Here's the transcript.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Paul, let me begin with a threshold question for you. This election was not stolen, do you accept that fact?
SENATOR RAND PAUL, (R-KY): Well, what I would say is that the debate over whether or not there was fraud should occur, we never had any presentation in court where we actually looked at the evidence. Most of the cases were thrown out for lack of standing, which is a procedural way of not actually hearing the question. There were several states in which the law was changed by the secretary of state and not the state legislature. To me, those are clearly unconstitutional and I think there’s still a chance that those actually do finally work their way up to the Supreme Court. Courts traditionally and historically don’t like to hear election questions. But yes. Were there people who voted twice? Were there dead people who voted? Were there illegal aliens who voted? Yes, and we should get to the bottom of it. I’ll give you an example. In my state, when we had a Democrat secretary of state, she refused, even under federal order, to purge the roles of illegal voters. We got a Republican secretary of state and he purged the rules.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But Senator Paul, I have to... I have to stop you there. No election is perfect. But there were 86 challenges filed by President Trump and his allies in court, all were dismissed. Every state certified the results.... The Department of Justice led by William Barr said there's no widespread evidence of fraud. Can’t you just say the words, this election --
PAUL: No.
STEPHANOPOULOS: -- was not stolen?
PAUL: Well, what I would suggest is -- what I would suggest is that if we want greater confidence in our elections, and 75 percent of Republicans agree with me, is that we do need to look at election integrity and we need to see if we can restore confidence in the elections.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, 75 percent of Republicans agree with you because they were fed a big lie by President Trump and his supporters to say the election was stolen. Why can't you say --
PAUL: Well, I think --
STEPHANOPOULOS: -- President Biden won a legitimate, fair election --
PAUL: -- I think where you make a mistake in -- hey, George. George. George, where you make a mistake is that people coming from the liberal side like you, you immediately say everything's a lie instead of saying there are two sides to everything. Historically what would happen is if said that I thought that there was fraud, you would interview someone else who said there wasn’t. But now you insert yourself in the middle and say that the absolute... fact is that everything that I’m saying is a lie.... Let’s talk about the specifics of it. In Wisconsin, tens of thousands of absentee votes had only the name on them and no address. Historically those were thrown out, this time they weren't. They made special accommodations because they said, oh, it’s a pandemic and people forgot what their address was. So they changed the law after the fact. That is wrong, that's unconstitutional. And I plan on spending the next two years going around state to state and fixing these problems and I won’t be cowed by liberals in the media who say, there's no evidence here and you're a liar if you talk about election fraud. No, let's have an open debate. It’s a free country.
STEPHANOPOULOS: There is no widespread evidence of election fraud that overturned that results. That was stated as well by the Department of Justice led by President Trump's attorney general. In Wisconsin, there were counts and recounts...
PAUL: It was never studied. Even that's not true. Even that’s not true. Even that's not true.
STEPHANOPOULOS: William Barr said that directly.
PAUL: Barr said that, but there was -- yes, he said that, yes. That was a pronouncement. There's been no examination, thorough examination of all the states to see what problems we had and see if they could fix them. Now, let me say to be clear, I voted to certify the state electors because I think it would be wrong for Congress to overturn that. But at the same time, I’m not willing just to sit here and say, oh, everybody on the Republican side is a liar and there is no fraud. No, there were lots of problems and there were secretaries of state who illegally changed the law and that needs to be fixed. And I’m going to work hard to fix it. And I won’t be cowed by people saying, oh, you’re a liar. That’s the problem with the media today is they say all Republicans are liars, and everything we say is a lie. There are two sides to every story. Interview somebody on the other side, but don’t insert yourself into the story to say we’re all liars, because we do think (ph) there’s some fraud and the election needs to be fixed....
STEPHANOPOULOS: Sir, there are not -- there are not two sides to this story. This has been looked in every single state.
PAUL: Sure there are. There are two sides to every story. George, you're forgetting who you are. You’re forgetting who you are as a journalist if you think there's only one side. You're inserting yourself into the story to say I’m a liar because I want to look at election fraud and I want to look at secretaries of state who illegally changed the voter laws without the permission of their state legislatures. That is incontrovertible, it happened. And you can't just sweep it under the rug and say, oh, nothing to see here, and everybody is a liar and you're a fool if you bring this up. You’re inserting yourself into the story. A journalist would hear both sides and there are two sides of a story....
STEPHANOPOULOS: There can be more investigations. The investigations that have taken place have shown there’s not enough fraud to change the results of this election. That has been certified by every state. It was stated by the Justice Department and the attorney general.
PAUL: And I accepted the states' certifications. But it doesn't mean that I think there wasn’t fraud and that there weren’t problems that have to be investigated. And it doesn’t mean that the law wasn’t broken. I believe in Pennsylvania, they broke the law, and I believe if that ever will get a real hearing in the Supreme Court, it was denied for standing. It wasn’t actually taken up. If it were taken up, I do believe that the Supreme Court would overrule and say that they did break the law illegally.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I asked you a very simple question, was the election stolen or not?
PAUL: I think there was great deal of evidence of fraud and changing of the election laws illegally. And I think a thorough investigation is warranted.
And that's where it ended. Paul never accepted or rejected the word "stolen," and he made his point very clearly and with detail and he effectively scolded Stephanopoulos for taking sides.
Posts
304 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 304 of 304"n.) Absolute secrecy of precinct and aggregate totals until they are all submitted, including not even transmitting of numbers back down the line to local level election officials. It should be completely impossible to guess how many more votes need to be manufactured, until it's too late."
Plan for each county to have 10 ballot dumps to the state, each at 10% count intervals. Each county published how many ballots they have received at the deadline and no more ballots are allowed above that number. The counties will send the results to the state after all counties have indicated they have completed the indicated vote dump. The counties will proceed from biggest county to smallest in their transmissions, thereby nullifying the possibility of a big county manufacturing votes.
why is the focus on alleged fraud only on exactly those states that Donald would have needed overturn the result in order to win? No interest in North Carolina fraud? Florida? Texas?
Perhaps you should ask the Democrats why they don't seem to want any investigations at all. Republicans would be happy to have those states investigated along with ones they lost. But it's up to the allegedly damaged party to protest. Do you ever see teams who get the benefit of a questionable call demanding instant replay?
"Just curious: why is the focus on alleged fraud only on exactly those states that Donald would have needed overturn the result in order to win? No interest in North Carolina fraud? Florida? Texas?"
In a world of unlimited time and resources, elections in every state would be considered. Since we don't live in that world, the focus will naturally be on the elections that have an outsized impact on the results before those that are less likely to make a difference.
"The selective focus makes it hard for any objective observer to take seriously."
There's a reason for selective focus. If eyewitnesses to a robbery give you a description of the suspect, who do you start investigating- people at random or those who match the description?
Blogger Arturo Ui said..
why is the focus on alleged fraud only on exactly those states that Donald would have needed overturn the result in order to win? No interest in North Carolina fraud? Florida? Texas?
The selective focus makes it hard for any objective observer to take seriously. It's clearly a results-driven interest, not on the merits.
--
Because as opposed to the "widespread fraud" or nothing canard, the concern is that it was targeted.
Remember the GA water main break/toilet leak that triggered swing states' stoppage?
Perhaps seek Peter Navarro's series.
Blogger Arturo Ui said...
"Just curious: why is the focus on alleged fraud only on exactly those states that Donald would have needed overturn the result in order to win? No interest in North Carolina fraud? Florida? Texas?
The selective focus makes it hard for any objective observer to take seriously. It's clearly a results-driven interest, not on the merits."
The selective focus is the result of the selective fraud. The Democrats targeted a few pivotal precincts in a handful of battle ground states that Biden had to win. Then in those targeted sites they delivered fraud on an unprecedented scale. You investigate fraud where it occurred. The worst fraud was in a few precincts in a handful of states.
Chris said...
I wish Sen Paul had asked GS how much fraud is acceptable in our elections and how he knows it wasn't exceeded this past year. All that's happening is they're encouraging Republicans to cheat (or at least to a great extent if you believe they already are).
1/24/21, 5:43 PM
*******************
Unfortunately Donald ruined this position when he told the Georgia Secretary of State that he found fraud perfectly acceptable...up to the threshold of the 11,700 votes he needed to overturn the Georgia result. Once he said that, it was clear he was fine with fraud as long as he still won. There was no meretricious interest in objectively rooting out voter fraud and letting the chips fall where they may. No one has done more harm to the cause of eliminating voter fraud than Donald Trump did that day.
"In a world of unlimited time and resources, elections in every state would be considered. Since we don't live in that world, the focus will naturally be on the elections that have an outsized impact on the results before those that are less likely to make a difference."
This, BTW, is a powerful argument against using the popular vote. Keep the problem tractable.
"Unfortunately Donald ruined this position when he told the Georgia Secretary of State that he found fraud perfectly acceptable...up to the threshold of the 11,700 votes he needed to overturn the Georgia result. Once he said that, it was clear he was fine with fraud as long as he still won"
--
Please provide the dialog transcript you are referencing.
Tommy Duncan said...
The selective focus is the result of the selective fraud. The Democrats targeted a few pivotal precincts in a handful of battle ground states that Biden had to win. Then in those targeted sites they delivered fraud on an unprecedented scale. You investigate fraud where it occurred. The worst fraud was in a few precincts in a handful of states.
*************************
You're making a claim. What evidence do you have to support that claim? And are you also claiming that there was no fraud in swing states that Donald won? And what is your evidence for that material absence of fraud? Right now, it looks like you are only focusing on the states Donald Trump needed to flip.
walter said...
Please provide the dialog transcript you are referencing.
******************
"I just want to find 11,780 votes". I hear it was in the news.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/d45acb92-4dc4-11eb-bda4-615aaefd0555_story.html
"Unfortunately Donald ruined this position when he told the Georgia Secretary of State that he found fraud perfectly acceptable...up to the threshold of the 11,700 votes he needed to overturn the Georgia result."
Not a very compelling argument, I'm afraid. Even if that's what he said and believed, what he says and believes has no bearing on whether or not fraud occurred, and how that fraud (if there was such) should be addressed.
You're not arguing that the legality of any particular action is dependent on what people think of it rather than what has been enacted into law, are you?
Saying that Sen. Ru Paul had a meltdown is transphobic
James K said...
Perhaps you should ask the Democrats why they don't seem to want any investigations at all. Republicans would be happy to have those states investigated along with ones they lost. But it's up to the allegedly damaged party to protest. Do you ever see teams who get the benefit of a questionable call demanding instant replay?
*************************
I'm perfectly fine with investigations. Several of the states conducted lengthy recounts already. But investigations doesn't seem to really be the interest. More like "permanent doubt, from me, therefore toss out the results I don't like". Just because you doubt the result and don't like the result doesn't mean the result gets cancelled. This is why we have courts to adjudicate claims like these, not Blogger Commenters like us. And yes, sometimes courts toss out claims on standing alone.
I'm Not Sure said...
Not a very compelling argument, I'm afraid. Even if that's what he said and believed, what he says and believes has no bearing on whether or not fraud occurred, and how that fraud (if there was such) should be addressed.
You're not arguing that the legality of any particular action is dependent on what people think of it rather than what has been enacted into law, are you?
****************************
No, of course not. Just pointing out that the leader of the side clamoring the loudest about voter fraud clearly does not care about voter fraud as long as he still wins. So it's not a sincere position, and his wild, totally evidence-free claims cannot be taken seriously, since they're only in the service of himself, as opposed to objective voter integrity.
100 percent fraud occurs in all human activities. 200 percent it occurs when the outcome has great value and is not audited. Elections can swing on a few dozen votes.
I'm confident if I appear in person, show my drivers license and sign a poll workers book. Then I know the system has made a minimum effort to hold a good election.
I'm not confident in any of my neighbors who like to cheat on everything whenever possible. Fauci agrees with me on that one.
Arturo, you are playing games.
Night said...
I'm not confident in any of my neighbors who like to cheat on everything whenever possible. Fauci agrees with me on that one.
********************************
You need better neighbors!
Tommy Duncan said...
Arturo, you are playing games.
*****************************
Please elaborate. I am presenting my sincere opinion here.
I'm sure there was fraud there was no way 71 million Americans voted for Trump! We must have thorough investigations to see just how much Russia helped Trump manufacture all those votes! And I mean, thorough! If, in the course of the investigation, evidence of Democrat fraud emerges and this results in long, long jail terms for those involved, well, you've got to break some eggs to make an omelette, am I right?
Arturo Ui said...
Unfortunately Donald ruined this position when he told the Georgia Secretary of State that he found fraud perfectly acceptable...up to the threshold of the 11,700 votes
** that's not what Trump said. Not even close. He told the SoS that he knew there were 11,700 fraudulent votes out there and that he would like them audited.
3 monkeys.
This, BTW, is a powerful argument against using the popular vote. Keep the problem tractable.
The democratic/dictatorial duality.
"You would think that it would be in everyone’s interest to be sure that election rules and practices conform to the US Constitution and to the election laws in effect at the beginning of the election. [emphasis added]"
Democrats and Republican swamp rats would get utterly destroyed in an honest election.
There is a small group of corrupt trolls in DC that benefit from fraudulent elections and 60ish million dumbshits like Readering.
I'm perfectly fine with investigations. Several of the states conducted lengthy recounts already.
Very funny. First, my comments were not about you, but about the Democrats in power not wanting investigations. Second, recounts are not investigations, as I'm sure you well know but are just, as another poster put it, "playing games."
Original Mike said...
"n.) Absolute secrecy of precinct and aggregate totals until they are all submitted, including not even transmitting of numbers back down the line to local level election officials. It should be completely impossible to guess how many more votes need to be manufactured, until it's too late."
I've always been appalled that this isn't the procedure. It's indefensible.
It would be absolutely trivial to know exactly how many ballots were cast in an election within a minute of polls closing with a transparent voting system.
The swing states were where the fraud could happen without looking absurd on its face.
"Just pointing out that the leader of the side clamoring the loudest about voter fraud clearly does not care about voter fraud as long as he still wins."
Even assuming you are right about Trump's opinion- so? What does that have to do with what's legal, and what's not?
"So it's not a sincere position, and his wild, totally evidence-free claims cannot be taken seriously, since they're only in the service of himself, as opposed to objective voter integrity."
Again- even assuming you are right about Trump's opinion- so? What does that have to do with what's legal, and what's not?
For those of us with a few wrinkles to sport, this 2020 election was anomalous and treasonous. It’s not who we are. It’s on the wrong side of history. It’s not what we want to leave for our descendants to clean up.
"It’s not who we are."
It's who the Democrats are.
Rand Paul is magnificent. And right on.
The best of Stephanopolis was spring 2008(?) But only BECAUSE he was devoted to Hillary Clinton, he actually asked Barack Obama about his minister Rev. Wright, to the shock of all the other cowering media -- they were horrified "how rude!" that the magnificent One would be examined so crudely. That forced Obama to come out with the supposedly awesome race speech, snore. in any case, if not for Stephanopolis, Rev. Wright would have been as ignored as Obama's Bill Ayers association.
G-dspeed, America
I'm perfectly fine with investigations. Several of the states conducted lengthy recounts already. But investigations doesn't seem to really be the interest.
Recount not equals investigation.
Night said...
** that's not what Trump said. Not even close. He told the SoS that he knew there were 11,700 fraudulent votes out there and that he would like them audited.
3 monkeys.
***************
"I just want to find 11,780 votes", said the President of the United States to the local elections official.
Recounts are the initial phase of investigations. Of course they are a type of investigation. But investigations weren't what the Trump GOP was after. The Trump GOP wanted to simply cancel the certified elector slates either through Congress or Pence, and send them back to GOP-controlled state legislatures, who would replace the certified elector slates with Trump slates. Not an investigation: a total voter cancellation instead.
I think there was election fraud sufficient to swing the election. Here's one example that is troubling: Trump led by a substantial margin in GA until late in the evening, when there was a dump of over 600K votes and more than 95% of them were for Biden. That is so unlikely statistically as to be impossible without fraud. Even worse, those votes came in after the ballot counters told Republican poll watchers to go home, then started pulling ballots from boxes under tables, and counted without being under public observation. Sorry... I grew up in Louisiana and this kind of crap is common in big Southern Democrat-controlled counties.
Ask yourself why anyone would be opposed to voter ID. After all, we have to show ID to buy cigarettes, alcohol, deposit a check, open a bank account, fly on an airline, get a hotel room, buy a gun... what possible valid reason would we have to object to this in order to register to vote or vote? No, the only reason to object is because it would make fraud a LOT harder.
The blog seems to be getting deluged with new trolls.
I wonder why ?
"But investigations weren't what the Trump GOP was after."
You seem to have quite the insight into what Trump thinks and the GOP wants. Good on you.
"Original Mike said...
"'they must ask for *injunctions* prohibiting similar violations in the future.'"
"A law making it illegal to break the law?"
An injunction can include enforcement mechanisms. Think side-by-side poll-watchers, real-time recounts, whatever you can show is necessary stop cheating.
Ask school districts, police departments, and corporations that have been slapped with injunctions. Ask Prof. Althouse. They work.
@Dr. Michael K., probably because it’s been linked by Instapundit.
@Openidname - You have more faith in the judicial system than I do. I don't see an injunction having any effect in a jurisdiction controlled by democrat DAs, Secretary of States, etc.
The corrupt officials of a state can "certify" a ham sandwich, if they want to.
Interesting how trills are trying to disrupt this conversation on election fraud.
Lots of Chaff, to make things confusing.
I was surprised at Chris Christy’s statement Narciso linked on no fraud.
I’m surprised at the eGOP ostrich behavior.
Robert Cook said, "I remain unconvinced there were voting irregularities sufficiently extensive to constitute fraud or to have altered the election outcome."
I, too, remain unconvinced. But not incurious and unconcerned.
Rand Paul conducted himself superbly. And George stupidly, or perhaps smartly, doubled-down on doing exactly what Paul accused him of doing -- betraying his journalistic ethics by taking sides.
Shades of Chuck Todd's, "You cannot make allegations that are not proven true."
The highly resistable Arturo Ui said, at 624PM
"There was no meretricious interest in objectively rooting out voter fraud . . . ."
It doesn't know the definition of 'meretricious.'
Narr
Which is ironic!
Tommy Duncan said, "The evidence was specific and involved targeted locations like Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia and Atlanta."
Did anybody here read the December 2 piece by J. Christian Adams in PJ Media? Eye opening! I think there needs to be more discussion of this.
https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2020/12/02/the-real-kraken-what-really-happened-to-donald-trump-in-the-2020-election-n1185494
You seem to have quite the insight into what Trump thinks and the GOP wants. Good on you.
When you become a leftist, you immediately are endowed with mind reading abilities.
There is no disputing that MANY election laws were broken and illegally altered in the disputed states by unelected bureaucrats and election officials who had no business doing so. Stephie can’t dispute that. The results are illegitimate.
Given that he was a flack for the Clinton campaign, I can't take George seriously as a journalist. This was probably worse than George's war on women interview with Mitt Romney. The fact that Mitt didn't challenge him on the ridiculous assertion of the war on women gave me the impression that Mitt won't win. He just stammered and yammered. War is a horrifically violent thing. George's basis of a war was the debunked pay gap thing. George is far more nakedly democrat than the typical reporter. Why should Rand be surprised there was no other guest to take the other side.
Arturo, the reason to cancel the votes and ask the state legislatures to select Electors was that election commissioners failed to accurate follow state election laws. Do keep up. We're used to a higher level of trolling here.
George Stephanopoulos and journalistic ethics - Oxymoron.
Narr said...
The highly resistable Arturo Ui said, at 624PM
It doesn't know the definition of 'meretricious.'
***************
Oops, that was supposed to be meritorious. Autocorrect strikes again. Good catch!
TickTock said...
Arturo, the reason to cancel the votes and ask the state legislatures to select Electors was that election commissioners failed to accurate follow state election laws.
***************
Except that every court in the land found the opposite: that the law was followed. Can you imagine how torn to shreds this country would be if the GOP Congress had succeeded in cancelling the swing state electors and installing their own? Anyone who advocates for such a flagrantly unAmerican act should be ashamed of themselves. They certainly shouldn't be anywhere near Congress. They hate voters.
Arturo Ui said...
Just curious: why is the focus on alleged fraud only on exactly those states that Donald would have needed overturn the result in order to win?
Really? It hasn't occurred to you that those were also the states that Biden couldn't afford to lose? And that had Democrat strongholds where local machines could be counted on to attempt to win BAMN, as that side says? And where last-minute electoral procedural changes had been made, sometimes in an extra-legal fashion, that - intentionally or not - made a variety of methods of voter fraud easier to carry out?
Why in God's name would Democrats try to flip a solidly red state through fraud? What would be the point? You might as well ask why in God's name Republicans would try to flip, say, California through fraud. You'd only increase your chances of getting caught.
If Democrats acted as if they'd won legitimately, I might be more inclined to believe that more of them believed they'd won legitimately. But it seems that Democrats urging a full and robust audit (if such were possible - as stated elsewhere and elsewhen, if you control the production of real ballots AND the means of casting them, how will any audit reveal your hanky-panky? Statistics are all we've got in these cases), in order to try to stem the tide of suspicion against their winner, are thin on the ground.
Jamie said...
Really? It hasn't occurred to you that those were also the states that Biden couldn't afford to lose? And that had Democrat strongholds where local machines could be counted on to attempt to win BAMN, as that side says?
****************
Florida is a state that Trump couldn't afford to lose, and it also has GOP state government control. Why aren't you pressing for an investigation there? Georgia is a state Trump couldn't afford to lose either. GOP control of state gov as well. And yet the election officials of the state of GA all concluded that whatever fraud might have occurred would in no way overturn the result.
"Florida is a state that Trump couldn't afford to lose, and it also has GOP state government control. Why aren't you pressing for an investigation there?"
Why aren't the Democrats? If it was suspected there'd be something to find, don't you think they would? Or does your mindreading only work with Trump and the GOP?
Arturo-although it would be pointless with regard to the election results, I would welcome an investigation into whether and how much voting fraud occurred in FL and TX.
A question for you--do you think that such an investigation would help or hurt the Democrat position?
Put another way--do you think Trump won in TX and FL because of fraud, or despite fraud? Or do you think that there was no fraud at all in those states?
I'm Not Sure said...
Why aren't the Democrats?
********************
Because they agree with elections experts that voter fraud is so vanishingly rare in this country that the result in Florida would stand.
You guys are not interested in objectively pursuing voter fraud. Otherwise, you would scrutinize all the close states, not just the ones Donald lost that he needed to win. You guys just wanted Donald to win, so crying voter fraud was your seemingly best shot to get that result. Just be honest about it.
"You guys are not interested in objectively pursuing voter fraud. Otherwise, you would scrutinize all the close states, not just the ones Donald lost that he needed to win."
Scrutinize them all. I'm for it. You?
boatbuilder said...
Arturo-although it would be pointless with regard to the election results, I would welcome an investigation into whether and how much voting fraud occurred in FL and TX.
A question for you--do you think that such an investigation would help or hurt the Democrat position?
Put another way--do you think Trump won in TX and FL because of fraud, or despite fraud? Or do you think that there was no fraud at all in those states?
******************
I am sure there is some tiny amount of voter fraud that occurs in every state. I do not believe for a second that it is enough to overturn the results in any of the states of the 2020 election. Including FL and TX.
"Because they agree with elections experts that voter fraud is so vanishingly rare in this country..."
Democrats say that voter fraud is vanishingly rare in this country? I'm quite sure they'd like people to believe so. People say lots of things. Sometimes, they're even true.
I'm Not Sure said...
"You guys are not interested in objectively pursuing voter fraud. Otherwise, you would scrutinize all the close states, not just the ones Donald lost that he needed to win."
Scrutinize them all. I'm for it. You?
***************
Absolutely. But let's be clear: that is not Donald's position, or Hawley's, or Cruz's. Their position was to simply cancel the election on the basis of totally unfounded claims. All because their team didn't win.
John Hinderaker at Powerline blog mentions and links to this Althouse post.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/01/voter-fraud-nothing-to-see-here.php
"Can you imagine how torn to shreds this country would be if the GOP Congress had succeeded in cancelling the swing state electors and installing their own? Anyone who advocates for such a flagrantly unAmerican act should be ashamed of themselves. They certainly shouldn't be anywhere near Congress. They hate voters."
You mean that people would be angry and upset if they felt the election had been illegitimately stolen?
20Busdriver said...
From Wis. Election Commission
Did Wisconsin clerks issue 70,000 absentee ballots to voters without an application?
Absolutely not. In 2010, many Wisconsin clerks started using a new combined application/certificate for absentee ballots cast in their offices. They did this to reduce paperwork in response to more and more voters casting absentee ballots in the clerk’s office.
*************
Would you care to explain why in Mass. my family got TWO sets of unsolicited mail-in ballots, for three people?
TWO.
Just how many states need to engage in this corrupt practice in order for you to accept the idea of "widespread fraud"?
Or do you accept it already, and shrug it off because your side benefits from it?
IOW that you are happy to be CORRUPT?
In the European Union, 63% have put a ban on mailing in ballots except for citizens living overseas. Another 22% have imposed a ban even for those overseas. And most of those that allow mail-in ballots require some form of photo ID to get one.
I think the Europeans figured out why mail-in ballots were troublesome. I have a suspicion that the Dems used this method to achieve their means of winning.
I've never much liked George Stepanopoulous (SP?), but I used to think he was smart. He isn't, as this "interview" shows. He uses his position as a "newsman" to bully people with whom he disagrees. When a real smart person (and Rand Paul's not an Einstein, but he's smart enough) disagrees with George, all George can do is repeat his talking points and demand the interviewee's surrender. When Paul refused to do so, George was at a loss, because he didn't understand the issues.
wholelottasplainin' said...
*************
"Would you care to explain why in Mass. my family got TWO sets of unsolicited mail-in ballots, for three people?
TWO."
***************
Is the point of this purely anecdotal evidence that this somehow flipped the Massachussetts election?
***************
"IOW that you are happy to be CORRUPT?"
****************
Oh please. Your hero called up the Georgia Secretary of State and demanded he scrape up 11,780 votes for him. No lectures about corruption from Trump supporters.
Arturo--Trump was the candidate and Cruz and Hawley are Republican political advocates. It is their job and position to pursue the result that favors their political position. And they were doing so in the context of a disputed election according to the means that the Constitution specifies for disputing an election.
If we were presenting legal briefs--or arguments to challenge or confirm votes on the Senate floor--we would not be arguing about incidental matters such as whether fraud may have occurred in a state that is not the subject of a challenge.
If you were suing a car dealer for ripping you off, would you expect your lawyer to ask the court to look into the transactions of people who were not parties to the suit and who had no complaints? Or would you think that your lawyer was committing malpractice?
Your using the absence of such an argument by politicians, who represent specific and clearly stated political interests, as evidence of bad faith or lack of support for their positions is evidence of either your inability to understand politics or law, or evidence of your own bad faith in argument.
"Melts down" = "stands up against the Hive and its party line and does not back down." (translated from the "liberal BS")
'Is the point of this purely anecdotal evidence that this somehow flipped the Massachussetts election?"
I typed my last post before I knew that you agreed with me.
Also: it's Massachusetts.
No interest in North Carolina fraud? Florida? Texas?
The selective focus makes it hard for any objective observer to take seriously. It's clearly a results-driven interest, not on the merits.
Seriously? People are being charged in North Carolina and Texas and they may be charged in Florida, though investigations of the 2018 elections there went on for over a year and resulted in no charges.
But really, isn't it obvious that the big story would involve the states where margins were small enough that election fraud could make a difference? That doesn't mean people don't care about election fraud and wouldn't want to see it investigated in other states, but if the outcome of the election was affected or determined by voter fraud in some states wouldn't people naturally want to look very closely at those states? But of course, those are the states where serious investigations, for the most part, aren't going on, precisely because those states could overturn the election.
Surely, by this time it should be clear that most of what happens in politics is "results-driven" -- exclude everything in politics that is related to the interests of one party or the other and you exclude everything in politics -- but that doesn't mean that the cases don't have merit.
boatbuilder said...
"Arturo--Trump was the candidate and Cruz and Hawley are Republican political advocates. It is their job and position to pursue the result that favors their political position."
**********
No, that is not their job. They are United States Senators. Their job is to uphold the Constitution. We've fallen a long way, haven't we?
***********
"Your using the absence of such an argument by politicians, who represent specific and clearly stated political interests, as evidence of bad faith or lack of support for their positions is evidence of either your inability to understand politics or law, or evidence of your own bad faith in argument."
************
Ah, so to point out bad faith is to actually engage in bad faith? That's a clever one.
In the election, Trump did much better with in-person election day voters than with those who voted by mail. If there was widespread fraud with mail-in ballots, it's likely that Biden was the beneficiary.
Most of the states with the narrowest margins of victory went to Biden. North Carolina was an exception. You may want to add Florida to the list. In Texas, Trump's 52% was the same as last time and his 630,000 vote margin looks pretty large to me. Most of the charges of voter fraud in the state have been filed against Democrats.
Also from Powerline:
We are continuously told by our betters that high voter turnout is to be celebrated because it is a measure of the civic engagement of our citizens. I hold the opposite view: high turnout is an indicator of serious civic breakdown. High turnout in other struggling democracies is usually a sign of things going very wrong (like the German elections of the late 1920s and early 1930s, or Argentina back in the Peron era). The point is: you get high turnouts when people believe everything is at stake in the results of the election. Middling voter turnout in American elections is a sign of the relative health of our political order, because it means that much of the population doesn’t think everything important is up for grabs in the result. Elections are supposed to determine who rules, and we take turns in ruling and being ruled. Our presidents are supposed to run the government, not every aspect of our lives.
From The Ominous Meaning of the Keystone Diktat
The ammo shelf is still empty. My guess is Georgie goes first.
Lurker21 said...
In the election, Trump did much better with in-person election day voters than with those who voted by mail. If there was widespread fraud with mail-in ballots, it's likely that Biden was the beneficiary.
***************
Yes, and if I could fly to the moon tomorrow, I might very well do so. Where is your evidence?
Major Troll types:
Media matters and allies
Chinese 50 cent army
Russian 50 ruble army
Gammas virtue signaling
Regulars copy and pasting left talking points
Any major types I missed?
Because they agree with elections experts that voter fraud is so vanishingly rare in this country that the result in Florida would stand.
Experts being Democrat election officials, perhaps? The very people doing the fraud say it doesn't happen! Yes, that's totally believable. Experts who don't look for fraud because they don't want to find it. And when they do, they tell us "It's vanishingly rare. Never mind that person behind the curtain." They also tell us that the demonstrations are "peaceful" as a buildings are burning down in the background of their shot. Gaslighting, these experts are.
Mike of Snoqualmie said...
Because they agree with elections experts that voter fraud is so vanishingly rare in this country that the result in Florida would stand.
Experts being Democrat election officials, perhaps?
***************
Brad Raffensberger is an elections expert, and a Republican.
I’d feel sorry for the sore losers if they didn’t try to overthrow the government.
Where is your evidence?
It's well known that it's easier to commit fraud with mail-in voting than with in person voting. That is why European countries don't like it.
But I said "if" - "if there was widespread fraud with mail-in ballots," not that there was.
If you want to know more about what charges have been made feel free to do some research of your own. I wasn't saying anything more than the hypothetical.
*
Yes, and if I could fly to the moon tomorrow, I might very well do so.
I'm beginning to wish you would. Buon viaggio!
Arturo Ui said...Brad Raffensberger is an elections expert, and a Republican
--
Bullshit.
He's been an obstructionist to GA legislators pursuing election integrity.
He's defending his corrupt perch.
o one should realistically claim unprecedented voting procedures weren't instituted this go round. Seems only fair to have higher level scrutiny.
If you want to examine voting integrity where Trump won as well, I say go for it.
In fact, that is what one would normally expect from the opposition..a you did it to approach.
Instead, we have the Dems and idiots like Krebs exclaiming cleanest process evah...you are traitorous to even suggest anything worth investigating...and we will banish you from civil discourse accordingly.
Sounds legit!
Oh..and add in the attempt to memory hole previous Dem efforts to challenge electors while making current challenges an affront to (again) "democracy!"
walter said...
Bullshit.
He's been an obstructionist to GA legislators pursuing election integrity.
He's defending his corrupt perch.
*****************
Nothing says "defending his corrupt perch" like he and his family receiving death threats multiple times a day for the rest of his life, or his career in Georgia Republican politics being obliterated.
Arturo in Fl we actually had a clean election. I had to request an absentee ballot, it was matched by my precinct, I had given it in to a poll worker who checked my ID and was done the several days before the election. I was to confirm that my ballot was received before the election. Florida ran a clean election. Democrats are welcome to review the ballots and if they find evidence of fraud, they should demand an investigation.
Going forward the best way to curb the fraud is to put measures that make it difficult and dangerous for the fraudsters. Many very good suggestions upthread. My suggestions are first one has to have proof they are residing six months and a day in the precinct, otherwise vote in the precinct you last lived six months and a day. Second that absentee ballots are counted first with the received date being the day of the election. Third no announcements issued before one am eastern time and that all mail in ballots be counted first then the votes cast in person and all the records needed for a forensic accounting be kept for six years. Fourth stiff mandatory penalties for those who engage in election fraud to include not less than five years in prison, a permanent life time ban on voting, permanent ban on being an elected official, officer of the state or subdivision or employee of state and local government and a forfeiture of previous pension benefits from prior service in local or state office. What say you Arturo?
Brad Raffensberger is an elections expert, and a Republican."
Arturo what you conveniently overlook is the GA Sec of State entered into a consent decree he had no authority to do so thus making him an accomplice to the vote fraud and hence a criminal'
The villian in a Bertold Brecht play said,
"Oh please. Your hero called up the Georgia Secretary of State and demanded he scrape up 11,780 votes for him. No lectures about corruption from Trump supporters."
Then why did the guy you fraudulently elected admit that he used vote fraud? C'mon man!
Dummy Republicans agreed to a debate with GS as moderator.
Very few state secretaries of state are actually elections experts, and that goes for Raffensperger as well. They are usually people who wanted to hold state office but don't have the experience or knowledge or ability to do anything else. Raffensperger was an engineer who got elected to the city council and then to the state legislature. He had no previous experience in election systems, and like everyone else he was overwhelmed by the COVID pandemic. Maybe someone else could provide more details about what he did and didn't do last year.
Arturo said:
"But let's be clear: that is not Donald's position, or Hawley's, or Cruz's. Their position was to simply cancel the election on the basis of totally unfounded claims. All because their team didn't win."
When did Trump or Hawley or Cruz say the election should be cancelled based on unfounded claims? I'm betting none of them did and you just made that up.
I'm Not Sure said...
Arturo said:
When did Trump or Hawley or Cruz say the election should be cancelled based on unfounded claims? I'm betting none of them did and you just made that up
********************
The effect of challenging the certified electors slates is to overturn the will of the voters who selected those slates. Handpicking your own electors via friendly GOP-controlled state legislatures has the effect of cancelling the election. Hawley and Cruz are Ivy League-educated people. They knew exactly what they were doing. As did Trump, who wasn't even trying to hide it.
Amusing that this involves Rand Paul, because this effort to coerce people into stating acceptance of the election results reminds me of one of the themes of Ayn Rand’s ‘Atlas Shrugged.’ It has probably been 20 years since I read that book, but I recall that one of the themes was the “sanction of the victim.” Essentially, the idea is that those in power aren’t content to abuse their authority or deny you your rights- they also want to coerce you into giving them your approval, as if that coercion somehow absolves them of their crime.
I would welcome an investigation into whether and how much voting fraud occurred in FL and TX.
Me too - let's go! As long as we can, ahead of time, agree - both sides - on a remedy, if it should be determined that fraud swung an election. Oh, and as long as we can agree - both sides - that a recount obviously does not constitute a thorough audit or investigation.
Illegitimate process=illegitimate votes
Stephy is evil. Always has been. He was extraordinarily dishonest even by the standards of the Clinton White House. That's damn hard to do. That takes real effort.
Prime example of election fraud is currently playing out at Amazon. Unions want to have "mail-in voting" and Amazon (officially) stated that their is to much potential for "election fraud" in "mail in voting"? But it's ok to have "mail-in voting" for our National Election and state their is no chance of "election fraud" by Democrats. Pure B.S. by the Elites.
"The effect of challenging the certified electors slates is to overturn the will of the voters who selected those slates."
If the election wasn't held legally, then the results are not the will of the voters.
"Handpicking your own electors via friendly GOP-controlled state legislatures has the effect of cancelling the election."
You're moving the goalposts. Whether or not that's true, it's an entirely different thing from saying the election should be cancelled because your team didn't win.
"Hawley and Cruz are Ivy League-educated people. They knew exactly what they were doing. As did Trump, who wasn't even trying to hide it."
Mindreading again?
I'm Not Sure said...
If the election wasn't held legally, then the results are not the will of the voters.
***************
Except that every relevant elections official and every judge has confirmed that it WAS held legally. That is how things are supposed to be decided in this country.
"Except that every relevant elections official and every judge has confirmed that it WAS held legally."
Wrong. Didn't happen. Refusing to look at evidence is not even in the same galaxy as confirming that the election was held legally.
Senator Rand Paul
@RandPaul
·
3h
If Chief Justice Roberts can’t be bothered to come over for the so-called impeachment, makes you wonder if this exercise is constitutional at all.
Leahy, not Roberts, to preside over impeachment trial | TheHill
I'm Not Sure said...
Wrong. Didn't happen. Refusing to look at evidence is not even in the same galaxy as confirming that the election was held legally.
***************
Uh-huh
https://apnews.com/article/judge-throws-out-trump-suit-pennsylvania-87eaf4df86d5f6ccc343c3385c9ba86c
U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Brann wrote in his order that Trump had asked the court to disenfranchise almost 7 million voters.
“One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption,” Brann wrote, so much that the court would have no option but to stop the certification even though it would impact so many people. “That has not happened.”
Brann ruled that Pennsylvania officials can certify election results that currently show Biden winning the state by more than 80,000 votes. He said the Trump campaign presented “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations ... unsupported by evidence.”
“In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state,” the opinion said. “Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.”
The solution to the numerous failures of 2020 is simple: investigate, prosecute and punish illegality.
I know. I say some crazy shit.
When Steph. repeats Barr's assertion that there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud, Steph. say Barr says there was no widespread evidence of fraud. He did it on purpose.
If I were Steph's wife, I'd be pretty disinterested in fucking for a while.
best line: "George you're forgetting who you are."
Post a Comment