounds more like "we're afraid you'll find something out that we won't like."

And yes there's a difference between "false claim", "unsupported claim" and "controversial claim". Right now no one knows how much voter fraud there is (though it is surely above zero) and to simply say "no one has found any!" just brings back the old adage--absence of evidence is not the same as the evidence of absence.

Balfegor said...

So the question is why would the NYT want to take that position? It makes me suspect that they are afraid something will turn up — if not 3 million illegal immigrants* voting, then other voting problems that are damaging to the Democratic Party.

They're not going to find 3 million illegal immigrants voting. Probably not even 1 million. But I would not be surprised if an investigation were to find incidents of illegal immigrants voting sufficiently numerous that, when extrapolated, they would imply a couple hundred illegal immigrants voting -- orders of magnitude larger than the individualised instances of voter fraud that have leaked out into the news. It would undercut, immediately, progressive arguments against voter ID laws and build public support for a more aggressive policy against illegal immigration.

If we found legal non-citizen immigrants voting -- as I expect we would -- that would also tend to build public opposition to legal immigration as well.

Xmas said...

So, let's get this straight. Trump is about to send swarms of Federal law enforcement officials into California to check the citizenship status of millions of voters. Voters who had their names and home addresses confirmed 3 months ago.

I wonder how this is going to square with the "sanctuary city" thing going on there.

TwilightofLiberty.com said...

This is where the whole 'alternative facts' thing comes in. For one to assume that Trump or his people are lying thru use of 'alternative facts' that person must believe the media is the holder of the objective, substantiated and unvarnished truth. Concretely stating that no illegal voting occurred cannot, at this point, be substantiated. Weeks of digging by law enforcement professionals would have to occur before one could state conclusively that no voting fraud occurred. When something is up in the air, it can certainly acquire 'alternative' explanations for why it did/did not occur.

Also, people so cocksure that Russia hacked the election are curiously uncurious if illegals influenced the election.

Fernandinande said...

CJinPA said...
See the recent Obama DOJ probe of Chicago police, which argued that statistics were not required to reach the conclusion that CPD was racist.


That's because "Math is racist".

Will a study show 3 million illegal immigrants voted? No way. But Trump knows that debating the exact number means he already won.

Did Trump ever say anything about "X million illegal immigrants voted?" I can't find any such thing.

Earnest Prole said...

"False claim" is the euphemism, the soft-core version. The Times went full-frontal hard-core with the headline Trump Repeats Lie About Popular Vote in Meeting With Lawmakers.

Comanche Voter said...

Ah Ms. Althouse--what the New York Times believes is a fact. What the New York Times wishes were true is a fact. What the New York Times thinks (a process with which they seem to be only distantly acquainted) is a fact. Anything Trump believes or asserts is a lie, a whopper and a fable. There now--I've set out the New York Times's version of reality.

Robert Cook said...

"For one to assume that Trump or his people are lying thru use of 'alternative facts' that person must believe the media is the holder of the objective, substantiated and unvarnished truth."

No, it's enough to believe Trump and his people are asserting as fact that which they cannot know to be true at this time. One doesn't have to even consider the media, one way or the other.

Balfegor said...

Put another way, I think they're keen to avoid any serious investigation, because this is going to be another one of those things where Trump makes a wild claim, the media pooh-pooh it as utter rubbish, and then when you look at it, it turns out it wasn't utter rubbish, more like something in between.

That doesn't hurt Trump, since he gets called a liar all the time already. But it does help him establish his preferred narrative that the media are all partisan liars, which will help innoculate him from those instances where the media criticise him rightly.

alan markus said...


@ Rob: It's easy to misunderstand the registration form and check the box for citizenship. People make mistakes in filling out forms all the time. Why would we assume it doesn't happen on registration forms, especially if the registrant is not fluent in English?

California Online Registration - Language Preference. If you wish to continue in a language other than English, please select your language below.
Español Spanish
中文 Chinese
हिन्दी Hindi
日本語 Japanese
ខ្មែរ Khmer
한국어 Korean
Tagalog
ภาษาไทย Thai
Tiếng Việt Vietnamese

rehajm said...

One of those studies Concludes the number of voting non-citizens is at least greater than zero.

Seeing Red said...

Who needs illegals?


Phill's totals alone will provide much amusement!

Robert said...

But the MSM will tell America for weeks that Russia "hacked the election" and when you ask for evidence all they can tell you is you gotta take proven liar James Clapper's word for it. But even Clapper didn't say the Russians "hacked the election", just that Russia aired some propaganda on RT that few Americans saw, and the unproven claim that WikiLeaks' source was Russia.

And now they're scared of an investigation into voter fraud. They should welcome it! Millions of Americans believe voter fraud takes place, so why not find out what's going on?

mockturtle said...

If the media were really interested in proving it false, they would do an in-depth investigation in California. But the fact is, they'd rather not find out what most Californians already know.

Seeing Red said...

Philly's precinct

wildswan said...

MayBee said...
Robother- yes, I thought Trump's claim was that there were illegal votes, not that illegal immigrants voted. Illegal votes could meet a whole host of things

Yes that's how I read it - "illegal votes" is not the same as "illegal immigrant's voting" though the NYT is saying it is the same.

When Jill Stein said the same thing as Trump it was considered fearless and bold and a lefty cause. Then she turned up evidence of massive voter fraud in Detroit. Then it all shut down.

But what struck me was that in Wisconsin there was no evidence of Detroit type fraud. So perhaps different cities have their own specialized variant of voter fraud.
In LA it would be motor voter sign ups of illegal immigrants.
In Detroit they simply certify that many more voted than the voting machines show voted.
In Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, it is my opinion, that the Dems somehow vote the complete list of registered voters in the poorer precincts and since these voter lists are unpurged they are voting people registered in several precincts. But the voter tally and voter certifications coincide because in WI we cheat better than they do Detroit. You won't see our Wisconsin cheating the first time somebody happens to look that way as happened in Detroit.
In Chicago folklore they have large boxes ready-filled with ballots which are rushed, like sandbags, to areas where the vote needs to be shored up.

In all cases, a city which has machine voting and knows the its total vote almost as soon as polls close, is, nevertheless, the last in the state to report its totals. Every adult American regards that as indicating that cheating is at least being contemplated.

CJinPA said...

Trump drops a $100 bill on the sidewalk and walks away. The pandemonium that follows is not his obsession. While the NYT is obsessing on his statement, he is dismantling the Obama "legacy."

As a Trump voter, it's taken me a while to catch on to this.

Not that I am convinced all of these distractions have no impact on his ability to implement his policies and retain enough voters for 2020, but I get the tactic.

traditionalguy said...

This is a TABOO topic in Democrat owned Media. The Dems Mexifornia scam is deemed Top Secret and therefore ridiculous as if it accuses mass identity theft.

Legal Wisdom says that Proof of secret adultery between persons only requires proof of opportunity and inclination; meaning that they were desirous of doing it and that they were in a bedroom alone for sufficient time.

The automatic Voter Registration included for Mexican Citizens on their California Drivers Licenses was the opportunity and the State authorities suggestion to them that voting by Mexican Citizens is permitted was the inclination.

Once again, Terrible Trump is right.

Fernandinande said...

Earnest Prole said...
The Times went full-frontal hard-core with the headline Trump Repeats Lie About Popular Vote in Meeting With Lawmakers.


NYFakeNews: "President Trump used his first official meeting with congressional leaders on Monday to falsely claim that millions of unauthorized immigrants ..."

My link above quotes Trump:
“that between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused him to lose the popular vote.”

NYFakeNews likes to change "illegal votes" to "illegal immigrants" - it keeps Carlos Slim happy, I guess.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Also, be sure to note that they are using the same "qualifiers" that the media has used for decades. E.g. "There are reports that . . . " and 'Some say . . . '. So, sauce for the goose, eh?

Mike said...

Will a study show 3 million illegal immigrants voted?

Could easily show 3M illegal votes, if not all by aliens. Aggregate the dead voters, illegal aliens, multiple-ballot voters, multi-jurisdiction voters and see. The low-range estimate of 2.1% of non-citizen (includes green card holders) voters alone gets us into more than 2 million potential voters. As hinted at by Michael K California did its part by handing out 900,000 drivers licenses to illegal aliens last year, each of which comes with voting registration if they check the box for it. No vetting. No verification. No problem for them to get a mail-in ballot and participate!

By the way the state notes on its Web site that the provisional licenses are not valid for federal ID except for voting registration where they are accepted. Does this sound like a policy that protects the integrity of my legal vote?

Seeing Red said...

My dad requested a mail-in ballot a few years ago. He never got it, but he voted.

Chuck said...

Xmas said...
So, let's get this straight. Trump is about to send swarms of Federal law enforcement officials into California to check the citizenship status of millions of voters. Voters who had their names and home addresses confirmed 3 months ago.

I wonder how this is going to square with the "sanctuary city" thing going on there.


California, with a very large number of non-citizen residents (maybe 15%), would be a good place to start.

But if there is a vast amount of non-citizen voting all across the U.S., there are about 35 Republican state attorneys general who need to be investigating their own states.

I suppose that a Republican AG in Texas might say, "We never thought we could do a sweep of our state voter rolls, for non-citizens, for fear of a Voting Rights Act Section 5 violation. But if the DoJ says we can, then that changes everything an we'll do it."


Drago said...

Robert Cook: "No, it's enough to believe Trump and his people are asserting as fact that which they cannot know to be true at this time."

Okay, say it's enough to believe that.

Now ask yourself to what end?

Althouse did and she ends up where all logical thinkers do: Trump and Republicans in general know there is voter fraud which occurs in many different ways and Republicans suspect that most of it is democrat states/precincts and in some cases is significant in either numbers and/or impact and has thrown elections.

If you run out and say "hey, there is a little voter fraud here and there which does matter and we should do something about it...like require voter ID to vote", that's not exactly couching it in a way to get something done.

You need a crisis.

You remember, something Rahm Emmanuel famously said the dems should never let go to waste.

So what do you do politically? You throw out a number and have Mara Liasson practically demand an investigation on the spot!!

To which the Trump admin (with Jeff Sessions leading the Jusice Dept effort) responds meekly, "Oh, okay. Since you insist".

What's hilarious are the dem talking heads I saw this morning practically pleading with Trump to just admit this was all wrong and to "focus on the more important stuff"!!

LOL

Those dem consultants know precisely where this will end up.

My prediction: Lots and lots and lots of voter databases and servers are going to experience "unexpected" problems, "wiping", "losses" etc.

Seeing Red said...

I wasn't clear. My dad managed to vote whil not receiving the requested a Ballot and out of town during the election.

Neat trick, eh?

Ann Althouse said...

"Per lots of the above comments, Ann: Can you please elaborate on your avoidance of using the term "illegal immigrant"? To a commoner like me that seems interesting coming from an actual legal scholar."

The immigration was illegal, but the immigrant is a human being, and putting illegal in front of the word that represents the person seems to some to suggest that everything about the person is wrong. So it's disrespectful.

Since we are talking about people who are less well off, it's good to show that you're not hostile to them as individuals and that you recognize your shared humanity.

There but for the grace of God...

SDaly said...

This is one small location, in one district, in one swing state.

From The Washington Post:

The FBI and local police are investigating how at least 19 dead Virginians were recently re-registered to vote in this critical swing state.

One case came to light after relatives of a deceased man received a note congratulating him for registering, Rockingham County Commonwealth’s Attorney Marsha Garst said Thursday.

“His family members were very distraught,” said Garst, who confirmed the existence of the FBI and police investigation but said she could provide few details because the case is ongoing.

CJinPA said...

Trump is about to send swarms of Federal law enforcement officials into California to check the citizenship status of millions of voters. Voters who had their names and home addresses confirmed 3 months ago. I wonder how this is going to square with the "sanctuary city" thing going on there.

Not sure about "swarms" of feds, but it might bring the sanctuary city issue to a head.

Michael K said...

"100,000 Mexicans who put Loretta Sanchez over the top"

Actually, it was about 550. And there was pretty good evidence. I blamed Bob Dornan who had been off trying to run for president instead of tending the home fires.

"we still don't know if Obama was born in the United States, as the birth certificate submitted by Hawaii has been proven to be a copy-and-paste forgery. "

I agree but not that he was born elsewhere. They had something to hide. Possibly the father. Maybe we will find out someday. Right after we find out if Kerry got an "other than honorable " discharge. It's interesting that leaks always seem to benefit the left.

Matthew Sablan said...

"It's interesting that leaks always seem to benefit the left."

-- Well, semi-official government leaks. Podesta's emails were of no benefit to the left.

Seeing Red said...

This is bigger than voting.

It's about the Benjamins and census/redistricting.


In short the usual: money, access and power.

Michael K said...

Trump is about to send swarms of Federal law enforcement officials into California

I can see Jerry Brown standing in the doorway to block that.

I don't see how they can do it.

Maybe they can use the Voting Rights Act somehow.

alan markus said...

@ Ann: and putting illegal in front of the word that represents the person seems to some to suggest that everything about the person is wrong. So it's disrespectful

Reminds me that as a society we have mercifully stopped referring to children not born in matrimony as "illegitimate children". Not sure when that happened, but something I remember hearing in the 60's & early 70's.

Unknown said...

They just can not help themselves. They may not be capable ( or completely do not want to be ) of being objective.

CJinPA said...

The immigration was illegal, but the immigrant is a human being, and putting illegal in front of the word that represents the person seems to some to suggest that everything about the person is wrong.So it's disrespectful.

But you are not an "immigrant" at all under that scenario. The "illegal" describes your legal status in our country, not your status as a human being. I think that's clear.

And, weren't we forced to drop the legally correct "illegal alien" in favor of "illegal immigrant" for the same reason, to show respect?

Michael K said...

"Podesta's emails were of no benefit to the left."

Fair enough but maybe a Bernie supporter did it. I still don't believe the Russians had anything to do with it.

Earnest Prole said...

Listening to NPR last night, I thought “Be careful what you ask for”: Mara Liasson to Spicer: If Trump Thinks Voter Fraud Was Widespread, Why Wouldn’t He Investigate?

Chuck said...

Ann Althouse said...
"Per lots of the above comments, Ann: Can you please elaborate on your avoidance of using the term "illegal immigrant"? To a commoner like me that seems interesting coming from an actual legal scholar."
The immigration was illegal, but the immigrant is a human being, and putting illegal in front of the word that represents the person seems to some to suggest rhat everything about the person is wrong. So it's disrespectful.
Since we are talking about people who are less well off, it's good to show that you're not hostile to tham as individuals and that you recognize your shared humanity.
There but for the grace of God...


To be sure, we are concerned about "non-citizen voting." Not simply "illegal aliens." Which includes the very large number of legal immigrants and people who immigrated legally but who have overstayed their visas.

"Illegal alien" is a phrase that occurs in the U.S. Code and in too many federal court decisions to count. "Illegal alien" is a phrase that I would never have any hesitation in using when it is warranted.

Balfegor said...

Re: rehajm:

One of those studies Concludes the number of voting non-citizens is at least greater than zero.

Not sure if that is the study I had seen, but I think it may be -- because of the way the sample was constructed, you probably can't reliably extrapolate the voting vs. non-voting non-citizen ratio (among other things, even if the measurement error on citizenship status reporting is low enough to conclude that there are non-citizens voting in US elections illegally, there are a lot of error bars there multiplying on each other). But if you ignored all that, you'd get something more than 10% of non citizens voting illegally.

Out of ~11 million illegal immigrants, you'd get over 1 million illegal votes, but I'd also guess that legal immigrants would find it easier to vote illegally than illegal immigrants, simply because legal immigrants will find it easier to get drivers licenses, etc., that would facilitate voting, while illegal immigrants have some incentive to avoid contact with the government. Seeing as they're here illegally. So that's why I'd guess something in the hundreds of thousands, as far as illegal votes from illegal immigrants.

Re: alan markus:

Reminds me that as a society we have mercifully stopped referring to children not born in matrimony as "illegitimate children". Not sure when that happened, but something I remember hearing in the 60's & early 70's.

"Illegitimate children" . . . ah, you mean "bastards"?

MountainMan said...

Here is an article from back in October about the registration of over 1000 illegal aliens in just 8 VA counties - just the ones who got caught. VA requires no proof of citizenship to register to vote.

https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2016/10/03/yes-virginia-aliens-are-registered-and-voting-and-in-pennsylvania-by-the-thousands/?singlepage=true

I don't see how this is not a big problem in CA since they gave illegal aliens the ability to get drivers licenses.

I also have a close friend who has a friend in WA, where they vote by mail, who is a legal resident alien. She told him she receives a ballot in the mail for every election. She keeps returning the ballots unused and asks to have her name removed from the voting rolls but so far with no success. She also told him she has friends who are also resident aliens who receive the ballots and do return them with their votes recorded. And laugh about it.

Drago said...

CJinPA: ""Trump drops a $100 bill on the sidewalk and walks away. The pandemonium that follows is not his obsession. While the NYT is obsessing on his statement, he is dismantling the Obama "legacy."

As a Trump voter, it's taken me a while to catch on to this.

Not that I am convinced all of these distractions have no impact on his ability to implement his policies and retain enough voters for 2020, but I get the tactic"

All correct.

Trump is no genius, but he is a very, very quick study and rapid tactical "redeployer".

Further, based on his personality and lifelong occupation, he is ruthlessly focused on strategic objectives while being tactically fluid. This is why he so easily disrupts others but doesn't allow the disruption to keep him from achieving his own goals.

Trumps greatest weapon and relative strength is the utter inability, intellectual/emotional, of the media and other political opponents to see this and adapt to it. Our political "betters" are so convinced of their supreme superiority in all matters that they just chalk everything "Trump" up to stupidity or insanity and then just continue on their merry way.

It's fascinating to watch in real time.

Trump rolled out a dozen things this morning and the major focus this morning was on Trumps "crazy" "lying" claim about Voter Fraud......which has as it's end result precisely what Trump and republicans have always wanted: a rigorous Justice dept led investigation.

But hey, that Trump is some idiot, isn't he?......

Yancey Ward said...

The NYTimes and media of similar political leanings are caught in a tough position on this one- they can properly frame Trump's claim as an unsupported assertion, but doing so openly calls for a thorough investigation by implication. So, I think the choice of calling it untrue is a gambit, but it won't work because Trump is now in a position to actually order such an investigation. I think Trump was going to do it anyway, regardless, but part of me thinks he trolled the media into calling the claim a lie or unsupported so that he couldn't be attacked so easily for opening the investigation in the first place.

Given the numbers of illegal immigrants in the country, I think it plausible that at least a million of them are registered to vote. If I were an illegal immigrant, I already know I could register to vote even here in Tennessee and could have done so in my previous state of Connecticut since the requirements for registering aren't that hard to meet given the motivation to acquire forms of ID that get you over the main hurdle even if you have no desire to vote at all.

I also think it quite plausible that there are a million or more people who have died and not been purged from the rolls. I think periodic re-registering should be required just to prevent this as much as possible if you are not going to require photo ID.

There are things I think should be done as a matter of course voting. My ideal would be photo ID required to pick up a ballot of any kind. I would ban all absentee and mail in balloting, but would have on-site voting over the course of a week instead of a single day, or however long that indelible ink on the thumb lasts. You do that, and most fraud would not be worth the effort to overcome.

Bill Peschel said...

What's being hidden in the dust-up over this is that Trump did not pull the three million figure out of the air but from a reputable Pew Center for the States study.

(As Fernandinande mentioned above a couple of times, but I wanted to tie it to Trump specifically.)

A Heritage Foundation article based on the study says "one out of every eight voter registrations is inaccurate, out-of-date or duplicate. About 2.8 million people are registered in more than one state, according to the study, and 1.8 million registered voters are dead."

This is a simple fact, which is what scares the Democratic media, and no reason why states shouldn't clean up their rolls.

In Virginia, Gov. Terry McAuliffe directly ordered elections officials not to cooperate with any attempt to check voter rolls in his state.

steve uhr said...

Why should Trump have the power to demand Justice conduct a major costly investigation without significant evidence? Justice should handle it the same as if I wrote them a letter asking for an investigation.

Drago said...

Yancey: "I think Trump was going to do it anyway, regardless, but part of me thinks he trolled the media into calling the claim a lie or unsupported so that he couldn't be attacked so easily for opening the investigation in the first place."

Precisely.

Robert Cook said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger Robert Cook said...
. . .
No, it's enough to believe Trump and his people are asserting as fact that which they cannot know to be true at this time. . . .

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."

Yancey Ward said...

Shorter Steve Uhr- "President Trump isn't President Trump."

Mike Sylwester said...

The correct, legal expression is illegal aliens.

Excellent essay, Ann.

Drago said...

steve uhr: "Why should Trump have the power to demand Justice conduct a major costly investigation without significant evidence? Justice should handle it the same as if I wrote them a letter asking for an investigation."

LOL

Sorry lefty. That train left the station a long time ago.

This investigation is going to happen. I find your hesitancy regarding it....interesting.

Robert Cook said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CJinPA said...

Reminds me that as a society we have mercifully stopped referring to children not born in matrimony as "illegitimate children". Not sure when that happened, but something I remember hearing in the 60's & early 70's.

And the number of such children then soared to its highest rate in history. I would never tell a child he/she is illegitimate (and no one did back then), but we seem OK with plunging more kids into poverty and prison as long as we can feel good about ourselves for not stigmatizing births out of wedlock.

Bill Harshaw said...

We know there's no evidence for the 3 million because Trump's lawyers said so, and surely they would not lie. (See their filing against Stein's appeal for a recount in Michigan.)

re Bill Peschel--the Pew study was faulty, they misused survey data which couldn't support their conclusions. You're right about voter lists being inaccurate but we shouldn't confuse that with fraud--people move and die and the lists aren't updated, but that wouldn't lead to fraud in voting.

Chuck said...

Bill Peschel said...
What's being hidden in the dust-up over this is that Trump did not pull the three million figure out of the air but from a reputable Pew Center for the States study.


Don't do that. The Pew study doesn't support the point you and Trump are trying to make. The Pew study, as you note, dealt with inaccurate/duplicate/etc. voter registrations, and does not support any conclusion about non-citizen voting, and certainly not voter fraud.

If we want to pursue Republican-supported election reforms, and get them to stand up in federal courts, we need good arguments, not shitty made-up ones.


Robert Cook said...

"Robert Cook: 'No, it's enough to believe Trump and his people are asserting as fact that which they cannot know to be true at this time.'

"Okay, say it's enough to believe that.

"Now ask yourself to what end?"


It's simply more of the infantile braying that is automatic with Trump, a way to insist "Is so!!" against claims or facts that displease him. I hardly think it is a stratagem by which Trump will compel an investigation into voter fraud, much less one that will prove, voila!, "There were 3 million votes cast by illegal immigrants!"

Drago said...

Robert Cook: "It's simply more of the infantile braying that is automatic with Trump, a way to insist Is so!! against claims, or facts, that do not please him. I hardly think it is a stratagem by which Trump will compel an investigation into voter fraud, much less one that will prove, voila!, "There were 3 million votes cast by illegal immigrants!"

Thank you for presenting yourself as Exhibit A in this "Case Study for Why The Left Lost".

I'm sorry to inform you that your participation is in an unpaid role only. You may return to packing foodstuffs for shipment to the socialist paradise which is Venezuela.

Curious George said...

"*I would normally avoid using the phrase "illegal immigrants," because I think some people find it offensive, but the NYT used it!"

I wouldn't use it either. My reason is less pathetic though. I would use illegal aliens. They aren't immigrants. They are illegals.

Trumps a genius. He gets the press to call his bluff. And the beautiful thing is that I don't think the press, or lefties in general, will ever stop underestimating him. It's fucking beautiful.

Drago said...

Bill: "re Bill Peschel--the Pew study was faulty, they misused survey data which couldn't support their conclusions. You're right about voter lists being inaccurate but we shouldn't confuse that with fraud--people move and die and the lists aren't updated, but that wouldn't lead to fraud in voting."

Well, we won't know until the full investigation is complete, eh?

AJ Lynch said...

In a country where approximately 10% of the 330 millionn residents are not citizens, why is it so unbelievable that a good number of those non-citizens would vote? Especially when our Voter ID laws are so loose.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

I hardly think it is a stratagem by which Trump will compel an investigation into voter fraud

Uh, Dude, Trump doesn't need a "stratagem" to "compel an investigation." He's the President. All he needs to do is instruct the DOJ to do so. Which he as already said he is going to do.

steve uhr said...

All I am saying is Justice should not decide whether to devote it's limited resources to investigate whatever based on the identity of the complainant. It's not politics. I just think justice should follow its internal procedures in deciding whether or not to investigate.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@Drago

Forget it Drago, its Chinatown.

CJinPA said...

In a country where approximately 10% of the 330 millionn residents are not citizens, why is it so unbelievable that a good number of those non-citizens would vote?

First, you have to agree that the number of illegals is 30 million. The number accepted in polite circles is 11 million. I lean more toward Ann Coulter and 30 million (based on the fact that 11 million estimate is years old + the estimated growth in illegals since).

Yancey Ward said...

Shorter Steve Uhr: "Attorney General Jeff Sessions isn't Attorney General Jeff Sessions."

Matthew Sablan said...

"Further, based on his personality and lifelong occupation, he is ruthlessly focused on strategic objectives while being tactically fluid."

-- That's an interesting analysis that I don't know enough about to agree or disagree with, but that I plan to watch Trump with that in the back of my mind.

AJ Lynch said...

Steve Uhr: The fed govt always seems to be able to expend their "limited resources" on whatever dumb shit liberals wnat it to do. They send their lawyers to the funerals for Gods sake of thugs like Michael Brown.

rhhardin said...

Trump displaces the MSM narratives.

The MSM switches to what it thinks is an easier target - some statement by Trump - and never gets to do their soap opera thing.

It makes them look frivolous, which is the point, not to mention is a fact.

Seeing Red said...

People move and die but that would lead to fraud?


Bwaaaaaaaa


You really don't understand how the State of Illinois works, do you?


Daddy said, dems vote the dead, republicans vote their cows.

Curious George said...

Let's say that there aren't 3 to 5 million illegal votes in CA...and instead just 1% of that. You find 30,000 - 50,000 illegal votes, it's a game changer. Remember the lefts position is that there is NO voter fraud. This would be sufficient for the GOP COngress and Trump to enact new Federal guidelines safeguarding voting integrity: Photo ID, no early voting, no motor/votor, etc.

n.n said...

It's a hypothesis with substantial supporting circumstantial evidence, and unlike the hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, or the fantasy of spontaneous human conception, both of which the NYT subscribes to, it can be both characterized and managed by mere mortals.

AJ Lynch said...

CJinPA:

No that is not right. There are at least 30 million non-citizens in the country and that includes illegals and legal immigrants and Visa holders etc. We let in 1-2 million legal immigrants a year into the country and they can't become citizens for many years. Just do the math.

Hagar said...

Maybe they can use the Voting Rights Act somehow.

I should think there is bound to be a whole lot in the Voting Rights Act that could be used.
Alinsky's Rule #4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

DanTheMan said...

Seven million "children", about 10% of the total population, disappeared in 1987. This happened when the IRS started requiring SSN's to claim them as dependents.

Were we to add similar rigor to voting, we'd very likely get a similar result.

Matthew Sablan said...

"I just think justice should follow its internal procedures in deciding whether or not to investigate."

-- I'm pretty sure one of the internal procedures is "Because the boss said so."

Seeing Red said...

Even if it's 1 million, if it's enuf in one precinct to change an election on a local level.....


People don't trust the Institutions.


This is a sell to start being able to trust our institutions again.


I think even the UN said they can't believe how we run our elections.

Bill Harshaw said...

re Drago: Sure, we can investigate again.Will that convince anyone when prior investigations haven't? See this piece: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/25/here-are-nine-major-investigations-on-voter-fraud-that-found-virtually-nothing/?utm_term=.b0ca7e237f12

The article notes the association of Secretaries of State (i.e. the state officials responsible for voting process, which are mostly Republicans)says no evidence for DJT's statement.

Seeing Red said...

Wouldn't lead to fraud.

DanTheMan said...

>>"Why should Trump have the power to demand Justice conduct a major costly investigation without significant evidence? Justice should handle it the same as if I wrote them a letter asking for an investigation."

Ummmmm, because he's president, the chief executive officer of the United States, and you are not? Just guessing here...

AJ Lynch said...

Dan the Man- that is an amazing fact.

CJinPA said...

No that is not right. There are at least 30 million non-citizens in the country and that includes illegals and legal immigrants and Visa holders etc. We let in 1-2 million legal immigrants a year into the country and they can't become citizens for many years. Just do the math.

I thought I said that, but maybe missing something.

Birkel said...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Somebody famous said that at least once.

n.n said...

Did Mexico attempt to influence our election? Who is NYT protecting?

Americans overcame the democratic margin of fraud, this time.

Todd said...

Ann Althouse said...
"Per lots of the above comments, Ann: Can you please elaborate on your avoidance of using the term "illegal immigrant"? To a commoner like me that seems interesting coming from an actual legal scholar."

The immigration was illegal, but the immigrant is a human being, and putting illegal in front of the word that represents the person seems to some to suggest that everything about the person is wrong. So it's disrespectful.

Since we are talking about people who are less well off, it's good to show that you're not hostile to them as individuals and that you recognize your shared humanity.

There but for the grace of God...


Is it OK to refer to the "non-resident" that had been deported 8 (or more times) but continued to break into the country and went on to murdered at least one young lady an "illegal alien" or is that also disrespectful? Does this desire for recognizing shared humanity extend to citizen child molesters, rapists, etc.? Or is it just for those that [at a minimum] are in the country illegally?

My rule book is out of date and I am looking to catch up.

Sandy Coalfax said...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/25/steve-bannon-voter-registration-trump-election-voter-fraud


"Steve Bannon registered to vote in two states despite Trump's cries of 'voter fraud'"

Matthew Sablan said...

"Steve Bannon registered to vote in two states despite Trump's cries of 'voter fraud'"

-- ... You... you do know that this... this helps Trump, right? If you find voter fraud/whatever we want to call it... even if the fraud is in the right's favor... it still... it still helps the messaging that voter fraud is real and not imaginary... like... you get that, right?

Seeing Red said...

Whoa, whoa, whoa, back it up there, Professor.

Why would you assume the illegal immigrant is Less well off?

less well off than you, but it doesn't follow if one is illegal, one is less well off.

David Begley said...

Dave D

The proper legal term is "illegal alien" as I read it in an Eighth Circuit case about three years ago.

Steve Uhr said...

SO if Trump is "the boss" of DOJ, then presumably he has the power to halt any DOJ investigation into, e.g., his businesses or his friends? He is the sole arbitrator of the Rule of Law. Fortunately, that is not how things work in this country.

n.n said...

Illegal alien.

Illegal by virtue of legal jurisdiction. Alien with respect to geographical and secular origin.

We desperately need emigration reform. The refugee crises are a progressive condition that obfuscate underlying causes (e.g. social justice adventurism, friendship with "benefits" but without commitment).

eric said...

Blogger Sandy Coalfax said...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/25/steve-bannon-voter-registration-trump-election-voter-fraud


"Steve Bannon registered to vote in two states despite Trump's cries of 'voter fraud'"


This is pretty common, people registered in multiple states. I wouldn't be surprised if I'm still registered to vote in California. How does one even in register to vote?

The question is, how many of those registered in multiple states voted more than once?

I only voted here in Washington state. But, I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that someone in California voted using my name. California Democrats have no interest in purging their voter rolls.

Therefore, you wind up with people being registered in multiple states.

Hence the need for an investigation. Let's see if Steve Bannon voted twice shall we?

Sandy Coalfax said...

Matthew,
Trump's senior advisor Bannon is engaging in voter fraud? Thanks for that. What will be his punishment?

Matthew Sablan said...

I'm probably still registered in Delaware, despite my telling them I've moved to VA years ago. Every few years I still get a call about jury duty -- I guess the pool in Delaware is really small, maybe?

I've done everything I can short of showing up, forcing my way to where the registration is kept and burning it myself while shouting: "YOU HAVE NO POWER OVER ME ANY LONGER!"

Todd said...

Sandy Coalfax said...
Matthew,
Trump's senior advisor Bannon is engaging in voter fraud? Thanks for that. What will be his punishment?

1/25/17, 12:51 PM


If he committed voter fraud, it should be whatever the legal penalty is. He should also lose his job.

Sandy Coalfax said...

But, but, but, isn't being registered in two different states voter fraud?!

LOL! You people really stepping in your own doo doo here.

Sandy Coalfax said...

How many people who are registered in two different states actually voted in both states in one election?

DanTheMan said...

>SO if Trump is "the boss" of DOJ, then presumably he has the power to halt any DOJ investigation into, e.g., his businesses or his friends?

Yes, he has that authority. He would be a fool to exercise it, as the constitution provides a remedy for such behavior.




DanTheMan said...

>> How many people who are registered in two different states actually voted in both states in one election?

Many here in Florida. The snowbirds brag about it.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Bannon has not cast a ballot in Florida, according to state records."

-- No fraud has occurred. Florida should probably update their voter rolls.

Sandy Coalfax said...

Trump's assertion is that it is voter fraud to be registered in two different states, is he wrong?

Sandy Coalfax said...

May Trump shouldn't use hyperbole when he speaks of voter fraud.

Matthew Sablan said...

"How many people who are registered in two different states actually voted in both states in one election?"

-- A lot, according to Slate..

And, Fox agrees.

buwaya said...

"Who is NYT protecting?"

Possibly Carlos Slim.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Trump's assertion is that it is voter fraud to be registered in two different states, is he wrong?"

-- Could you link me to the exact quote you're talking about? Being registered in two places creates the opportunity to commit voter fraud, which is why voter integrity groups are so adamant about cleaning voter rolls.

Balfegor said...

Re: Steve Uhr:

SO if Trump is "the boss" of DOJ, then presumably he has the power to halt any DOJ investigation into, e.g., his businesses or his friends? He is the sole arbitrator of the Rule of Law. Fortunately, that is not how things work in this country.

Actually, he does have the power to fire DOJ prosecutors and halt DOJ investigations, since DOJ reports to him. I know there's a convention in which we make believe that executive branch agencies that report directly to the President are "independent" but it's just make-believe.

The real check on his power is not formal or legal -- though one could probably try and gin up a legal case, just as one could with anything else -- but informal and customary. Prosecutors will resign in protest if the President attempts to interfere with a proper investigation, and the mass resignations will create immediate and intense political pressure on the President to reverse course. That's the reality underlying our game of make-believe. It's a matter of people, not laws. That's how things work in this country.

n.n said...

NYT... Carlos Slim

Globalization does have a propensity to create conflicts of interest as stake holders are dissociated from native interests.

Matthew Sablan said...

Is it this quote: ""I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states," Trump tweeted, as well as "those registered to vote who are dead (and many for a long time). Depending on results, we will strengthen up voting procedures!""

Because, he is saying: I (SUBJECT) WILL BE (VERB) -- asking for a major investigation -- into, this list of things:

Voter Fraud
People registered to vote in two states
People registered to vote who are dead

If you bother to diagram the sentence, he's not saying that two and three are voter fraud, but are things he wants to investigate.

Diagramming sentences!

mockturtle said...

The immigration was illegal, but the immigrant is a human being, and putting illegal in front of the word that represents the person seems to some to suggest that everything about the person is wrong. So it's disrespectful.

What a load of crap! If a person entered our country illegally, he/she is a criminal. If he/she remains in our country illegally, he/she remains a criminal. 'Undocumented' is a lefty euphemism.

Seeing Red said...

Have you been in a grade school lately and looked at the posters?


There are No Faces of Appalacia on those posters. So subliminally, overtly and obviously the message is sent white people aren't poor, which we know isn't true in this country.


But this is my daughters experience we go to the outlet true religion has a for sale sign. Going me I'm not paying $129 for a pair jeans find something more reasonable so she buys a $20 shirt. the guy in front of her who was African-American had three pair of jeans and peeled off $100 bills to pay for them.


Fast forward again Hollister's in our mall is having a sale. my daughter has a limit she can't buy that much. the woman in front of her who was Hispanic peeled off six $100 bills for clothing.

You don't think kids absorb that lesson as they get older and see how the real world works?

Then there was her high school experience with federal lunch program recipients.

The Millionaire Next Door is a great book.

I might, even in my old age, come to a national sales tax replacing income tax. But no 20% vat, to-may-to. To-mah-to.

There's a huge underground cash society, but I do like cash, not so much forcing everything to debit card.

Birkel said...

Robert Cook: "One doesn't have to even consider the media, one way or the other."

More and more people are going to reach that conclusion.
Look everybody, Robert Cook said something true.

Sandy Coalfax said...

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-25/trump-calls-for-major-investigation-into-alleged-voter-fraud

"“I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal and even, those registered to vote who are dead (and many for a long time),” Trump said in a pair of Twitter posts on Wednesday. “Depending on results, we will strengthen up voting procedures!”"

And now I'm sure there will be those who try to interpret Trump's own words. Have at it. Clearly, he is including being registered in two states as voter fraud.


JWH said...

Trump’s own election law attorneys wrote in two separate court filings that there was no evidence to suggest that the 2016 general election was tainted with fraud. The admissions came in the Trump campaign’s effort to battle recount lawsuits that were filed by Jill Stein’s campaign in several swing states including Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Matthew Sablan said...

Er... no. The commas indicate a pause and change in thoughts. That's grammar.

He wants an investigation into Voter Fraud, those who are registered in two states, those who illegal [and registered], and those who are registered and dead. Voter fraud takes many forms, including those not listed here (early voting abuse, for example).

Todd said...

Sandy Coalfax said...
How many people who are registered in two different states actually voted in both states in one election?

1/25/17, 12:54 PM


As others have pointed out, since the best an individual can do is to inform a state that they no longer live there and wish to be removed from the voter rolls versus being able to take themselves off of the voter roll, I would suggest that being on more than one voter roll at a given time is not in and of its self proof of voter fraud. If you actively registered in more than one state KNOWING you don't live there, that is different. Also if you actively vote in more than one place for a given election, that is fraud.

Unless someone submitted more than one mail-in ballet it is very difficult to prove voter fraud hence the call for strict voter ID laws. That way multiple voting can be prevented at the outset or prosecuted with more certainty when it does still occur.

Do you agree with that?

Sandy Coalfax said...

Matthew. Ha! I knew it. How you people twist yourselves into pretzels to rewrite Trump's own words. Hilarious.

Matthew Sablan said...

If we take your reading, that means that Trump does not want to investigate any voter fraud that doesn't have to do with those mistakes (intentional or unintentional) in registration. Do you really think he won't investigate people filling out mail in ballots, or various other non-registration related voting problems?

Your reading is patently wrong.

Matthew Sablan said...

I'm not a major Trump fan, but I know how English works.

Sandy Coalfax said...

Er, no Matthew. He made a point of including being registered in two different states as voter fraud. But keep trying, lol.

Sandy Coalfax said...

Obviously you don't know Matthew.

Sandy Coalfax said...

Matthew, your understanding of Trump's own words are skewed by your desire to put a good face on what he said. Plus you, being registered in two different states may now be considered as having engaged in voter fraud, yikes!

Matthew Sablan said...

With your reading, we have to assume that he wants to investigate voter fraud -- which includes being registered in two states, being registered while dead and voting illegally.

That's a nonsense statement, as someone is dead and registered to vote CAN'T be committing voter fraud, and one voting illegally is, by definition, voter fraud, so you don't need to include it in a list of things that are voter fraud you want to investigate.

Fabi said...

I trust von Spakovsky quite a bit when it comes to voting fraud and his cited study mentioning up to six percent of cast votes from illegals should be of concern. Six percent of the votes cast last November would be over seven million votes. I fail to see how Trump's suggestion about the quantity of illegal votes could be dismissed out of hand. Jeh Johnson hardest hit.

Fernandinande said...

Ann Althouse said...
The immigration was illegal, but the immigrant is a human being, and putting illegal in front of the word that represents the person seems to some to suggest that everything about the person is wrong.


The correct word is "alien", not "immigrant".

illegal alien: a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization.

So it's disrespectful.

They certainly earned disrespect by being disrespectful.

Since we are talking about people who are less well off,

Nearly all the illegal aliens in the US are better off than billions of other people in the world, and they were better off before they became illegal aliens, e.g. Mexico is fairly well-off compared to most of the world.

it's good to show that you're not hostile to them as individuals and that you recognize your shared humanity.

Sounds kinda like the nonsensical "He so loved the poor" that He made billions of people live and die in poverty.

Matthew Sablan said...

You know what DOES make sense? He wants to investigate voter fraud, along with instances of bad registration (illegal aliens/immigrants being registered, people registered in two states, and dead people registered.)

The only way to think Trump thinks what you're saying is to deliberately misread what his plain text says. Maybe he meant that and just wrote it in such a way to be completely understood in a totally different way, but a plain reading? No. You're just wrong.

traditionalguy said...

An unalienable right is for Americans. The wetbacks have alienable status. Obama admitted as much, but the Traitor ordered Catch and release with full benefits. Like he ordered 320 million dollars sent to The Palestinian Authority illegally. Obama used the "I dare you to impeach me " ploy up to the end of his Crime Spree.

Chuck said...

Fabi you are badly misreading it.

The one study that separates itself for quality and interest (and hence it caught von Spakovsky's attention) is the one that posited 6% of non-citizens voted.

Not "illegal aliens."

Not 6% of the total vote. (Yikes, if that were remotely true.)

Okay? Search von Spakovsky's columns at WSJ.com (do you have a subscription?) and his monographs at Heritage.

I've met Hans. A very nice, quiet, unassuming guy. I expect that he is going to write something about this, very soon. They might even make him a special counsel for this investigation, or give him a position in the DoJ. Hans can make the needed arguments. If Trump doesn't screw it up.

Francisco D said...

Back in the days of lever pull voting machines, the job of Chicago precinct captains was to get to the polling place early. They set the lever to the straight Democratic ticket and pulled until their arms were sore. The point was not so much to elect a Democrat POTUS, but all the state and county officials who controlled the graft.

Ask Chicagoans who had connected friends and relatives. It's common knowledge. And I am not even counting the graveyard votes. Voting procedures have changed, but there are always ways to cheat them. Chuck, the Republican, turned a blind eye to those shenanigans in Detroit.

Anglelyne said...

AA: The immigration was illegal, but the immigrant is a human being, and putting illegal in front of the word that represents the person seems to some to suggest that everything about the person is wrong. So it's disrespectful.

This is nonsense. Trying to force hops from one previously "correct" euphemism to the next is nothing but an attempt to de-stigmatize and legitimize acts, while stigmatizing and de-legitimizing opposition to those acts.

It's not as if the people standing around with those "no human being is illegal" (or pushing for open borders like the NYT) are just upset about the inhumane label, and fine with enforcing immigration law, if it were done, you know, respectfully.

Original Mike said...

Blogger steve uhr said..."All I am saying is Justice should not decide whether to devote it's limited resources to investigate whatever based on the identity of the complainant. It's not politics. I just think justice should follow its internal procedures in deciding whether or not to investigate."

Who elected the DOJ? From whence do they get their authority?

Chuck said...

Francisco D said...
...
Chuck, the Republican, turned a blind eye to those shenanigans in Detroit.


Fuck you to hell, you ass. You don't know the first thing about me. I didn't work in Detroit on election day this year. I worked 2004, 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014. You piece of shit. You have no fucking business tossing out that sort of allegation against me. And you have no idea what the real problems are in Detroit, and which are the phantom problems.

Unknown said...

As a kid in Chicago 50 yrs ago, the joke was "vote early, vote often" and that the dead were good citizens because they kept voting. And guess who they were voting for? Yes, the first Mayor Daley, a dem. Was it true? A rumor this persistent is probably not made up.
Why do the dems make such a fuss about voter ID laws? As Shakespeare said "the lady doth protest too much"--unless lack of voter ID was to their benefit, why would they bother? Someone did prove with a video that progressive voters are so racist that they assume that blacks aren't capable of getting an ID and registering to vote, an attitude that blacks interviewed for the segment found really insulting. But it is also too convenient for getting illegals to vote. In Cali and some other states they let illegals get driver's licenses which makes it even easier to vote. I believe in Cali when you get your driver lic you automatically get registered to vote (just needing to assert you are legal). Sounds like a recipe for fraud to me.

steve uhr said...

Balfegor You are wrong. The president does not have the power to fire career prosecutors. Career employees can only be fired for good cause.

Birkel said...

Well, we do know the first thing about you, Chuck.
You are an annoying one trick pony online.
One.
Thing.

Original Mike said...

Blogger Steve Uhr said..."SO if Trump is "the boss" of DOJ, then presumably he has the power to halt any DOJ investigation into, e.g., his businesses or his friends? He is the sole arbitrator of the Rule of Law. Fortunately, that is not how things work in this country."

Dude, this is why there was no prosecutions for Fast & Furious. This is why the DOJ did nothing when Congress found Lois Lerner in contempt. Have you been paying attention the last eight years?

Dan said...

There were a lot of legal voters who didn't vote.

David Begley said...

Keller v. City of Fremont, footnote 2, 2. "The INA defines “alien” as “any person not a citizen or national of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3). Like the district court, we do not use the term pejoratively. See Keller, 853 F.Supp.2d at 970 n. 6."

Ron Winkleheimer said...

SO if Trump is "the boss" of DOJ, then presumably he has the power to halt any DOJ investigation into, e.g., his businesses or his friends?

Others have answered this, so I will just ask, how can you not know this?

The limits on the executive power is are set in the constitution. The remedies, if needed, are impeachment, or failing that, being voted out of office. Once out of office, the incoming President can direct the DOJ to investigate any suspected wrongdoing or, as Ford did, pardon the former President.

You might find this interesting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/102173-2.htm

Seeing Red said...

I think it was either Ace of Spades or BlackFive who had an entertaining 2000 or 2004 voting story.

Republican in Chicago, voted before, and then his voter's reg went missing when he went to his precinct. Had to go to City Hall for a provisional vote.

Oddly enuf, met other Republicans there with the same problem.

Seeing Red said...

Then we have the hanging chads in trunks.


you guys have to know this stuff, come on. Can't be that naive.

Bruce Hayden said...

I will admit to having received ballots from two statesv(CO and MT). Strategically, it probably made more sense to vote in CO, but ethics induced to vote in MT instead. Probably could have voted in both, but, again, ethics and morality intervened.

Why is Trump on his team pushing this, from a strategic point of view? One reason may to destroy Dems supposed electoral inevitability. MEGAN MCARDLE has an article out titled: The Democrats’ Rise Is Far From Inevitable. The lists five reasons that their belief in the inevitability of their being a permanent majority is probably mistaken. One that she didn't mention is this, that Dems have been winning elections for decades with illegal votes and voters. The stories about JFK's father complaining about buying too many votes in IL, and LBJ helping physically stuff ballot boxes in TX are legendary. But there is no reason to believe that they quit stealing elections with illegal votes and voters, esp given how Al Franken won his Senate seat, etc. it is kinda like the joke about offering a woman a million dollars to sleep with a guy, then when he comes back asking if she will do it for $100, and she angerly claims not to be a whore, and the response is that has been determined, and now they are just haggling over price. We know that. Illegal voting still occurs in this country (which is why the NYT should give itself 4 Pinochios), and the only remaining question is how much? The reason that the Dems, and their MSM minions were sucked in here, and will likely be in complete meltdown mode before it's over, is that a lot of them likely know that illegal votes have given them any number of close elections over the years, and permanently depriving them of many of those illegal votes will likely put them even further from that permanent electoral majority they seem to think is their inevitable due. Permanently zeroing out these votes may work to flip more swing states like MN, NV, etc, and put others like PA, MI, etc out of easy reach.

And here is something else - under Obama, the DoJ would go after states that tried to cut down on illegal voting through litigation and the like. States trying to implement voter IDs, or purging their voting rolls. This is not going to happen under Trump. His DoJ is likely to help the other side, justifying it based on illegal votes swinging close elections, and thus violating the Voting Rights Act. And the Dems/MSM helped him justify it.

Robert Cook said...

"An unalienable right is for Americans."

No. The founders were stating a fundamental principle of humanity: all have inalienable rights. By definition, an "inalienable right" is one that pertains to every living person. Those in the world whose rights are stolen away from are victims of despots in their area of the world.

As America cannot force other countries to abide by our ideas of what those inalienable rights are--heck, we haven't even done so--the constitutional guarantees protecting those inalienable right can only extend to persons and/or citizens under American government control. (I say "persons and/or citizens" because different words are used in the Constitution, and not all of its protections apply only to "citizens;" some apply to all "persons" under American control. This is why the mostly innocent prisoners at Gitmo were adjudged by the Supreme Court to enjoy Constitutional protections. That didn't stop us from violating those protections.)

Lloyd W. Robertson said...

The discussion makes it clear that there are some issues with voting that need to be investigated. The media reaction makes it clear that the Democrats don't want any investigation at all. There is certainly no reason to think there are no examples of non-citizens voting, especially in California. This might help to explain why California was such an outlier in 2016--it pushed Hillary over the top in national popular vote.
The references to Hans von Spakowsky are very helpful. One political science paper that has been discussed is from 2014, Richmond, Chattha, Earnest, political scientists at Old Dominion University. Refers to a U.S. government survey that asks people both if they are citizens and if they have voted. There are no doubt problems with the methodology, but I would think this survey would under-state the incidence of non-citizens voting, rather than over-state it.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973
http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/10/28/what-other-academics-think-of-the-questionable/201347

Jon said...

@Chuck 12:23.

Even so, that's a lot of possible votes that an unscrupulous Machine could "vote". I remember some being perplexed in 2012 (I think) when they found out that some folks were being asked if they knew of residents (of wherever it was) that didn't vote. Ostensibly to be notified to vote, but maybe to be voted for (can't be caught if the people who are "voted" don't come to the polls, right?).

Trumpit said...

A claim that three million non-citizens voted needs to be backed up with some evidence. It is interesting that the three million number is basically the amount he lost the popular vote by.

If he has little or no evidence, he needs to STFU.

Birkel said...

Bruce Hayden:

Welcome to the PURPLE ELEPHANT crowd.
Trump asked us not to talk about the PURPLE ELEPHANTS.
The MSM cannot resist resisting.

Robert Cook said...

"Thank you for presenting yourself as Exhibit A in this 'Case Study for Why The Left Lost.'"

The left didn't lose; the left were not represented in the last election.

Bruce Hayden said...

Why do the dems make such a fuss about voter ID laws? As Shakespeare said "the lady doth protest too much"--unless lack of voter ID was to their benefit, why would they bother?

I think that has been pretty obvious for quite some time now that the protest so much because they know that it helps them win close elections, and has been an integral part of their electoral strategy for many decades now, if not the last century or so. It helps them gain and maintain power, and they all know it.

James Pawlak said...

Anyone who denies "Illegal Immigration" and voting fraud (Especially in such places as Chicago and urban California should not be allowed alone without a "keeper".

Jon said...

Whoops, that's 12:23, Chuck - sorry!

James Kahn said...

"If he has little or no evidence, he needs to STFU."

If you've been following along, there is lots of evidence. Circumstantial, not decisive, but evidence nonetheless.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/24/study-claims-up-to-2-8-million-non-citizens-voted-in-2008/

This was 2008, before CA gave out drivers' licenses to illegals.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 352   Newer› Newest»