UPDATE: Rudy Giuliani holds a press conference, explaining the lawsuits and citing the evidence.Important News Conference today by lawyers on a very clear and viable path to victory. Pieces are very nicely falling into place. RNC at 12:00 P.M.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 19, 2020
November 19, 2020
"Important News Conference today by lawyers on a very clear and viable path to victory. Pieces are very nicely falling into place."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
477 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 477 of 477D.D. Driver said...
The point I was responding to is this: why would they kick out all the republican observers if there weren't committing fraud?
You having fun beating up that straw man?
Because the charge isn't "ALL", the charge is "ANY".
Why are they kicking out ANY Trump Campaign poll watchers if they aren't trying to carry out fraud? Unless there are not more Trump campaign watchers than workers, "because there are too many watchers" isn't a valid answer
D.D. Driver said...
Now, your broader point is a good one and I completely agree. That being said, I can also think of non-fraudulent reasons why a polling site might enforce stricter capacity and distancing rules. So, I don't accept the capacity and distancing rules to be evidence of fraud in and of itself.
If you require people to be so far away that they can't see everything the poll worker is doing, you're trying to engage in fraud.
If you require that there be fewer Trump poll watchers than county poll workers, you are trying to engage in fraud
If you want to put your poll workers in Tyvek suits , gloves, masks, and face shields, because your'e all so worried about Covid, go right ahead.
But you don't get to prevent the Trump campaign poll watchers from doing THEIR job, which is to watch and make sure that no fraud took place
Since MI, PA, and GA all did that, their election results are fraudulent. Either toss every vote counted for Biden where the GOP couldn't fully watch, and give the election to Trump, or else have a re-vote on Dec 1 with no absentee ballots for anyone other than the military.
Because those State have all established that they're not capable of doing mail in ballots legally
Not to leave WI out of the mix. The Elections Board ordered the Counties, against written State Law, to let over 100k people vote w/o PhotoID
As the margin in 20k, that there should invalidate the election results
Qwill : who are you going to believe? Honest media and Democrats who swear nothing went wrong our your own lying eyes? In Joe Biden’s America you had better get with the program Comrade. As one of the top California Democrats said today, you don’t want to be part of re-education camps they are going to start up for all Trump voters.
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/11/17/voter-fraud-election-la-county-homeless/
Two men – including a former Hawthorne mayoral candidate – have been charged for allegedly submitting thousands of fraudulent voter registration applications on behalf of homeless people, prosecutors announced Tuesday.
Carlos Antonio De Bourbon Montenegro, aka Mark Anthony Gonsalves, 53, allegedly submitted more than 8,000 fraudulent voter registration applications between July and October 2020, according to a 41-count criminal complaint from the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.
Montenegro also is accused of falsifying names, addresses and signatures on nomination papers under penalty of perjury to run for mayor in the city of Hawthorne.
Two men, 8,000 false applications
Which takes a lot more work than just submitting an absentee ballot, even one that has every election filled in.
And one of them was running for mayor at the time.
I guess that gives us a lower bound on the number of fake ballots one person can submit. At 4k ballots per person, that's 6 people to steal WI, 6 to steal GA, 3 to steal AZ, 2 or 3 to steal NV.
Less than 20 people to steal a Presidential election. That's one vast conspiracy needed there
The election process is put in place to ensure that everyone accedes to the results of the election. Laws are put in place so that when results come out everyone trusts the results. These laws are discussed and agreed to prior to the election. There are protections put in place so that a winner of an election cannot do things in retaliation.
If you abrogate the agreement and willfully break the rules of the process and you follow that up with promises of reataliation against your opponents then everything is going to go sideways.
One thing that everyone knows is that if Trump prevails then we just go back to 2019 and the best economy for the working class and minorities ever. People who support Biden do not have nearly as much skin in the game as people threatened with career termination and reeducation.
There will be a contest of wills and the side with the most to lose will win.
So Dick is going to taunt me mercilessly. Perhaps even fart in my general direction.
Maybe he'll even try to doxx me. That is what I took from his statement. (I have not and will not publish his name and info which he apparently prefers to keep secret)
Go ahead, Dick. Doxx me. I've got 3 words for you. They are: Station, Dame and Handbook.
Seriously, I realized way back in 1989 that being doxxed could be an issue so I made myself doxx proof. My name, address, phone and a lot of other personal details have been widely available on the internet and later the web ever since.
Dick is the one who has whinged here on numerous occasions that "Please, Prof Althouse. People are being mean to me. Make them stop. It's making me cry." Perhaps that is why she told him he is a "Dick".
John Henry
I just finished watching the presser. Just one word: "WOW!"
I'd like to find a transcript. I'm curious what the presstitutes were actually asking. What a slimy bunch. I'm hoping that one day Giuliani, Powell, and Ellis get up the nerve to tell them what they really think of them.
John Henry
"This has to be pursued. Otherwise, there will be a civil war...."
No. There won't be a civil war.
"No. There won't be a civil war."
Marxist says "You will submit to the election being stolen by my fellow Marxists without a squeal."
You go with that.
"...the best economy for the working class and minorities ever...."
Just because Trump says it doesn't mean it's a lie...but it usually is, as in this case.
Ok, dumb shit Robert Cook, share the time during which the economy was better than it was in 2018-2019.
I'll wait here, you miserable putz.
Do you realize how few people are on your side?
America has moved on. Please remove your mouth from Guiliani's kraken and catch up.
........................
Do you think justice should be decided by simple majority rule? How are you deciding what the majority thinks and what they would decide if they were given a fair presentation? Why are jurors overexposed to the court of public opinion usually thrown out? Is the media the judge and jury of all things, who were they elected by?
........................
stevew said...
The Return to Decency® crowd is tweeting and making fun of Giuliani and the fact that he sweats.
I guess that is the best they can do given the limitations of journalism degrees and Twitter.
Quinn, you need to update your sarcasm level when making points. Should have added, “or wipes them, like with a cloth.”
Gotta love those pics for the video thumbnail.
Robert Cook said...
"This has to be pursued. Otherwise, there will be a civil war...."
No. There won't be a civil war.
Most likely future right now you are correct. The poor foot soldiers in Antifa/BLM are not likely to seriously try to protect the power of Joe Biden/Amazon/Google. In fact they are probably more likely to turn on Amazon warehouses and loot them. I would guess they would jump at the chance to loot the Pentagon. Or the FBI headquarters.
I don't think there are more than a million committed followers of Joe Biden. They have little to gain and less to lose if Trump wins. If everything breaks down then the Democrats fold pretty much immediately.
31 of 32 Trump law cases have been thrown out of court because of lack of evidence, and yes the Rudy circus conspiracy show has been covered by CNN as well as Fox, so maybe it is time to be real about who won the election.
"Ok, dumb shit Robert Cook, share the time during which the economy was better than it was in 2018-2019."
That's hard to say, given the many ups and downs of our economy over the centuries, but let's just look at recent history
Also, what does Trump mean when he brags--and his sycophants repeat--that he built the "strongest economy" in U.S. history? The most jobs? The most GOOD jobs? The fastest rising annual incomes? A flood of new and returning factory jobs?(No, it can't be that, as that didn't happen.) The stock market? In all segments? Relative to when? It's just a boast, with no data to actually quantify what it refers to.
Oh, roesch/voltaire...
Those lies have already been dismissed as obvious lies.
You are bad at this.
"I don't think there are more than a million committed followers of Joe Biden."
You think there could even be that many? It's not the number of Biden followers that is plentiful, it's the number of Trump haters. That's what drove the voting. I can't imagine any sentient, politically half-literate voter feeling deep commitment to party hack Biden.
Well, Robert Cook, that bull shit article is cherry picking the fuck out of some dumb ass cherries.
Consider yourself picked, dumb ass.
Meanwhile, average wages grew faster under Trump than at any time in the last 50 years, in terms of purchasing power.
And that's why 56% of people report being better off today than they were four years ago.
And that despite 95% negative reporting and bull shit editorials.
Seriously, you're fucking stupid.
Get help.
And a bib.
Oh, my "that's hard to say" comment above was my response to my forgetting the actual question and to my thinking I had been asked to say when the strongest economy in U.S. economy had been. Obviously, there have been many stronger economies than Trump's just in the past half-century.
Hmmm...so looking at data over the past few decades and stating some of it is "cherry-picking," but repeating Trump's boasts is definitive. Got it.
Obviously, there have been many stronger economies than Trump's just in the past half-century.
ALSO
repeating Trump's boasts is definitive
Seriously, how do you manage to remember to breathe?
Where there is smoke there is a fire.
"Seriously, how do you manage to remember to breathe?"
I don't have to remember to breathe; it's automatic for me. Do you have to remember to breathe? That explains a lot.
You can match Sydney Powells emotion with the gravity of her presentation. People intuit that under their skin and echo it back. It's like being a rock star. Most people don't hold up well the first time that happens to them. Most people assume it as a personal power. She did extremely well. Which to me means she has the wisdom to grow with this issue. It's what we want out of our leaders.
She was talking honestly to a greater purpose in terms of her life experiences. You don't see an Adam Schiff doing that.
Shatter the corruption ceiling
Blogger Bruce Hayden said...
“Raw vote totals reported as floats?”
I don't think ANTIFA has time for Integers viewing them as a form of white supremacy. ANTIFA wants unresolved irrational numbers which require floats?
Are there situations were TYPE INT is transformed to TYPE FLOAT? I wonder what programming language DOMION was built on?
“ Are there situations were TYPE INT is transformed to TYPE FLOAT? I wonder what programming language DOMION was built on?”
PL/1 would do a lot of crazy type conversions under the radar. Not only integer/float, but also to and from decimal, etc. they were supposed to be just making it easy for the programmers. But those type conversions all over the place cost a lot in terms of cycles, and it was IBM selling it, so I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if the sale of more hardware factored into their design criteria. It sure did with their refusal to implement virtual disk systems, as well as dynamically growing disk files. The two together sold a lot of their disk drives - they would need 2x to 3x as much disk space as required by their competitors for the same jobs. Did the same for RAM too.
Night said...
I don't think ANTIFA has time for Integers viewing them as a form of white supremacy. ANTIFA wants unresolved irrational numbers which require floats?
They technically wouldn't be irrational numbers. Irrational numbers require infinite memory. The only way to represent an irrational number would be though text like with "pi" or some such. "sqrt 2."
Are there situations were TYPE INT is transformed to TYPE FLOAT? I wonder what programming language DOMION was built on?
You can change an Integer to a Float or vise versa in any language. Going up in precision you don't lose anything. Going from INT to FLOAT. But going down in precision levels you will lose information. Going from FLOAT to INT. Bad.
Type casting and mixing data types is really really frowned upon. You CAN do it. But all your team mates and managers and such are going to be really angry and you will get fired. Really you should get fired. "Define Your Data" was the first maxim our CS prof taught us. If you store the same piece of Data in different Data Types that is probably one of the worst juju's I could think of. You have to have a really good reason to do it.
Althouse says that Rudy and his colleagues presented evidence. Perhaps she didn't listen. What was presented was the legal equivalent of the big lie.
Here's what Chris Krebs, who received bipartisan praise for his work as head of the Homeland Security's election security operation before Trump fired him by tweet, had to say:
"That news conference was the most dangerous 1hr 45 minutes of television in American history. And possibly the craziest. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you're lucky."
And Glenn Kessler gave it four pinnochios, here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/19/fact-checking-craziest-news-conference-trump-presidency/
Giuliani's presentation was disgusting. Lots of talk about the corruption of Democratically run big cities (read minority run) and about the evil schemes of Democrats. So much for America's mayor! But actually, zero new evidence and a lot of outright falsehoods.
Only two witnesses's testimony was described in any detail. But Giuliani neglected to state that a judge had already found both to be incredible and that the claims they were backing have already failed in the courts. Disingenous, no?
He refers to hundreds of other witnesses, but he cannot share their affidavits lest they be harrassed. Suspicious, no? Reminiscent of Joe McCarthy (I have the names of hundreds of Communists in the State Department). Actually, it sounds like the hundreds of affidavits filed in the Michigan action, centering on failure to observe, which has now been withdrawn.
He advances the failure to observe claim, which has been rejected by every court to which it has been presented.
He falsely accused Biden of having admitted to having set up a fraud team, when Biden was explicitly describing an anti-voter suppression team.
He says that Georgia did not signature match. False.
He said that US votes were counted overseas. Another whopper.
So then we get Sidney Powell, and she offers up a series of claims about voting machine fraud that are widely circulated on the internet, but doesn't identify a single witness who can testify to them or to their effect on the states that decided the election. Trump's own Homeland Security Department has described those claims as wholly unfounded, and so has every state and local election official in the relevant jurisdictions. Powell dresses up these conspiracy theories with false and/or irrelevant allegations about George Soros (shades of the international Jewish conspiracy), the Clintons, Hugo Chavez, and Communist China. None of this, of course, has appeared or will appear in any pleading in court, because it would subject the lawyer who presented it to grave sanctions.
Finally, there is Jenna Ellis. She says that this is just an "opening statement." But "opening statements" are not evidence by definition. Moreover, one cannot give an opening statement in court based on theories or evidence that have already been rejected in other courts or that you aren't willing to certify to the court have an evidentiary basis.
Meanwhile, in Georgia the $5 million hand recount is done, and nothing changed.
The Michigan lawsuit was withdrawn.
The Pennsylvania lawsuit hangs by a thread. After reading the briefs, I am sure it will be dismissed with prejudice next week.
So the press conference is a mixture of flim-flammery and lies, worthy of a tin pot dictatorship, but not of officers of the court, and does exactly zero to advance any provable legal theory for setting aside the election. Shameful, damaging, and fundamentally unpatriotic.
"You have to have a really good reason to do it."
Like cheating in elections, maybe?
D.D. Driver said...
Qwinn, my made a mistake about the Pa AG. I certainly would not try to "lie" about something so easy to look up. Cheers!
11/19/20, 4:54 PM
If that's true, then, as Harvey Keitel said to Tim Roth in Reservoir Dogs, you've just admitted, that you don't know what you're talking about.
In theory, then, you *could* just shut up. I understand, it hurts when you're not flapping your virtual gums, but still, you should consider it.
Cheers! What country are you from, BTW, because no American grows up saying that.
Stephan, With all due respect you start by saying it was an opening statement and evidence is not produced in the opening statement, then you go ahead and complained that there was no evidence presented.
I would answer Chris Krebs that the only dangerous press conference in a free democracy is the press conference that’s purposely smothered and not available. We need more evidence assertions and more coverage and discussion. Not less. That is the only way to the reconciliation that we all need.
Stephen said
Lots of talk about the corruption of Democratically run big cities (read minority run) —or actually Glenn Kessler wrote this?
So what is the argument—that there has never been corruption in “Democratically run big cities”? Or if you think there has been then since “read minority run” you are a racist if you think so.
But Giuliani neglected to state that a judge had already found both to be incredible incredible?....
Guess I might follow the link because cannot tell the difference from what you might be writing or what you might be quoting.
Basically the media can take a chill pill, or a deep breath as Hillary would say, or stop rushing to judgment, or gasping about how it was the “most dangerous one and half hours of television “....I think 9/11 or the JFK assassination might top it and that is just for starters off the top of my head andI never took American history.
Jeezuz,...
r/v: "31 of 32 Trump law cases have been thrown out of court because of lack of evidence,...."
Will someone please bring r/v up to speed just a bit?
Seriously, it's the evening of 11/19/20 and r/v STILL doesn't know that those were not "Trump law cases" and the vast majority of them were initiated PRIOR to the election and thus were tossed because of......(lets give r/v a chance to catch up......yes, it could take awhile....) "standing".
Let's give r/v a little more time to look up what "standing" means and why it has nothing to do with evidence.
Yes, we could be here for years waiting for r/v.......
He falsely accused Biden of having admitted to having set up a fraud team, when Biden was explicitly describing an anti-voter suppression team.
Biden literally said, "We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics." Let's say that he misspoke and didn't mean to say that, but he was not "explicitly describing an anti-voter suppression team" or he would not have used the word fraud. Using a candidate's own words against him is certainly within the bounds of proper political conduct. Do you really think Biden cuts Trump any slack when he can use a Trump quote - in or out of context - to his own benefit?
It's going to be awfully hard to prove that there was cheating on such a scale that Pennsylvania or Michigan could be moved into Trump's column. Georgia, maybe Arizona or even Wisconsin, but there are so many unknowns and not much time left. This year, there were people who really loved Trump and went to the rallies, but many who approved of Trump weren't enthusiastic and didn't love the guy and didn't bother to vote for him. Nobody was enthusiastic about Biden, but there were an awful lot of people who really hated Trump and would crawl over shattered glass to vote against him. This year, hate may have trumped love.
"He refers to hundreds of other witnesses, but he cannot share their affidavits lest they be harrassed. Suspicious, no?"
No, not suspicious. People have been threatened. It's been in the news, that you're apparently not aware of the fact doesn't make it not so.
"Do you really think Biden cuts Trump any slack when he can use a Trump quote - in or out of context - to his own benefit?"
*cough*fine people on both sides*cough*
I counted at least five complete and utter lies in Steohen's post. Several of which other leftists tried to pass off here and were already debunked in this thread. I'm going to sleep but I hope someone else will give it the fishing that last pile of excrement deserves.
[b]Biden literally said, "We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics." [/b]
Sorry Lurker21, I just had to emphasize that sentence again.
*fisking. Damn autocorrect.
The Michigan lawsuit was withdrawn.
The Michigan lawsuit is unnecessary. Now that Wayne County isn't certified the secretary of state can go forward without those votes and give the Michigan to Trump. Or there can be an audit and trial. Michigan is not getting certified on the 8th.
And Wayne County will clearly not stand up to scrutiny. Once this gets to court you will also have to sit through hundreds of witnesses who say they were locked out. At 15-30 minutes per witness that is 15-20 per day. Even 100 witnesses will take a week. How do you think the media will deal with 5 straight days of 20 people per day testifying they were kicked out of polling stations in Wayne County? That doesn't even count the hundreds in Pennsylvania. Entire weeks are going to be spent listening to stories of Democrats breaking election laws. Some of those witnesses are going to request anonymity because of democrat threats.
You all need to start thinking through the nuts and bolts of this process and plotting out the possible futures. Vanishingly few of them involve Biden in control of the executive. Even those end up badly for democrats. Your threats of retribution ensure this process plays out. You have miscalculated at every step so far. A course change is imminent.
Stephen said...
Only two witnesses's testimony was described in any detail. But Giuliani neglected to state that a judge had already found both to be incredible and that the claims they were backing have already failed in the courts. Disingenous, no?
I am just going through your post one by one because your post while long is obviously dishonest and this is the best way to deal with that.
Many of the witnesses wish to remain anonymous for obvious reasons. Their witness statements have been posted in the court filings. You are conflating a different case with the one that Rudy Giuliani filed.
This paragraph is a mixture of lies and misdirections that really could only be posted in bad faith. It was written in a knowingly deceptive manner unlike D D Driver or steve uhr who are just limited thinkers.
He said that US votes were counted overseas. Another whopper.
That is a direct and obvious twisting of what he described and completely dishonest. Vote counts were stored and tabulated and observed overseas. Again to say something like this using half lies and misstatements is textbook bad faith arguing. This really is enough time to waste on you. I will just enjoin you to contemplate your path over the next weeks. This level of dishonesty is poisonous to your soul.
D.D. Driver has a non zero I.Q., so he must be really smart.
Bottom line: Six states are potentially decisive.
Ariz, Georgia, Mich, Nevada, Pa, Wisconsin
Trump needs 37 EVs to tie.
What legal challenges specifically, in what states, are going to move that needle? Nothing pending has any chance of doing so, and the new theories laid out today are so toxic no lawyer will touch them. Explain why I am wrong.
Delay for its own sake is not a legitimate purpose for litigation.
Delay to damage the conduct of the nations business is unpatriotic.
Cmon people, specific theories, not previously rejected and not frivolous, for specific states.
"Delay to damage the conduct of the nations business is unpatriotic."
Agreed, but the only people I've seen doing that have been Democrats for the last four years. They said that's what they wanted, and it's what they did. They continue to do it, and will not stop until Trump is out of office.
I’ve very much enjoyed watching readering lose his/her/its mud.
Once credibility has been lost, it’s very hard to regain.
Stephen said...
Bottom line: Six states are potentially decisive.
Ariz, Georgia, Mich, Nevada, Pa, Wisconsin
Trump needs 37 EVs to tie.
What legal challenges specifically, in what states, are going to move that needle? Nothing pending has any chance of doing so, and the new theories laid out today are so toxic no lawyer will touch them. Explain why I am wrong.
Hundreds of poll watchers in several of those states signed affidavits under penalty of perjury that they were kicked out of polling stations while a decisive number of votes, overwhelmingly for Biden, were counted and added to the totals.
The mere fact that Democrats in these cities knowingly and grossly broke election laws is enough to invalidate the elections in those states.
When these trials go to court and the Nation sits through days and weeks of GOP poll observers describing harassment and illegal removal from observation posts by machine democrats that will invalidate the election in everyone who cares about the process and validity of our elections. There will be many additional witnesses that describe Trump votes being counted for Biden, perfect uncreased mail in ballots that were obviously never mailed, envelopes without signatures being passed through.
Hundreds of witnesses. Weeks of testimony.
You do not have a chance of winning.
Welcome to the alternate universe.
“Type casting and mixing data types is really really frowned upon. You CAN do it. But all your team mates and managers and such are going to be really angry and you will get fired. Really you should get fired. "Define Your Data" was the first maxim our CS prof taught us. If you store the same piece of Data in different Data Types that is probably one of the worst juju's I could think of. You have to have a really good reason to do it.”
Mostly, it comes from fuzzy thinking. If you are thinking and coding clearly, it should rarely happen - though I can attest to having used casting in C a couple times when I probably shouldn’t have, for example taking advantage of the underlying structure of the data. Which of course isn’t guaranteed to work in a different architecture. For example, “Z”-“A”=25 in ASCII - but not in IBM’s EBCDIC. It was usually too clever by half. And fun. But not something that you would want in production code. As I noted above, I came from the school of declaring every variable even when default typing was the norm (despite that - I still primarily use I, J, K, etc as loop counters, to this day, showing my FORTRAN roots a half century ago).
Mostly, it comes from fuzzy thinking. If you are thinking and coding clearly, it should rarely happen - though I can attest to having used casting in C a couple times when I probably shouldn’t have, for example taking advantage of the underlying structure of the data. Which of course isn’t guaranteed to work in a different architecture. For example, “Z”-“A”=25 in ASCII - but not in IBM’s EBCDIC.
In that example I think that is best practice. =D I generally treat a Char is a number between 0-255 with a convenient symbol and a nice table to look up in C. I told students not to think of them as letters and that using string.h would actually hurt them in the long run. I probably wouldn't describe that as Casting the way we defined it from a Java/OOD perspective. That kind of Casting was bad. Especially upcasting.
I designed a UDP protocol based on the ASCII values and just subtracted 48 from various spots in the char array to get the numerical values I needed out of the packet. With macros you can actually make a pretty clear way for Arduinos to talk to each other over a WiFi network when you can only send one data type over the network.
I don't know, man. They'd better have the goods on this. I am pro-Trump, yes, but I can accept if he really ends up losing and conceding. I dread what will become of The Old Republic under leftist rule, though. Trump's team have pushed all their chips to the center of the table, particularly Sydney Powell, or so it seems to me. Now we watch.
“Bottom line: Six states are potentially decisive.
“Ariz, Georgia, Mich, Nevada, Pa, Wisconsin
“Trump needs 37 EVs to tie.
“What legal challenges specifically, in what states, are going to move that needle? Nothing pending has any chance of doing so, and the new theories laid out today are so toxic no lawyer will touch them. Explain why I am wrong.”
Let me start with the basic problem. Ballots are sent out. In a number of states, the voting law says that you had to request a ballot first. That was waived, by either courts or election officials. Ballots were sent out to everyone and their brother, again, contrary to the state’s election law. They were received back in. The state’s election laws specify a number of things that must be checked and verified before a ballot can be counted, such as coming from a registered voter, the signatures match, they have a valid birthday, the ballet returned came from someone who had had one mailed to them, the envelope was postmarked in time, was received before the statutory deadline, etc. Some states even require that copies of driver’s licenses (or other govt issued photo IDs) be included. The ballots are placed in security envelops, which are placed within the incoming envelope that is validated for all these things. Then, if the ballot has been properly validated, the security envelope and its contained ballots are placed in a box (etc). The tie between the underlying voter information and the ballot is cut at that point, and ballots are legally not supposed to be allowed to move to the counting phase if they haven’t been properly validated. And the biggest security issue appears to have been that the validation steps were corrupted, by election officials or courts waiving or modifying state election law provisions. After being validated, the ballots are collected into batches, have their security envelopes removed, and counted (this is generalized, and the specifics can vary state to state). This should be completely separate from the validation, in order to provide anonymity. All that is known is which batch the underlying voter validation information is associated with, but not which ballot. This is intentional. This means that once a ballot is separated from its underlying voter identification information, if later found to be invalid, the previously associated ballot can not be retrieved and it’s votes cancelled.
The problem then is that the Trump team can show that a given batch contains invalid ballots, but not which ones. A little of this is tolerable, but there was massive amounts of it, esp in those big cities. The only viable solution is to either throw out the ballots (and their counts) of entire tainted batches of ballots that are associated with a critical number of voter validation information packages that wouldn’t have been allowed to be counted if state law had been followed. Or, additionally, batches of ballots that have statistically impossible tallies.
(Continuing)
I think that the way to go at this point for litigation is to look at the underlying voter validation information, and find as many voter entries as possible where the formerly associated ballots shouldn’t have been separated and sent to the tally portion of the processing. Affidavits are great, as well as potential testimony of life people. Get as many people as possible to swear out affidavits or agree to testify, and put them on a witness list. Have enough that either the defendants stipulate the fraud, or the judge determines that the evidence is redundant. Either way, they are in a position where the court cannot say that they didn’t introduce enough evidence of fraud. Also have experts delve deeply into the statistics of both the underlying voter validation information and the voting on the ballots themselves (thus a bunch of Biden only ballots are presumptively fraudulent, because real voters mostly vote for down ballot candidates.
With the goal of disqualifying entire batches of ballots, the key is that they were not validated pursuant to state election law. In state court, at least, the first claim for relief is probably that the batch of ballots was not properly validated pursuant to state law. The local court is likely to reject that, because the judges are likely associated with the same political machine committing the fraud. But then there are federal claims for relief, based on the election officials violating state law. The first one (that won in Bush v Gore) is that it was county officials that essentially waived state law requirements, allowing invalid ballots under state election law to be counted, and the result is that different groups of citizens, living in different counties, were arbitrarily treated differently (violating the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amdt). This argument might win as many as 7 votes in the Supreme Court, since J Breyer signed onto the EP holding in that case. Less likely, but septillion very possible, is the Article II § 1 ¶ 2 argument made by J Alito (and signed onto by CJ Rehnquist and J Thomas) in his concurrence, that this section requires that state legislatures determine the rules for selecting Presidential electors, and that doesn’t include state judges or executive branch officials, including county election officials.
The plaintiffs (Trump team) very likely won’t have to prove that all of the ballots in a batch of ballots need to be removed from the tallies, just enough of them too taint the batch. The standard of proof is not clear. I suspect that since we are talking disenfranchisement of some voters, the stand will likely be greater than by a preponderance of the evidence. But since no incarceration is involved, it is probably not as high as beyond a reasonable doubt (though they probably could surmount that). Which probably means something intermediate like Clear and Convincing.
Keep this in mind. Juries routinely find people guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt) of crimes, absent the discovery a smoking gun, or anything approaching that. To hey do it based on the weight of the evidence. By introducing the affidavits, the live witnesses, the expert statisticians, etc, the plaintiffs will be building the weight of the evidence in their favor. How does the defense fight that? How do hey prove a negative, that voter fraud didn’t occur, when it so obviously did, and the batches ballots that the plaintiffs will be trying to exclude don’t contain invalid ballots? About all that they can do is maybe have some of their own witnesses testify, and challenge the plaintiffs’ witnesses. But all their witnesses can testify to is that they didn’t see anything that violated the letter of the state’s election laws, and not that they didn’t occur, which they can’t do. Going to be hard.
As predicted the usual Bagdad Bobs show up to assure us that there are absolutely no US troops in Bagdad. At this point the democrat party is just another criminal organization.
The Bart Simpson defense is getting old,;" I didn't do it! You didn't see me do it! Prove I did it!"
OK
While you were at it, wielding your extremely neutral filter, you could have put up Drudge’s ‘GHOULIANI’ picture too. All this one-sidedness reminds me of a relevant question asked by Jordan Peterson on Bill Maher’s show (paraphrasing ) “what do you do with half the population you demonize,”
Failed in court over and over,Rudy is a clown so trump now invites electors to try and buy and intimidate,Miss Lindsey also soliciting electors.LOSERS ARE DESPERATE without prevail..LEAVE NOW LOSERS, the real FRAUD
Bruce Hayden,
That's thoughtful.
I don't think that mail ballots were supplied without a conforming request in any of the decisive states except Nevada.
In all the other states, the voter had to request an absentee ballot under standards set by Republican legislatures.
As you note, the standards for determining whether a mail in ballot is valid vary from state to state, but a critical question is whether the ballot is from the registered voter who purported to cast it.
If Trump could prove that there were systematic failures to comply with state validation requirements and that those failures resulted in allowing sufficient Biden votes, or disallowing sufficient Trump votes, to shift the result in a state, that could make out a claim under state law.
I have not seen a state law case alleging those kind of legal violations in sufficient numbers to change the outcome in that state. The Pennsylvania federal case alleges that some Biden voters were unlawfully allowed to correct errors in their mail ballots, but no fraud is alleged, and the number of votes affected is trivial. In every state, election officials and workers, many of whom are Republican, vehemently insist that validation procedures were followed. (The Georgia Secretary of State gave a particularly strong statement.) If there were such violations, and if they were enough to move the needle in any state, why haven't such cases been filed and promptly prosecuted? The reasonable inference is that Trump's lawyers can't find any credible witnesses who will testify to the critical predicate fact of failure to verify or that, if they have such witnesses, their testimony would not support the invalidation of anything remotely like the number of ballots required to move the needle. Certainly, none were produced or referred to yesterday. So in what state do you foresee this argument having any legs?
The Bush vs. Gore argument is also in the Middle District of Pennsylvania case. But Bush v. Gore is a hard one, because its holding is limited to its facts, because the facts are very different here, because the equal protection theory in that case is both problematic on its own terms and in deep tension with the principle that states set the voting rules, and because its one thing for a federal court to stop the count in one state with a 500 vote differential, and quite another to throw out the results in three states (with differentials of between 10,000 and 150,000 votes) when those counts are in compliance with state law. I am confident that the Bush v. Gore claim will fail in Pa. Are there other states where you see it working, and why?
Finally, can I take it from your focus, Bruce, that you agree that the broader conspiracy theories, like Dominion, are frivolous?
"Finally, can I take it from your focus, Bruce, that you agree that the broader conspiracy theories, like Dominion, are frivolous?"
I can answer that.
No.
Stephen said...
Meanwhile, in Georgia the $5 million hand recount is done, and nothing changed.
11/19/20, 8:13 PM
So I have [as an example] 1000 ballots on a table that the 1000 people in our town submitted but have yet to be counted. You look away and I mix in 500 fake ones. We then count them and oh look, my guy wins! You say that is not fair and demand an investigation. Instead, we just do a recount of the SAME 1500 ballots and oh look, my guy STILL wins!
Yay for me.
Your "concerns" were address and you are happy now, right? RIGHT?!?
Todd,
What I said was that if that happened, and if enough votes were added, subtracted or switched thereby, in violation of state law, then that would justify a lawsuit to set aside the results in that state.
Why aren't we seeing such suits, describing just the conduct you imagine having occurred? Because, as far as I can tell, the lawyers involved don't have any evidence that that's what happened. And without such evidence, they cannot ethically file a lawsuit. As I said, they didn't describe or present any such evidence yesterday.
Are you personally aware of any lawsuit where such an allegation has been made, in any decisive state? If not, the absence of such claims is telling.
Stephen said...
Are you personally aware of any lawsuit where such an allegation has been made, in any decisive state? If not, the absence of such claims is telling.
11/20/20, 10:27 AM
I am aware that "evidence" to such is in the process of being collected. I have personally seen videos that show vote counters and their support people blocking Republican poll watchers from seeing the counting. Ejecting Republican poll watchers from the facilities. Limiting the number of Republican poll watchers. I have heard that sworn affidavits of that and more have been filed. Is that not "evidence" of something? To falsely file one carries possible criminal penalties. These were not been filed by Democrats so the penalties for lying are real and would likely be applied if they were not honest.
If all the voting and counting was on the up-n-up, why violate pre-agreed upon rules? Why defy court orders and blend late mailed in ballots with in-person ballots?
The folks working on this are far more knowledgeable than I, and smarter. I have to assume they know what they are doing and will produce their "evidence" when it is appropriate.
Why do you insist is did not happen? The Democrats spend 4 long years screaming that the Russians "hacked" our election and got Trump in. Now, even after a number of stated enacted (sometimes illegally) massive mail in voting, we are told and expected to believe that there is absolutely ZERO voter fraud.
Which is it?
But Bush v. Gore is a hard one, because its holding is limited to its facts, because the facts are very different here, because the equal protection theory in that case is both problematic on its own terms and in deep tension with the principle that states set the voting rules, and because its one thing for a federal court to stop the count in one state with a 500 vote differential, and quite another to throw out the results in three states (with differentials of between 10,000 and 150,000 votes) when those counts are in compliance with state law. I am confident that the Bush v. Gore claim will fail in Pa. Are there other states where you see it working, and why?
I think that you are missing the gist of the EP argument, and that is because county officials changed the rules for their county, and their county alone. They typically did it by waiving rules and extending deadlines. That resulted in differing treatment, county by county, without any compelling reason. Disparate treatment by the state of any two groups without a compelling reason is the heart of an Equal Protection claim. And it is fairly egregious (raising the bar on the level of justification a state would need to overcome its disparate treatment) because this involved a fairly fundamental right - the right to vote for President.
Also, note, states don’t set the rules. Their legislatures do. That is my Article II, § 1, ¶ 2 argument (from the Alito concurrence in the Bush v Gore case). That paragraph recites that: Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress... Not that the state directs, but its legislature, alone. This typically is in the form of election laws, but could theoretically just be in the form of a joint resolution. The state’s judiciary and executive branch are superfluous here. They don’t get to decide the method of appointing electors. That is the prerogative solely of the legislature. Yet, in this case, election officials (part of the executive branch) and the judiciaries of these states did modify the rules that the legislatures set out by waiving requirements and extending deadlines.
You suggest that throwing out hundreds of thousands of votes isn’t justified based on the facts. But I expect that you are just looking at the concrete and sworn statements claiming violation of election laws (as set out by the legislatures of these states). Sure, there is nowhere enough time to hear the testimony of enough witnesses to justify throwing out that many ballots. But that isn’t the claim here. The claim is that substantial numbers of ballots, for whatever reasons, were counted, that under state election law couldn’t legally have been. Justice Alito had ordered that the late received ballots in Philadelphia be segregated for just that reason. If 100k ballots were received after the statutory deadline, then those 100k ballots cannot legally be counted.
Note that allegations of fraud are not required for determining which batches of ballots need to be discarded. Only sufficient evidence to show that a significant number of ballots in the batch of ballots to be discarded had been illegally counted (under a plain reading of the election law statutes, and ignoring any executive or judicial branch attempts to modify or waive provisions in the statutes). That is where the affidavits and fact witness testimony come in. How are the election officials going to overcome that? How do they disprove that they hadn't illegally counted ballots that were not in conformance with the election statutes? It’s hard to prove a negative. About all that they can do is claim that the plaintiffs had not put on enough evidence yet. And that is where dumping hundreds of affidavits, and having hundreds of witnesses ready to testify comes in. Judges have a very hard time rejecting claims for insufficient evidence when the party has proffered plenty more of it.
The place though for proof of fraud is in responding to the “no harm, no foul” counter argument. After the plaintiffs have shown that election law violations occurred, and allowed ballots to be counted that legally shouldn’t have been, the defendants are likely to respond “so what?” The response to that is very likely going to be through statistical analysis by expert witnesses that massive ballot fraud occurred, and was facilitated by the violation of election laws by election officials. That is the”so what?” The roll back of massive voter fraud by discarding illegally counted ballots is the harm prevented by the equitable relief sought. Of course, the defendants will have their own experts testifying that there is nothing to see here. The question is going to be whose experts are more compelling.
No this is not an SNL skit with Rudy and his dripping hair dye and popping eyeballs lying his hair dye out. This is what they got losing every court case going except 1 out of 31 and that case was already taken place when courts said ballots had to be separated. Rudy"meltdown" Giuliani is a clown and being laughed out of court. Prove something Rudy.. anything!!
Stephen said...
He falsely accused Biden of having admitted to having set up a fraud team, when Biden was explicitly describing an anti-voter suppression team.
No, it's a fraud team.
If you're fighting to let people vote w/o showing ID, if you're fighting to send ballots to every registered voter, if you're fighting to make signature match less exacting, your'e fighting for vote fraud.
Which is to say, your'e fighting to steal votes from legal voters.
And that's what the Dems do
Stephen said...
Are you personally aware of any lawsuit where such an allegation has been made, in any decisive state? If not, the absence of such claims is telling.
Georgia sworn testimony:
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/georgia-recount-witnesses-swear-have-seen-votes-trump-counted-biden
Michigan sworn testimony:
https://greatlakesjc.org/wp-content/uploads/Complaint-Costantino-FINAL-With-Exhibits.pdf?x44644
Both of these have been posted on Althouse multiple times
So, tell us what's missing from these
Then there's this. All the things here are from sworn statements submitted to court:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/georgia-recount-witnesses-saw-trump-votes-counted-for-biden-batches-of-suspicious-mail-ballots_3585027.html
“Everything was in total disarray,” Susan Voyles, a poll manager with 20 years of experience handling ballots, wrote in her affidavit about her experience at a recount center in Fulton County.
Pristine Ballots
Voyles said that ballots usually show signs of handling, like written marks, creases, and torn edges. But a batch she counted while working as a recount auditor at the Georgia World Congress Center on Nov. 14 “stood out.”
“It was pristine. There was a difference in the texture of the paper—it was if they were intended for absentee use, but had not been used for that purpose,” Voyles testified. “There were no markings on the ballots to show where they had come from, or where they had been processed.”
“I observed that the markings for the candidates on these ballots were unusually uniform, perhaps even with a ballot marking device,” Voyles said. “By my estimate in observing these ballots, approximately 98 percent constituted votes for Joe Biden.”
Carlos Silva, a registered Democrat, observed a batch of ballots similar to the one described by Voyles, this time in DeKalb County.
“I noticed they all had a perfect black bubble and all were Biden select,” Silva wrote in a sworn affidavit. “I heard them go through the stack and call out Biden’s name over 500 times in a row.”
Robin Hall witnessed the same odd ballots in Fulton County.
“The ballots appeared to be perfectly filled out as though they were pre-printed with the presidential candidate selected. They did not look like a person filled this out at home,” Hall wrote.
Debra Fisher witnessed the same pattern with military and overseas ballots. She noticed that the watermark on the ballots was printed in solid grey instead of being transparent like other ballots. Fisher suspected the ballots were counterfeit and inquired with the elections director, who told her it was not an issue “due to the use of different printers.”
“I noticed that almost all of the ballots I reviewed were for Biden. Many batches went 100 percent for Biden,” Fisher testified. “I believe the military ballots are highly suspicious of fraud.”
Trump Votes for Biden
Three of the affiants testified that they witnessed ballots cast for Trump being placed in stacks for Biden and counted toward the tally for the former vice president. One of the three said she recorded the activity on video.
If I were Flynn, I would fire Sidney Powell. You cannot have a spittle-flecked conspiracy theorist as your defense counsel.
How she can repeatedly flog outrageous allegations about widespread, coordinated software hacking without evidence is beyond me- the first time (two weeks ago), maybe- but you need to bring some evidence to bear if you are going to repeat it. It is one thing for a Rudy or a Stacey or a Hillary to be nutso- the have no reputation, but an attorney representing clients in Federal Court should try to be sane. If she had hard evidence she wouldn’t be talking so much about Hugo Chavez, who has been dead for 7 years.
Blogger Achilles said...
"We have signed affidavits and witness statements and videos from hundreds of poll watchers describing democrats keeping them from monitoring the vote counting process.
That is enough right there to invalidate the entire election."
Funny how we aren't able to see all these HUNDREDS of affidavits and witness statements. Funny how these invisible statements will invalidate the entire election. What a bunch of whiners. Trump is paying his lawyers to perform theater tricks for his minions. So funny. Show the evidence or shut up already.
But, is it $400m worth of bullshit they're slinging. Donald has big loan coming due, real soon.
elyse said...
Achilles said...
"We have signed affidavits and witness statements and videos from hundreds of poll watchers describing democrats keeping them from monitoring the vote counting process.
That is enough right there to invalidate the entire election."
Funny how we aren't able to see all these HUNDREDS of affidavits
"Affidavits" are, by definition, filed in a court. So instead of whining, why don't you go check them out?
Post a Comment