Trump didn't retweet that. He responded to a tweet that had that image as part of it.President Trump just retweeted this. Whatever this is. pic.twitter.com/zaaB0Neh2m
— David Gura (@davidgura) December 8, 2020
Let's keep our Twitter terminology straight. It's weird either way, and Gura, an NPR journalist, ought to maintain strict accuracy. He made it seem as though Trump had just passed along a post and the post was nothing but that image of Amy Coney Barrett with light streaming out of her eyes.They got caught because we were leading by so much more than they ever thought possible. Late night ballot “dumps” went crazy! https://t.co/gPpVWUUs91
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 8, 2020
As for the President, he's so far from acting in the manner we call "presidential" that I see little value in pointing out and bemoaning the various examples of things that are below the dignity of the office. He came into office dancing to "My Way"...
... and he's going out his way too. He's not going to stop and become more dignified as the defeat becomes more incontrovertible than it already is.
For what is a man, what has he got?/If not himself, then he has naught/To say the things he truly feels/And not the words of one who kneels....
It's absurd, but the presidential dance is almost over....
By the way, that image of Amy Coney Barrett reminds me of Gort from "The Day the Earth Stood Still":
Posts
338 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 338 of 338@EP,
But you have to be honest (with yourself at least) about the game you're playing.
What game? I'm trying to find a way forward that doesn't involve abject servility on one hand or guns on the other.
I do sincerely believe that there was MAJOR chicanery in this election. Enough to change the outcome? Who knows? But, still, demanding of investigation. Why do I believe it? Because I don't believe in flocks of black swans.
'll tell you *my* definition of a "dopey commenter": it's someone who does not understand the difference between a case alleging "electoral conspiracy", and one asserting wholesale violation of Constitutional rights and usurpation of plenary state legislative powers, which is what the Texas case is all about.
As I noted, there's nothing wrong with filing these kind of Hail Mary lawsuits as payback for the four years of hell Democrats put the country through with their Russian conspiracy bullshit. But when the Supreme Court rejects the case 9-0 and Rush Limbaugh and Tucker Carlson say there was no there there, please resist the temptation to call them all agents of the Chinese and Venezuelan governments.
"How can a country be run like this?" --Donald J. Trump, Pres.
I do sincerely believe that there was MAJOR chicanery in this election.
And two thirds of Democrats sincerely believe Russia literally hacked voting machines to steal the election from Hillary Clinton in 2016.
I'm for tying Rush to Venezuela (beauty queens) and Tucker to China (everything).
This thread has gotten useless with the lefties, and idiots like Inga, defending the fraud but the centerb right and Trump voters are not listened to. No reason to stay,
It’s quicker to leave than to announce you are leaving.
@EP,
Rush Limbaugh and Tucker Carlson say there was no there there,
Are you saying that Limbaugh & Carlson believe that the election wasn't fraudulently won? Uhhhh, you don't actually listen to these guys, do you? Perhaps, they were saying that the latest filing before the SCOTUS was poorly designed, and thus doomed to fail, but they definitely aren't denying the overarching concern --- i.e. that the election was fraudulent.
the difference is they used the organs of state, cia and fbi to spread these lies,
Young Hegelian, Qwinn and others,
It is the law everywhere that the burden of proving a fraud sufficient to upset the election results is on the party alleging it. There is no American jurisdiction where that is not the case. That's true here in the US because such fraud is rare (every empirical study shows this) and because if the burden were on the election officials then losers could essentially create file a huge lawsuit and force a trial whenever they don't like the outcome and have the funds to do so.
Independently, every American jurisdiction imposes higher standards for the pleading and proof of fraud allegations, because they are easily made, but do great damage when they are unfounded.
That's the law, in every state, and for good reasons.
Trump and his minions are subject to the law like anyone else. If they want courts to set aside elections on the ground of fraud, they have to plead and prove it and show that it would make a difference to the outcome.
Despite having an army of lawyers and tens of millions of dollars raised specifically for the purpose of detecting and proving fraud, there is not one lawsuit where Trump or his affiliates have been able to prove such fraud--and that includes a lot of courts that have actually considered their evidence. And we are talking 50 lawsuits and counting--that is a heck of a lot of losses.
And again, the election officials who deny fraud, and the courts who are finding the evidence insufficient, are from both parties and include many strong Trump supporters.
It appears that this has absolutely no impact on your views. As soon as a judge finds against Trump, or an elected official disagrees with his view of the facts, that person becaomes part of the conspiracy and a RINO.
Perhaps you all are not as devoted to the rule of law as you claim.
Stephen said...
Young Hegelian, Qwinn and others,
It is the law everywhere that the burden of proving a fraud sufficient to upset the election results is on the party alleging it. There is no American jurisdiction where that is not the case.
Bullshit.
Poll observers were violently removed from polling stations during vote counting.
After that point everything you do is assumed to be fraudulent under the auspices of Spoliation.
You broke the law on video. ]
The election is assumed fraudulent.
Stephen said...
Perhaps you all are not as devoted to the rule of law as you claim.
We know you don't give a shit about the law.
We are no longer going to be held back by it fighting you.
Cynthia Johnson, Michigan House of Representatives:
So this is just a warning to you Trumpers. Be careful. Walk lightly. We ain’t playing with you. Enough of the shenanigans. Enough is enough. And to those of you who are soldiers, you know how to do it. Do it right. Be in order. Make them pay.
Let's not hear any more whining about the right discussing violence, shall we? This is a representative of the US government threatening violence against the citizenry.
So yeah, sadness is right. It has become more than obvious that there is no amount of hard evidence that will cause law enforcement to investigate anyone acting in the interest of Democrats (e.g. Hunter's laptop). And there is no excuse so flimsy that you won't send an army of lawyers against any Republican.
When you weaponize the law against your political opponents, as your side has non-stop for the last 4 years, stop being surprised that they reject the law absolutely.
"But when the Supreme Court rejects the case 9-0 and Rush Limbaugh and Tucker Carlson say there was no there there, please resist the temptation to call them all agents of the Chinese and Venezuelan governments."
I hate this idea that if the court says there is not a legal basis for challenging something that means there isn't a problem.
The courts and the judges in them are not a good measure of what is true or not, or right and wrong. Something can be outrageously wrong and yet be considered just fine in a court of law.
The level at which we should be judging these events is whether it is right or wrong. And that's a personal judgement, but every person should be making that judgement and not deferring their judgement and morality to some judge somewhere, or implying that others should do that.
I have seen quite a lot of evidence that this election is fraudulent. And mostly I don't even see an effort to dispute that evidence.
I'm perfectly willing to give examples of all of this, and argues the details. But notice there is no one arguing. Instead all we see is the same old left-wing tactics we always see.
If Inga, if Chuck, if readering, if any of these characters actually had a significant argument, you don't think they wouldn't make it? Of course they would. But they don't know how.
They have insults and mockery and they fill up the threads with that. And that's all they do, over and over again.
Cynthia A. Johnson. Democrat Michigan.
This election is assumed fraudulent.
“If Inga, if Chuck, if readering, if any of these characters actually had a significant argument, you don't think they wouldn't make it? Of course they would.”
I don’t mean this as an insult, but it’s a waste of precious time to argue with cultists.
"So this is just a warning to you Trumpers. Be careful. Walk lightly. We ain’t playing with you. Enough of the shenanigans. Enough is enough. And to those of you who are soldiers, you know how to do it. Do it right. Be in order. Make them pay."
This is exactly how I'd expect someone who knows their election process is honestly run would act. *facepalm*
I have seen quite a lot of evidence that this election is fraudulent. And mostly I don't even see an effort to dispute that evidence.
There are credible allegations of electoral fraud that are nowhere near sufficient to swing the election to Trump, and there are incredible (indeed, Kraken-like) allegations of electoral fraud that are the equivalent of the Russian vote-hacking hoax that Hillary Clinton and two-thirds of Democrats believe.
Don’t be like Hillary Clinton and two-thirds of Democrats.
“5. The rejections have sometimes been on the basis that the claims lack legal merit. But there are a growing number of cases, including at least one case in every state, where the court has heard the best evidence that the challengers can present, and in every state, the trier of fact has concluded that that evidence is unpersuasive, that it does not show fraud or illegality, and that it could not possibly provide a legal basis for overturning the election results.”
Need some case cites there, in particular, links to PDFs of the decisions. I am willing to look at your decisions and see for myself that they say what you claim they say (one of the things that you learn very quickly in the practice of law is to trust no one, in terms of what court decisions say and mean, and esp don’t trust the other side. One of the more embarrassing things is to be caught by your opponent having cited from a digest, instead of the actual case, that said no such thing. I never litigated much, but routinely found the other side cheating just a little, when I did, for example, by forgetting to mention that the case they cited was nonprecential).
The only case that I can remember was the judge in WI or MI rejecting a case with a huge stack of sworn affidavits filed with it, on the grounds that they were all hearsay - which is patent nonsense, because he no doubt accepts affidavits every day. Most of the affidavits that he refused to look at were ADMISSIBLE hearsay, under one of the well established exceptions to the hearsay rule. At a minimum, he probably should have allowed plaintiff’s counsel to object to the ruling on hearsay, and show why it was admissible. Or, even better, set a prompt hearing date, where the plaintiffs could put their witnesses on the stand. Damned if they did, and damned if they didn’t. Won’t accept affidavits, but refuses to set a timely hearing to hear the testimony of the witnesses who swore the affidavits in person.
Note that this sort of ruling is, if appealed, eminently reversible as an abuse of discretion. The problem though was that he, along with the other judges who refused to look at the stacks of affidavits, etc, was they were intentionally running the clock out. Time was on the side of the Dems and their Deep State and RINO allies.
Stephen said...
The burden of proof is on the person challenging the election, not on the officials conducting it, for obvious reasons.
Aside from the Spoilation Doctrine, I'd also argue the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself") should apply and put the burden of proof on election officials.
In brief, the res ipsa reverses the burden of proof in a civil case, placing it on the defendant when the circumstantial evidence points to no other intervening cause but the defendant (the circumstantial evidence simply "speaks for itself").
Where we are dealing with such statistical anomalies as circumstantial evidence -- and especially here where the defendants are themselves claiming no supervening cause (influence) on the results -- it entirely makes sense for the court to invoke res ipsa and switch the burden of proof to the defendant state election officials.
I am glad that Notorious RBG has been replaced by Honorable ACB.
I have asked *multiple* times for the few leftists actually trying to make an argument as to why the Doctrine of Spoilation doesn't apply to them.
There hasn't even been a hint at an attempted answer yet.
Readering: "I have yet to meet someone who thought the Russians hacked to voting machines in 2016."
LOL
Polls, for years, have repeatedly shown majorities of democraticals still believe that George W Bush conspired with terrorists to let 9-11 happen or knew it would happen and did nothing about it, that russia collusion actually happened, that the hoax dossier was verified and proven true, and that Putin and the russians literally tampered with vote totals in 2016 to elect Trump.
Here's just one poll (of dozens), 2018 YouGov by the way, making that last point clear:
Peter Hassan Twitter:
"67 percent of Democrats believe it is "definitely true" or "probably true" that "Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected." There is no evidence of Russia tampering with vote tallies."
https://t.co/mgSx3MEtnQ
Hassan's follow on comment in that twitter thread:
Peter J. Hasson@peterjhasson
Nov 18, 2018
"Imagine if two years into Hillary's presidency, 2/3 of Republicans thought she won because the Chinese tampered with voting tallies, despite no evidence whatsoever of China tampering with voting tallies. Journo Twitter would be apoplectic"
And readering, you have our very own lunatic conspiracy dead ender truther Inga to ask why she bought into every single insane claim for 5 years now.
Inga called every 2016 Trump voter a treasonous traitor....without exception.
It was pretty amusing.
There are credible allegations of electoral fraud that are nowhere near sufficient to swing the election to Trump, and there are incredible (indeed, Kraken-like) allegations of electoral fraud that are the equivalent of the Russian vote-hacking hoax that Hillary Clinton and two-thirds of Democrats believe.
I have seen, it feels like, hundreds of allegations. And I have not explored most of them. But saying that you believe the election was fraudulent doesn't mean you believe all of the allegations about the election that were made.
My instinct is to explore the obviously true and less incredible allegations first.
For instance I've brought this issue up before and it seems to me that all by itself this issue is enough to have swung the election.
This comes from the Voter Integrity Project and although the sentences below apply to Michigan, it's my understanding that they found the same thing in all eight swing states with the exception of Nevada.
This is only about early absentee ballots because this is the only data that the
State of Michigan released early enough that the Voter Integrity Project had time
to contact people that Michigan said had voted.
a) 12.6%, or a statistically projected 427,000 people, received early absentee ballots
from the State of Michigan that they had not requested. This is illegal. In Michigan,
as in many other states, only people who have requested early absentee ballots are
legally able to receive them.
How did this happen? There were 427,000 forms filled out for these people. Someone
filled them out. Who did it?
This is vote fraud on a massive scale and by any reasonable standard it should invalidate
the Michigan election.
b) 23.0%, or a statistically projected 24,000 people, of the people that the State of
Michigan report as requesting an early absentee ballot, but who, according to the State of
Michigan, did not return it, report that they actually did send in their absentee ballot.
Having almost one-quarter of the people who requested early absentee ballots not
have their votes counted is an amazingly high error percentage. This is either an
anomaly produced by vote fraud or this is due to an almost unimaginable level of incompetence on the part of the State of Michigan or both.
And if Michigan is that incompetent why should any faith be placed in their supposed
outcome for the election?
c) Mark Braynard didn't give the percentage but he made it clear that a high percentage
of the early absentee ballot requests do not have the voter's birthdate recorded.
This is a good example of vote fraud designed into the system before the first vote is
even cast. Early absentee ballot requests with crucial missing information should
never have been granted.
Politicians do things like this when they want to make vote fraud easy and when
they expect to benefit from the vote fraud.
Now there are more problems than this that the Voter Integrity Project found with
the early absentee ballots, but these are, it seems to me, the three most important.
Here is Mark Braynard's Voter Integrity Project Michigan testimony
Earnest Prole said...
I have seen quite a lot of evidence that this election is fraudulent. And mostly I don't even see an effort to dispute that evidence.
There are credible allegations of electoral fraud that are nowhere near sufficient to swing the election to Trump, and there are incredible (indeed, Kraken-like) allegations of electoral fraud that are the equivalent of the Russian vote-hacking hoax that Hillary Clinton and two-thirds of Democrats believe.
Don’t be like Hillary Clinton and two-thirds of Democrats.
The democrats broke the law when they kicked republican observers out of counting stations in multiple states.
This is on video.
Why does the doctrine of spoliation not apply to these elections?
“Inga called every 2016 Trump voter a treasonous traitor....without exception.”
Liar. Loser.
What if Trump is right? Fraud and election day chicanery were employed by Pennsylvania officials to eliminate Trump votes and to deny Trump his victory. This is a startling infringement of voting rights. Under Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, if a State denies their citizens the right to vote, it will have reduced representation in the House of Representatives. So Pennsylvania loses representatives? Right?
I don’t mean this as an insult, but it’s a waste of precious time to argue with cultists.
Hilarious. I agree completely which is why it is useless to even respond to you and the other lefty idiots. A couple are compos mentis but you are not one.
I've read that the constitutional violations pleaded in the complaint do not require proof of fraud, etc. It idea seems to be that whether a constitutional violation occurred does not depend on whether there was fraud and the like, and it's not even necessary to prove that the outcome of the election would be different but for the violation.
I'm not sure I understand the argument. Can anyone explain?
It is clear that this tweet identifies ACB as a Cylon, amiright?
Michael K,
The coot who keeps threatening to fly away...
At this point what difference does it make?
The taards broke the election system and our constitutional republic and even if the Supreme Court takes the Texas case and voids the disputed states' results I doubt that Humpty Dumpty can be put together again. I see red states and red counties withdrawing/seceding from the current federal scheme if a miracle doesn't happen. Just think if the armed forces had red allegiance members transfer to their local militia. All the feds would have is a few queers, metrosexuals and Vindman-esque types remaining. Maybe the truckers could refuse to bring food and supplies into the large cities. How about shutting the natural gas pipelines (to large blue cities) down for a few weeks or months to help them accomplish the green raw deal.
buster said...
I've read that the constitutional violations pleaded in the complaint do not require proof of fraud, etc. It idea seems to be that whether a constitutional violation occurred does not depend on whether there was fraud and the like, and it's not even necessary to prove that the outcome of the election would be different but for the violation.
I'm not sure I understand the argument. Can anyone explain?
If a state has 2 different schools, one for black kids and one for white kids, equal protection is invoked. You can't pass a law making this OK.
Likewise if the city of Milwaukee helps registered democrats correct their ballot errors, or provides illegal drop boxes in parks and other areas of the state do not provide the same measures to everyone you cannot pass a law making that OK.
@ sadness: Thanks!!
Bruce,
Take a look at the following, among others:
Arizona case: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/Order-2.pdf. That order is affirmed by the Arizona Supreme Court here: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/AscDecisionOrder-3939735-0.pdf
Nevada case: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/20-OC-00163-Order-Granting-Motion-to-Dismiss-Statement-of-Contest.pdf That order is affirmed by the Nevada Supreme Court here: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/20-44711.pdf
Spoliation: what exactly is the evidence that is claimed to have been destroyed?
I've never seen a case that denying an opportunity to observe supports an inference that the activity not observed was fraudulent.
But it doesn't matter because the undisputed evidence is that in every relevant state, while some observers may have been excluded (typically for crowding/COVID 19 reasons) lots of Republican observers were in fact permitted to observe, and did observe, consistent with state law. So the inference of fraud would fail. In every state where that issue went forward to trial, that's what the court found. In Michigan, the Trump campaign withdrew that claim rather than risk an adverse finding in the trial court.
12.6%, or a statistically projected 427,000 people, received early absentee ballots
from the State of Michigan that they had not requested. This is illegal.
You’re conflating the potential for fraud with actual fraud. Let me offer a real-world example: This year I received by mail not only an absentee California ballot for myself that I did not request, but also an absentee California ballot for an unrelated person with whom I had engaged in a real-estate transaction last year but who had never lived at the address where the ballot was sent. That created the potential for fraud, but there was no actual fraud because I put both absentee ballots through the shredder.
By all means investigate both the potential for fraud and actual fraud; just try to avoid sounding like Hillary Clinton while you're at it.
Earnest Prole:
If you HAD sent in those 2 ballots. what mechanism exists to prevent those votes from being counted?
A system without such a mechanism in place is worse than most banana republics. Your argument is that such checks aren't necessary, we should just trust that such a system wouldn't be abused because "if you don't, you're a loon".
Our response: Go fuck yourself bloody.
In fact, and I am under no illusion you don't know this, the system that sent you those two ballots was designed to not only accept those ballots, but to be completely immune to any possible audit that could detect them as fraudulent.
That is why we "conflate" potential fraud with actual fraud. In this system designed to maximize potential fraud, proof of actual fraud has been made nearly impossible to obtain. At the very least, It takes hundreds of times more time to prove a single fraudulent vote than the mere seconds it took to cast that vote.
Which is why the evidence of ridiculous statistical anomalies should matter. It's evidence that the numbers of votes involved easily exceed the number required to flip the election. And of course, the system refuses to recognize that too.
Doctrine of spoilation. The party that has made the election impossible for anyone else to audit needs to prove that the election was legit. Period.
I disagree Earnest.
For instance, when you state, "This year I received by mail not only an absentee California ballot for myself that I did not request,..."
that is fraud, actual fraud, if the state was not supposed to send you an absentee ballot unless you requested one. That is the situation in Michigan. And it's the same in many of these swing states.
But actually that is an absurd comparison. California sent absentee ballots to everyone, including people who had never lived at the address. Your situation is not parallel to the people in Michigan.
And it doesn't make sense on another level. Your reasoning puts the blame on a person returning an absentee ballot they didn't request? You're going to prosecute people if they vote with an absentee ballot intended for them that they didn't request?
That doesn't make any sense.
So since I think we both know that is true, then by your reasoning, it would have been okay, that is not election fraud, if Michigan had sent absentee ballots to every registered Democrat and none to the registered Republicans. Right?
No, this is fraud, and it is fraud on a massive scale, and because it was so massive it's likely to have changed the result of the election. Just by itself, and I'm not claiming this was the only fraud in Michigan.
...
No, this is fraud, and it is fraud on a massive scale, and because it was so massive it's likely to have changed the result of the election. Just by itself, and I'm not claiming this was the only fraud in Michigan.
Since I know a lot about Michigan, I’d like to know exactly what fraud you are claiming... in Michigan.
Wince, Res ipsa applies then the way that the incident went down permits an inference of negligence. The barrel falls out of the warehouse and lands on the pedestrian. The patient goes under anesthesia and wakes up with a sponge inside.
It's a jump from an inference of negligence to an inference of fraud and I'm not aware that res ipsa has been applied to prove fraud. Most fraud doctrines, such a particularity in pleading and proof by clear and convincing evidence, are inconsistent with the use of res ipsa.
More fundamentally, I don't see what the evidence is that would support an inference of fraud. The fact that Trump was leading when people went to bed on election night, but lost the election does not tend to prove fraud. It just shows that (1) many more Dems than Republicans voted absentee, which was also what polls have shown and makes perfect sense given how DJT trashed mail voting; and (2) that at the insistence of Republican state legislatures, election official were not able to count mail ballots until election day. Because that result is at least equally consistent with an innocent explanation, res ipsa wouldn't apply even to prove negligence, let alone fraud.
Then why did the courts and secretaries of state (installed by Soros, quite literally) remove signature verification from the mail in vote, and only the mail in vote, when by your own argument that means that voter integrity standards were eliminated predomninatly only for Biden voters? How the fuck do you expect anyone to accept that as legitimate?
‘...that is fraud, actual fraud, if the state was not supposed to send you an absentee ballot unless you requested one. That is the situation in Michigan. And it's the same in many of these swing states.”
In WI, no absentee ballots can be sent to any voter unsolicited and none were. Absentee ballots must be requested by an application.
More to the point, what *legitimate* reason could there be to eliminate signature verification of the mail in vote? Were people going to catch COVID by using their own pens?
There is no plausible reason other than to enable fraud. None. And it was done completely without the legislatures, it was done by the courts that then said "nothing to see here" when they refused to recuse themselves from fraud cases where they should have been defendants.
Qwinn, In what state was signature verification not used at all?
How about Pennsylvania?
But it doesn't matter because the undisputed evidence is that in every relevant state, while some observers may have been excluded (typically for crowding/COVID 19 reasons) lots of Republican observers were in fact permitted to observe, and did observe, consistent with state law.
"Stephen" has been posting left wing opinions since he appeared, shortly before the election. There is no reason to believe he is anything but a hired troll. This is just more evidence. I think Trump will probably be unsuccessful in having this fraudulent election corrected. I will survive unless somebody comes to my door and tries to take my guns. As for the future, I am old enough that I will not have to live through what is coming.
From that article (which I'll point out is clearly from a leftist perspective):
“If the Voter’s Declaration on the return envelope is signed and the county board is satisfied that the declaration is sufficient, the mail-in or absentee ballot should be approved for canvassing unless challenged in accordance with the Pennsylvania Election Code,” the memo continues. “The Pennsylvania Election Code does not authorize the county board of elections to set aside returned absentee or mail-in ballots based solely on signature analysis by the county board of elections.”
What other possible reason *can* there be to disqualify a mail in ballot other than signature verification? *That's the only check*.
There is literally no other way to validate a mail in ballot.
And read the article. As long as there was a squiggle in the signature box, they *had* to accept it.
You know what there was a lot of in that article? Cheering by leftists that it was a big deal for voting rights.
You know what's completely missing from that article? Anything even attempting to explain why no signature verification was a good thing for voting rights.
Actually, I lie. There *is* one other possible check to make sure that a mail in ballot is legitimate.
Dominion Systems is actually able to print a bar code on their ballots designed to verify the authenticity of the ballot.
Governor Wolf (D) of Pennsylvania, using authority delegated by the legislature in 1948 to choose the voting machines, chose Dominion and directly requested that the ballots not include that barcode.
Doddering old fools and guns, not a good combo.
So now US Atty’s office announces Hunter is under investigation for money laundering and taxes. Been going since 2018.
Gonna be fun.. I’m sure slojo is pure as the driven snow.
The only plausible reason for thinking no signature verification is a good thing for voting rights is if you think you have a right to vote as often (and as late, and as early) as you want.
320: All the networks are reporting it. It's going to be nothing but a whitewash.
Yup....I have no confidence in this DOJ or really any part of the Federal leviathan. Certainly not media or big tech. To wit:
Google, YouTube, Announce They Will Block Content That Challenges 2020 Election Result
“ we will start removing any piece of content uploaded today (or anytime after) that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election.”…”
We are a joke nation
Michael k I’ve been reading and commenting on this blog since 2005 or so.
Blogger Inga said...
Doddering old fools and guns, not a good combo.
At least I am not carrying bedpans. Inga, you have no life and are not worth the pixels to respond
And at *this* point, you fuckers have had enough time to reprint perfect ballots for the entire damn country with signatures digitally transposed from the voter rolls ten times over. More with the eager help of China.
Anyway, to the earlier point - there IS another thing the "county board" is supposed to take into account when determining the validity of a ballot.
Every ballot needs to have a chain of custody.
Which, with absentee and mail in ballots, ends completely and utterly at the mailbox.
All legal requests for chain of custody documentation of mail in ballots have, to my knowledge, been denied.
Blogger Stephen said...
Michael k I’ve been reading and commenting on this blog since 2005 or so.
OK Under what name ? I have been here for about that long and don't recall you.,
Lots of new left wing commenters the past 6 months,
Another blank profile, Stephen.
I'm wondering--why the hell did the vote counters have 4'x8' sheets of cardboard handy and ready to cover up the windows? Who planned that?
Blogger boatbuilder said...
I'm wondering--why the hell did the vote counters have 4'x8' sheets of cardboard handy and ready to cover up the windows? Who planned that?
I actually heard the answer to that. Those sheets were actually a privacy booth that was meant as a voter integrity measure, lol. They disbanded a voter integrity structure to cover the windows. I'll post the link if I can have that.
OH WAIT! I remember now. The ballots were supposed to eject from the scanner into these large boxes. So you couldn't just pick them up and run them through a second, and third, and fourth time.
Those boxes are what they dismantled to board up the windows.
“At least I am not carrying bedpans. Inga, you have no life and are not worth the pixels to respond.”
I’ve been retired for a few years now, after working as a nurse for over 35 years. You know nothing of my life and that you don’t understand that your derision for nurses as an MD does not reflect well on you. In fact it displays your sense of entitlement and arrogance, even as an old man who may need nursing care any day now. I can only imagine how the nurses who had to deal with you hated every minute of it.
"a voter integrity measure"
Voter integrity? Doubtful. If that's what it was, it would have been made of toilet paper. Possibly unused.
“Another blank profile, Stephen.”
Michael K, the Karen/Becky of the Althouse blog.
I'm going to give some advise to you Liberals. You're not going to convince anyone here, or anyone out there that the election was fair. More than half this country believes that the election was stolen, and you're wasting your time trying to reason with us on that point. Your time and words will be better spent trying to convince us not to harm or kill you.
What do we have to do to get twitter to start running a warning that says, "This claim that Joe Biden is President is disputed"?
Birkel said...
Presidential:
Sending a lot of soldiers to war.
Selling out to China.
Not presidential:
Bringing troops home from war zones.
Fighting China with aggressive pro-American trade policies.
That's what I see.
----------===========
What I see
Presidential : act like dictator and send cash and IP to dictators
Not Presidential : Uphold Constitutional Federal Republic
"You're not going to convince anyone here, or anyone out there that the election was fair.
If logical explanations for the irregularities observed are not being offered, there is no attempt being made to convince anybody of anything. You're just being shouted at in order to get you to shut up.
Earnest Prole said...
And two thirds of Democrats sincerely believe Russia literally hacked voting machines to steal the election from Hillary Clinton in 2016.
----------=========
so are you saying you want us to believe
either - such hacking was addressed as security issue by vendors of such machines
or - such hacking was discovered and deployed as payback against Trump and for Biden
"It's weird either way, and Gura, an NPR journalist, ought to maintain strict accuracy"
It takes a profound amount of naivety to write that with a straight face. Or did you accidentally leave off several levels of scare-quotes around the word "journalist"?
You're just being shouted at in order to get you to shut up.
Exactly.
The thing is, in a way I'm relieved. I've spent most of my life watching the Left and knowing this moment would come, when they tried a full coup/takeover (child of Cuban exiles here). I always wondered if the Right would have the will to stand up to it when it came. Would the constant indoctrination and gaslighting break the will of the deplorables, so that they wouldn't stand up when the time came?
I spent most of my life worried that it would, and the Right would meekly submit. I'm worried much less about that these days.
The consensus is pretty complete.
No justice, no peace.
mandrewa said...
"But when the Supreme Court rejects the case 9-0 and Rush Limbaugh and Tucker Carlson say there was no there there, please resist the temptation to call them all agents of the Chinese and Venezuelan governments."
I hate this idea that if the court says there is not a legal basis for challenging something that means there isn't a problem.
The courts and the judges in them are not a good measure of what is true or not, or right and wrong. Something can be outrageously wrong and yet be considered just fine in a court of law.
-------------===========
thank you Dred Scot valiant knight
https://buildbackbetter.gov/press-releases/statements-by-hunter-biden-and-the-biden-harris-transition-team/
I thought 50 military/ intelligence experts told Biden this was all a bunch of Russian garbage..
Why is Inga still here?
Michael K, I am a retired law professor and practicing lawyer, based in California. My fields are litigation and legal ethics. I like to think I understand those fields pretty well, but I am always open to argument that I've got something wrong.
You may not have seen me in the early years of this blog, but I was commenting, mostly to respond to posts about music, of which there are a lot less now. But I've watched the evoloution of both this blog and the commenters and have a good sense of how things have changed.
What I notice about you, Michael, is that your standard response to my posts is to call me a troll and a lefty. No response to the substance, you just blow up and start name calling.
So I'll just put the same question that I've been putting to everyone else, and not getting any answer to, which is why you folks are so quick to put your former allies on the ash heap of history when, from their vastly more informed perspective, they tell you that the Emperor has no clothes. I have in mind folks like the USSC, Justice Hagedorn of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Judge Bibas of the Third Circuit, Trump's own AG, Trump's own Department of Homeland Security, the Governors of Arizona and Georgia, and a host of Trump supporting election officials all over the USA. Not to mention the news side of Fox News.
You loved these guyes when they agreed with you, but when they don't agree with you, they instantly become members of a massive left wing conspiracy. Instead you go with right wing sites and commentators who have no obligation to evaluate the evidence and no incentive to do so, since the only people they have to satisfy are their paymasters and credulous souls like you.
If this were medical decisionmaking would you adopt a similar approach? Nut job websites over the leaders in your medical field?
So I'll just put the same question that I've been putting to everyone else, and not getting any answer to, which is why you folks are so quick to put your former allies on the ash heap of history when, from their vastly more informed perspective, they tell you that the Emperor has no clothes
This is why I do not respond to you. I see no evidence that the left is "vastly more informed." I have two kids who are lawyers. I see no evidence that they are better informed.
You loved these guyes when they agreed with you, but when they don't agree with you, they instantly become members of a massive left wing conspiracy. Instead you go with right wing sites and commentators who have no obligation to evaluate the evidence and no incentive to do so, since the only people they have to satisfy are their paymasters and credulous souls like you.
More condescension to your superiors.
You people keep making such weak arguments. I see no evidence that you are knowledgeable about anything but Law and that functions as a parasite on civilization.
I have spent years on Medicine, Engineering, Computer programming and health policy. I see no reason to respect your opinion over my own.
Nut job websites over the leaders in your medical field?
You mean like "Lancet" which published the nonsense about immunization and autism?
Stephen,
You are confused. I never suggested that RIL doctrine is an avenue to reverse the the burden of proof or presumption of innocence in criminal "fraud" prosecutions of individual election officials... or anyone for that matter.
I simply argued the exclusive custodial control exercised by public election officials should introduce a common law burden of proof on the responsible election officials in civil challenges, one modeled on several precepts of the RIL doctrine.
Stephen challenges me as to which states allowed no signature verification.
I respond with a link that proves the point in PA unequivocally, including a link to a lefty site that pretty much backs up everything we've been saying, including that there was no justification whatsoever for the change, just a bunch of lefties jumping up and down yelling "Yay voting rights!". So obviously engineered for fraud.
Stephen forgets what point he was looking to make about signature verification, and tries a limp impotent slap at Michael K instead.
I don't think leftists have a good argument about the election. They might argue about policy but I think they are all about hiding the policies favored by the people running Biden. There is just so much obvious evidence about the stolen election that we should just wait and see what the USSC does with the Texas suit. I expect Roberts will do another Obamacare decision.
Also "Stephen" who says he has been commenting here since 2005 has a profile that says 2011.
One does have to wonder, if signature verification was a massive affront to "voting rights" for mail in ballots, why that same logic didn't apply to in person signature verification. Guess their voting rights didn't matter at all.
What could possibly be different between those two classes of voters.
Stephen has helpfully already provided the answer.
"Day the earth stood still" just finished playing on TCM.
What Andrew McCarthy had to say about the frivolous Texas lawsuit.
”The justices are not going to have the slightest interest in entertaining a sprawling lawsuit brought by an unaffected third-party state — one that, if Texas got its way, would forevermore thrust the Supreme Court into the thick of electoral politics.”
And by the way, Stephen?
EVERY SINGLE BALLOT that was not signature-verified, which is every single mail in ballot in PA, represented deliberate spoilation of evidence.
So why is the Left immune to the doctrine again?
Russian Collusion/Hoax Dossier Dead-Ender Truther Inga: "What Andrew McCarthy had to say about the frivolous Texas lawsuit."
What Andrew McCarthy said in 2016/2017: there is no way bogus FISA warrants can make it past the FISA court review process and no way would the DOJ/FBI ever knowingly submit false information to the FISA court and Mueller's Investigation is justified and above board.
What McCarthy later wrote: "Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency"
So, now Mc Carthy is a part of the deep state?
It's absurd, but the presidential dance is almost over....
I don't know about that, it isn't like anyone was elected to replace him.
Russia Collusion/Hoax Dossier Dead Ender Truther Inga: "Doddering old fools and guns, not a good combo."
Interesting note: To this day Inga has refused to acknowledge the existence of the democratical Bernie Bro/Durbin buddy James Hodgkinson.
This is similar to Inga's policy of blaming every islamic supremacist terrorist attack on western nation Christians.
Thats just how she rolls...when she usnt being banned from the blog like her fellow leftist LLR-lefty C****.
McCarthy, WI SC Justice Brian Hagedorn and various Trump appointed Judges, all new recruits to the deep state, eh Drago?
The Easily Confused Russia Collusion/Hoax Dossier Dead Ender Truther Inga: "So, now Mc Carthy is a part of the deep state?"
No.
Try again.
The Easily Confused Russia Collusion/Hoax Dossier Dead Ender Truther Inga: "McCarthy, WI SC Justice Brian Hagedorn and various Trump appointed Judges, all new recruits to the deep state, eh Drago?"
No.
Try again.
I suspect in a couple of days Drago and his fellow cultists will be accusing the USSC Justices, every last one of them, after they reject the Texas case unanimously, will all deep staters too.
The Easily Confused Russia Collusion/Hoax Dossier Dead Ender Truther Inga: "I suspect in a couple of days Drago and his fellow cultists will be accusing the USSC Justices, every last one of them, after they reject the Texas case unanimously, will all deep staters too."
No.
Try again.
Stephen said:
"So I'll just put the same question that I've been putting to everyone else, and not getting any answer to, which is why you folks are so quick to put your former allies on the ash heap of history when, from their vastly more informed perspective, they tell you that the Emperor has no clothes. I have in mind folks like the USSC, Justice Hagedorn of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Judge Bibas of the Third Circuit, Trump's own AG, Trump's own Department of Homeland Security, the Governors of Arizona and Georgia, and a host of Trump supporting election officials all over the USA. Not to mention the news side of Fox News."
Isn't that the logical fallacy of appeal to authority? "Judge Bibas of the Third Circuit said X, so X must be true."
By the way, I looked at the Nevada trial court decision. Much of its analysis was conclusory. With regard to allegations of mismatched signatures, the judge breezily dismissed multiple affidavits by saying essentially, "yeah, the witness said that the signatures didn't match, but he provided no evidence that the signature was not the voter’s." （See page 17). Huh? If they don't match, the ballot shouldn't count but apparently was. That's a problem. As for the plaintiffs' expert witnesses, who testified (through affidavits) about voter fraud in the election based on a phone survey of voters and an analysis of various commercial voter databases, the court dismissed them with almost no discussion (see pages 12-13). The court then accepted everything three of defendants' witnesses said, hook, line, and sinker, based on their "experience, lack of bias, and first hand knowledge of the subjects" testified to. (Page 13). Among these witnesses was Wayne Thorley, Nevada's Deputy Secretary of State for Elections. (The judge said he was the former Deputy SOS for Elections, but a Google search revealed that he is still in that position). The Deputy SOS for Elections lacks bias, when the challenge is to the integrity of the state's elections? Really? Another of the defendants' "unbiased" witnesses was Jeff Ellington. He is the President of the company that sold Nevada the voting machines. He's unbiased? C'mon, man! Then there's Joseph Gloria. Who's he? The Registrar of Voters for Clark County. Sure, what possible bias could he have in this lawsuit challenging the integrity of the election that he helped run?
The court then basically closed its eyes to all of plaintiffs' evidence of various improprieties, essentially saying that it was unproven or all anecdotal. My favorite was his rejection of the claim of voter impersonation. Plaintiffs had a witness that persons near a Biden-Harris bus at a polling station were filling out ballots and putting them in pink envelopes. He rejected that evidence because the witness did not see those ballots cast and counted. (Page 20) Right. They were just filling out ballots for the fun of it. (Later in the decision, the judge returned to the issue of the Biden-Harris bus and simply declared that the witness was "not credible." (Page 24). Why? No reason. Just because. Similarly, he rejected evidence that a van was following a USPS mail truck and removing ballots from mailboxes. The judge said there was no evidence that those ballots were cast and counted. (Page 20). I guess the witness should have followed the occupants of the van around until, maybe days later, the ballots were cast.
As for claims that observers were denied the ability to observe the count, the court pulled the familiar dodge that observers were "present" or "given access to facilities." (Page 22-23). Oddly, he also cites the Registrar's testimony that observers were stationed in designated location to ensure social distancing. (Page 23). As if that's supposed to prove somehow that observers could actually see what was going. Absurd.
Basically, the decision read like the judge had a pre-determined conclusion and by golly he was going to get to that conclusion no matter what. The Nevada Supreme Court then rubber stamped the decision. Its decision was about two pages and was decided in 1-2 days.
Judges work for the government.
Isn't that the logical fallacy of appeal to authority? "Judge Bibas of the Third Circuit said X, so X must be true."
Well... it's either that, or actually look at the evidence. The democrats have made it clear which option they prefer.
That is why we "conflate" potential fraud with actual fraud.
You may conflate potential fraud with actual fraud, but election law does not. My apologies if you were merely telling us how you would rule if you were King.
Your argument is that such checks aren't necessary, we should just trust that such a system wouldn't be abused because "if you don't, you're a loon".
To the contrary, I believe such checks are essential and should be law. Unfortunately, I’m not King.
Go fuck yourself bloody.
Say hi to your mother for me.
Micahel K.
You don't read my post. Perhaps your anger is getting in the way.
I didn't say why don't you listen to vastly more informed lefties. I said just the opposite: why don't you listen to vastly more informed righties, like the USSC, Hagedorn, Bibas, Ducey, Kemp, Barr, and all the righty state election officials who say no fraud, not to mention the by now dozens of Republican judges who have done so.
As for when I started reading the blog, I stand by what I said. Quiz: What Law school did Althouse visit at? Who were the three other Wisconsin faculty members that she co blogged with?
Qwinn,
You say: I respond with a link that proves the point in PA unequivocally, including a link to a lefty site that pretty much backs up everything we've been saying.
I'm interested. But I don't see the link in your post. Did I miss it?
Steve
Wince, I didn't suggest that you were arguing that res ipsa would work in criminal cases. Civil fraud was the category I have in mind, because a suit to set aside an election is a civil case, not a criminal case. And res ipsa doesn't work in civil fraud cases. Moreover, while part of what triggers the doctrine in negligence cases is the defendant's control of information, that alone is not enough. The facts must also support an inference of negligence. The sponge left in the abdomen, for example. So the doctrine doesn't apply to fraud, but even if it did, the requirement that the facts point to fraud would preclude its use.
Earnest Prolw: Those checks WERE the law. ARE the law. They were dismantled by way, courts and partisan secretaries of state that had no authority to do so. If you believe those checks are essential, then that should outrage you as much as it does us. That it obviously doesn't, in even the slightest way, proves you're just as full of shit as the rest of the leftists.
Stephen: 6:08 pm.
And when you're done with that, try responding to 6:17 and 6:20.
Mr. Majestyk sez: "Isn't that the logical fallacy of appeal to authority? "Judge Bibas of the Third Circuit said X, so X must be true.""
Well no. What I said is that the many right wing Republicans I cited, including USSC, Bibas, Hagedorn, Barr, Ducey, Kemp, not to mention the dozens of lower ranking Republican election officials, not to mention the many other Republican judges--who have all said no fraud, get no credence from you folks.
And I'm saying it can't be bccause you have better information than them, because face it, you don't, and neither do I.
And it's odd to say that you don't trust them, since you've trusted them on so many other issues, and argued against liberals like me that they are reliable sources.
And yet, when they say, no fraud, as they all have done, in many cases taking big political risks to do so, they instantly become unreliable, as contrasted with who exactly?
It appears to me that being willing to express a belief in sweeping election fraud is now a condition for being a good right winger, and that the condition becomes more and more rigid as the evidence showing fraud becomes weaker and weaker.
What's that about?
Mr. Majestyk, ymy point in citing the case was to illustrate that judges in a number of states have heard the evidence and rejected it. You disagree with the judge's decision. But you didn't hear the witnesses or read the declarations; you don't know how credible the plaintiff's evidence or witnesses were; or the defedants. First instance triers of fact get to decide those questions. I haven't re read the decision, but my recollection is that he said that the plaintiff's evidence didn't show illegality under any burden of persuasion. And there is also the issue of whether the plaintiff's evidence, if credited, could possibly have given Trump the 10s of thousands of votes he needed to win. The incidents you describe don't seem to add up to very many votes.
So, it sounds like you're saying we, the "right-wingers," should be accepting the conclusion of no fraud because all these luminaries say there is none (or say it wasn't widespread, or that it wasn't both widespread and sufficient to chenge the outcome of the election). Which sounds a lot like saying we should accept an appeal to authority.
I am not sure what you mean when you say the evidence showing fraud becomes weaker and weaker. I mean, we just recently got video evidence showing poll workers in Georgia sending Republican poll watchers away and the pulling out boxes of ballots hidden under a table and counting them (sometimes multiple times!) out of all public view. Seems like the evidence got stronger, not weaker.
Qwinn, I see, and thanks. The link you put out there is to the Secretary of State's interpretive memo. But two subsequent court decisions, one in federal court, and one in the Pa Supreme Court (7-0) held that this was the correct interpretation of Pa. law, because the statute was clear in not imposing a signature match requirement, in contrast to other Pa. statutes that clearly did so.
So now I am not sure what you are arguing. Not matching signatures for mail ins is the law in Pa. as declared by the legislature. So how does that contribute to the narrative that the election was fraudulently or illegally rigged?
Mr. Majestyk,
The tape you refer to has been examined by Republican election officials in Georgia, and repeatedly by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. They say it shows normal election processing. Moreover, the alleged suitcases are in fact storage bins.
How far do you think that would take you in a fraud suit?
This seems to prove my point that there is something epistemically challenged about your attachment to these fraud and conspiracy theories. You just know that Judge in Nevada was wrong, even though you weren't there and haven't got access to the evidence. You just know that the Georgia election and law enforcment people are making it up.
But how do you know? Who are you relying on? It's not your personal knowledge, is it? So it must be some other trusted authority. Would you care to identify who or what that authority is?
"The alleged suitcases are in fact storage bins."
Which proves what?
Your defense is to quibble about what to call the hidden boxes full of ballots that were run through the scanner 3 consecutive times on video?
That's just fucking pathetic.
Oh, and the appeals to authority.
Endless, monotonous, unrelenting appeals to authority with not a single cogent alternate argument.
And, of course, STILL won't justify why signature verifications were illegally removed, but only for mail in ballots.
We even have clear video of a poll worker being covertly palmed a USB drive taken from a scanner by one of the poll workers on that video. That same worker is also filmed peeking under the tablecloth during the voting day (after checking that no one else was looking), seeing the hidden "storage bins" of ballots, and doing a little hands-in-the-air cheer.
The. Evidence. Is. Fucking. Overwhelming.
Stop. Gaslighting.
Stephen,
It is not normal to tell poll watchers that counting is being stopped for the night, then, after they've all gone, to resume counting. Or are you saying that's normal and no one should be concerned about it?
Moreover,not that it matters what they're called, but I didn't call them suitcases. Seems like you have a predetermined idea in your mind about what I'm saying.
As for the Nevada decision, I approached it with an open mind. As an attorney, I've read thousands of judicial decisions and I didn't happen to find this one particularly persuasive. Now, maybe the judge was right and just did a poor job of explaining it. Maybe if I delved into the full record I would see he was right. But when he does things like nitpick the plaintiffs' expert because his affidavit didn't have any exhibits, yet finds the defendants' experts credible due to lack of bias even though they are responsible for the administration of a fair election, it's hard not to be skeptical of the judge's reasoning and ultimate conclusion. So, no, I am not relying on anyone else. Just my reading of the decision.
Hi Qwinn, I see a lot of bluster, but I don't see any response to my question about the PA rule.
Mr. Majestyk, I see you being skeptical of everything. That's fair.
But normally, skepticism should be overcome if the same basic no fraud findings are reached in different states, all of them purple, with different degrees of Republican or Democratic control, by officials of different parties, including very conservative officials, by officials in the federal government with responsibility for election fraud and security issues, including again very conservative officials, by both state and federal courts in over 60 lawsuits, including again very conservative judges.
The one thing you don't seem skeptical of is the claim that there was fraud that determined the outcome of the election. But such fraud is rare. To my knowledge, it has never been established in any Presidential election. And it would have to shown here in at least three states, each of them independently run and in every one with substantial Republican control and participation.
Sp you are clinging to a proposition that prior evidence suggests is very implausible. And despite the fact that everyone with an official obligation to evaluate the evidence of fraud says no, including a lot of Trump partisans.
And this despite the fact that you have no personal knowledge of what happened in any of these elections.
So that suggests more than skepticism. It suggests a deep seated reluctance to acknowledge the possiblity that your guy lost, not because he was robbed, but maybe because people who supported him in 2016, mostly in the suburbs, and mostly white women, decided that he was a creep, even as they elected the down ballot Republicans who didn't carry his baggage.
I'm not arguing law here, or philosphy, but just common sense. What am I missing?
Stephen said...
Mr. Majestyk,
The tape you refer to has been examined by Republican election officials in Georgia, and repeatedly by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. They say it shows normal election processing. Moreover, the alleged suitcases are in fact storage bins.
You are just a dishonest person.
Democrats are on video violently removing republican poll observers from counting stations. You broke the law on video.
At that point the election is assumed fraudulent. Doctrine of Spoliation.
Any real lawyer and any real judge would force the people who counted ballots illegally after breaking the law to prove those ballots were not fraudulent.
But democrats do not care about law or precedent so here we are.
Stephen said...
Hi Qwinn, I see a lot of bluster, but I don't see any response to my question about the PA rule.
Pennsylvania kicked out republican poll observers. On video. With threats of violence.
You broke the law.
At that point everything you do is assumed to be fraudulent.
Pennsylvania courts and democrat jurisdictions all broke the law. Black and white violations of the law. On video.
You are a dishonest person if you do not face this fact.
Sadness,
First, where can I view that video.
Second, show me a case where that alleged video has been introduced in evidence and where an argument has been made that the law was broken. And if no Trump lawyer has introduced it into evidence, or made that argument, explain to me why not. If it's such great proof, Trump's lawyers should have made the most of it. Did they?
Third, tell me what difference it could possibly have made to the outcome of the election if, as is undisputed and as Trump's lawyers conceded, many, many Republicans were left inside to observe in Philly. That was the question the judge asked Trump's lawyers to answer, and they didn't have a good answer.
Finally, I'll just note that your claim that proving a single illegality in connection with the conduct of an election, without any proof that it had any effect on the count, justifies a presumption that the whole election is presumed fraudulent would have a devastating effect on the stability of elections. What odds would you give that any American state conducts its elections without some legal errors?
Bless you Stephen for treating this as a matter for rational discussion.
>>> "Inge of course compares people alleging or believing in election fraud to supporters of Hitler….”
Took a hammer and some bleach to my hard drive.. But knowing how pissy the left has gotten and out of an abundance of caution, I’m researching the best defense attorneys in Nuremberg.
If Biden the Usurper gets installed as President,then it is time to Balkanize the country. Every county gets a referendum on weather they want to stay or go. The grand experiment has failed.
“ He's not going to stop and become more dignified as the defeat becomes more incontrovertible than it already is.”
Bush lost every court case until it went to the Supreme Court. 18 states plus the president are taking this to the Supreme Court. What’s “incontrovertible” is that he won in a landslide and the Democrats and media are turning the US into a banana republic to install a guy who’s so undignified he turns every formal ceremony into an opportunity to molest the woman or little girl standing in front of him and makes female secret service watch him swim naked. In any case, read the facts: It’s Biden’s actual defeat that’s incontrovertible.
Hey! You guys remember back in the 0-somethings when Obama was running for office and I said you chuckleheads better be careful because if you elect him you're gonna get Chicago politics on a national level? You guys remember that?
Guess what happened.
Stephen believes that Trump lost because white women thought the president was a creep and that's "common sense". No, that's "AlthouseSense"
Blogger Stephen said...
"Sadness,
First, where can I view that video.
Second, show me a case where that alleged video has been introduced in evidence and where an argument has been made that the law was broken. And if no Trump lawyer has introduced it into evidence, or made that argument, explain to me why not. If it's such great proof, Trump's lawyers should have made the most of it. Did they?
Third, tell me what difference it could possibly have made to the outcome of the election if, as is undisputed and as Trump's lawyers conceded, many, many Republicans were left inside to observe in Philly. That was the question the judge asked Trump's lawyers to answer, and they didn't have a good answer.
Finally, I'll just note that your claim that proving a single illegality in connection with the conduct of an election, without any proof that it had any effect on the count, justifies a presumption that the whole election is presumed fraudulent would have a devastating effect on the stability of elections. What odds would you give that any American state conducts its elections without some legal errors?"
Is it your contention that no vote fraud occurred at all?
Stephen,
You say you are not arguing law or philosophy here, just common sense. Fine. What in your view is the common sense explanation for why on Election Night multiple states--but only swing states--took the unprecedented step of stopping the vote count, falsely telling observers that they were done for the night, resuming the counts (in Georgia's case with ballots that had been hidden under a table), followed by massive vote dumps for Biden? And what's the common sense explanation for the facts that Biden supposedly won despite: (1) losing 17 out of 18 bellwether counties, (2) underperforming Hillary Clinton in every urban county Except in the metro areas of (you guessed it) Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, (3) Republicans beating Democrats in every toss up Congressional seat, (4) Trump increasing his vote total over 2016 (no sitting president in a century has lost reelection when that happened), (5) Trump receiving an astonishing 94% of the Republican primary vote (no incumbent receiving more than 75% has ever lost reelection) and an equally astonishing 18 million primary votes (twice the previous record held by Bill Clinton), (6) consistently trailing Trump in measures of voter enthusiasm. I look forward to your common sense explanation of how an elderly, gaffe-prone, career politician who was so uninspiring that he could barely get anyone to attend his "rallies" and is apparently in the early stages of cognitive decline, could pull off such an amazing election performance. I also would welcome your common sense explanation of how this politician could win Pennsylvania in particular, given his comments about favoring the end of all fossil fuels (which of course includes fracking).
You also assert that vote fraud is rare, and go on to say it has never been established in a presidential election. Vote fraud, like all fraud, is a crime that, to work, has to be done in secret. Perpetrators make efforts to hide their activities. Moreover, there is little incentive for law enforcement to investigate. Investigating whether votes were illegally cast takes a lot of resources and even if proven usually won't affect an ekection unless there's proof of a lot of illegal votes.
I must correct one thing from my last comment. Point 2 is incorrect.
Inga So Excited About Her New Word "Cultists": "Doddering old fools and guns, not a good combo."
Illiterate gang-bangers in Philly, Chicago, LA, Milwaukee, St. Louis, etc with guns. No problem. Meth heads and trustfund brats with molotov cocktails. No problem.
What a mendacious old skag you are.
Mr. Majestyk,
I don't see how any of the points you cite proves, or even suggests, fraud in any swing state sufficient to change the results of the election.
1. I don't know what the bellwether counties are or how they were selected or how the outcome in them translates to proof that votes were illegally cast in other counties or other states. Can you spell that out?
2. The studies I have seen don't show either that the Democratic turnout in the big cities was that great for Biden or that it was the decisive factor. The big shift in all the swing states was in the suburban vote, and it was strongly in favor of Biden.
3. Republicans beating Democrats in every toss up seat. I doubt that's so, but if it is, I don't see how it proves fraud. The more reasonable inference is that a lot of Republican voters split tickets, especially in the suburbs.
4. Trump increasing his vote over 2016. Congrats to him, it shows a great voter registration and turnout operation. Biden's vote went up even more! That's because the Dems also made a huge investment in registration and turnout, in all the swing states, and across the nation. Plus, a lot of folks turned out to vote against DJT. Again, no proof of fraud.
5. Republican primary votes are irrelevant. Since the Republican presidential primary had no practical significance, the only reason to turn out was to show enthusiasm for Trump. Presumably all those people also voted for him the general, but so what. Not evidence of fraud.
5. Trump enthusiasm higher than Biden enthusiasm. True, but so what. You loved your guy better than we loved our guy. On our side, some people voted for Biden because they really liked him, and some voted for him because he was not Trump. The analysis I have seen suggests that the latter group were decisive in the swing states. Where's the fraud?
What is striking about this list is that it seems actually to have nothing to do with any actual demonstration that fraud occurred, and to rest largely on the notion that people really liked DJT so much that he simply must have been the winner! But that ignores that Trump's performance ratings across his presidency were low, and that he had a lot of historic negatives in independent and Democratic folks evaluation of him as a leader and human being. In the Trump bubble, he may have looked great. But to people on the fence, not so much. And that's why he lost the suburbs and with them, the swing states.
So how does this carry you to an apparent strong belief in systemic fraud in the decisive states, in the face of the phalanx of state election officials of both parties, Trump's own Deparments of Justice and Homeland Security, and judges, again of both parties, Federal and state, who uniformly say no?
Rusty, I do not know enough to be confident that there were no acts of fraud anywhere. But fraud at a scale sufficient to swing any of the swing states? I'm confident it didn't happen.
In support, I'd cite the fact that the historical evidence shows that that kind of systemic fraud is rare and hard to carry out without detection. I'd also cite the failure of over 60 lawsuits and the uniform testimony of election officials of both parties in the swing states, and the conclusions of Trump's own Departments of Justice and Homeland Security (and not the Deep staters, but political appointees).
To hear an excellent discussion of this topic, listen to Megyn Kelly’s hour-long podcast with Congressman Crenshaw of Texas. It’s via t her new company, DevilMayCareMedia.com. Crenshaw’s comments about the AOC & Company are also included. Available on a lot of sites now.
Stephen said...
Rusty, I do not know enough to be confident that there were no acts of fraud anywhere. But fraud at a scale sufficient to swing any of the swing states? I'm confident it didn't happen.
In support, I'd cite the fact that the historical evidence shows that that kind of systemic fraud is rare and hard to carry out without detection.
12/10/20, 10:57 AM
It was only a "little" penetration, certainly NOT enough to get you pregnant or anything! I am sure technically you are still a virgin.
It's a "quote tweet." To do it, you need to hit the retweet button. It's a retweet, with a comment.
NSH, Haha, but not actually a persuasive analogy. One sperm is enough, but one vote is not.
Sorry I meant Todd.
Stephen said...
Haha, but not actually a persuasive analogy. One sperm is enough, but one vote is not.
12/10/20, 12:27 PM
Not one vote but one act of state sanctioned/sponsored voter fraud. So how many acts of state sanction/sponsored voter fraud is enough for you?
I would suspect that no amount of would matter if the Democrat wins but one is too much if the Democrat looses. About right?
Stephen said...
"Rusty, I do not know enough to be confident that there were no acts of fraud anywhere."
Well, son. I'm from Chicago.............. Vote fraud is a spectator sport where I come from. And you guys voted in the the highly connected Chicago pol.-Obama, and expected different results? You vote for Chicago style corruption you get Chicago style corruption. You don't know enough because you're eyes are closed.
" But fraud at a scale sufficient to swing any of the swing states? I'm confident it didn't happen."
Mayor Daley and the Kennedy election. You're confidence is what fortunes are made on.
In support, I'd cite t
Any vote fraud is odious. It is theft. By voting more than once you steal someone elses franchise. Any vote fraud is too much vote fraud. This was not a free and fair election. It is unlikely now that there will ever be another one.
Post a Comment