October 28, 2021

"In your editorial 'The Election for Pennsylvania’s High Court' (Oct. 25), you state the fact that a court wrongly said mail-in ballots could be counted after Election Day. 'This didn’t matter,' you add..."

"'... because Mr. Biden won the state by 80,555, but the country is lucky the election wasn’t closer. If the election had hung on a few thousand Pennsylvanians, the next President might have been picked by the U.S. Supreme Court.' Well actually, the election was rigged, which you, unfortunately, still haven’t figured out. Here are just a few examples of how determinative the voter fraud in Pennsylvania was...." 

So begins Trump's letter to the editors of the Wall Street Journal — which you can read in full with no pay wall. The letter is responding to the editorial, "The Election for Pennsylvania’s High Court/The court that roiled the 2020 campaign will get a new Justice on Nov. 2" (which is blocked by a paywall). 

Trump's letter consists almost entirely of a list of factual allegations, very specific numerical assertions (e.g., "39,911 people... were added to voter rolls while under 17 years of age").

One reaction to Trump's letter is to criticize the Wall Street Journal for publishing the letter without verifying all of the assertions. But verifying the assertions is an immense task, and the assertions are newsworthy as assertions. Given that the Journal had itself made an assertion — that the counting of the late mail-in ballots didn't matter — it needed to acknowledge that Trump (and millions of Americans) believe that it did matter and readers deserved to see why they think that.

The first criticism I read was "The 14 things you need to know about Trump’s letter in the Wall Street Journal" by Philip Bump in The Washington Post. From the headline, you might think you're going to get a point-by-point fact check, but that's not what this is. Bump's list begins with the assertion that "The Wall Street Journal should not have published it without assessing the claims and demonstrating where they were wrong, misleading or unimportant."

That's not a fact "you need to know," just an opinion about journalistic professionalism. Is there a general rule in journalism — a rule Bump's newspaper follows — that you don't publish accusations before you've independently checked them? If so, I see that rule broken every day. Maybe there's the idea that Trump's challenge to the 2020 election is a special case, because we need to be committed to the legitimacy of the current government and because there's too much discord and a decent newspaper shouldn't be roiling people up on this subject. 

But it seems to me the WSJ is merely saying here's Trump's letter, and that is rock-solid factually true. This is what our former President is saying. That's worth knowing, and it's not the WSJ keeping the issue alive. The WSJ tried to close it down in its too-neat assertion in the the Oct. 25 editorial. Once it did that, it was a matter of fairness to allow Trump to say, no, I don't think the court's decision didn't matter, and to allow him to back up his opinions with his version of the facts.

Bump's second "thing you need to know" is: "The Journal would have been better served had it explained why it chose to run the letter without contextualizing it, since that might have at least offered some clarity on the otherwise inexplicable decision, but it didn’t." 

Eh. I was able to work out the reason pretty easily. It's not the normal practice to load down letters to the editor with explanations. The letters respond to something that the newspaper published, and it's for readers to judge the value of the letter. 

Now that Trump's letter is published, it's time to do the point-by-point fact checking.

99 comments:

pious agnostic said...

Now that Trump's letter is published, it's time to do the point-by-point fact checking.

If only there were institutions we could trust to do so.

gilbar said...

so, the Key Thing is:
Don't cheat just One way.... Cheat in a Hundred Different ways!

Then if someone points out one you can say... Well, That wouldn't have made the difference!
And if someone points out 5 (or Ten!) of the ways they cheated you can say...
Now You're Just a Conspiracy freak!!!

Serious Question... If Trump had won Penn... Would the Demos be yelling Cheat!! Cheat!!
???
how about if a republican had won Ohio in 2004? Or Florida in 2000?
We Should Ask Stacy Abrams! (or, Chuck!)

Robert Roy said...

I suspect the issue here is that the majority of the media don't know if the claims are true or not, but are afraid of the answer so would rather the question not even be asked.

Temujin said...

This would be a great exercise for all Journalists! who seem to have missed those classes in J-school about verifying facts that you are printing. Or, at the very least, state the source (not 'anonymous sources tell us'). I have no doubt you- Ann- can do this work. You do it every day. I have serious doubts that the great majority of our journalistic class has the will or desire to get to the truth.

If it's so completely anti-factual that this past election was rigged, then it should be easy to explain away the accusations and lists of questionable actions that were found during that election. Instead it has been a constant censoring of any questions, judges tossing cases out of court over procedures, and social media, newspapers, and broadcast news smugly refusing to let any actual discussions take place.

Philip Bump could use this exercise to see if he knows how to verify facts. I suspect he does not. He's what I would call a 'Ben Rhodes Journalist'.

""All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus," Rhodes told the Times in May. "Now they don't. They call us to explain to them what's happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That's a sea change."

Bump may be older than 27, but he's got that character written all over him. He's one of those who said the Hunter Biden laptop was just conspiracy talk as well. Let that sink in. A 'Journalist' from WaPo refusing to even look at the Hunter Biden laptop info.

Achilles said...

Now that Trump's letter is published, it's time to do the point-by-point fact checking.

There wont be any of that.

There will be the usual attacks, lies, and censorship.

After that the DOJ is going to start investigating people and looking for crimes.

But it is too late. Joe Biden has destroyed the democrat party for generations. Democrats are not going to get elected anywhere without wholesale voter fraud.

And Americans are going to be ready this time. Not the Republican party or the media which are in on the fraud. Thousands of Americans with cell phones.

Not even twitter and google can censor everything. The WSJ is just getting ahead of the curve. Funny that there are still at least a couple people with a soul in that publication.

rehajm said...

Good on Ann for the modest critique of Bump instead of the usual deference to the Trump critic climbing the imaginary pedestal of authority...

Now that Trump's letter is published, it's time to do the point-by-point fact checking.

In this Althouse place with its obsession with language, can't we discover a new term to describe the examination of factual information? 'Fact checking' is propagandistic opinion, not an examination of facts- did you know WaPo discloses that the WaPo 'Fact checker' column is op-ed?

Chuck said...

Well let's start with the fact that Trump's letter to the WSJ Editorial Board didn't represent any real work by or on behalf of Trump personally. If one goes to the AUDIT THE VOTE PA website, one sees the extent to which Trump's letter was wholesale copying of the group's talking points. I don't know who "respects" the work of AUDIT THE VOTE PA, but let's stick to the facts. No one who is formally associated with the group is a past of present election official, election law expert, or attorney. The group says that it is the incorporation of "three moms." Moms can have opinions about elections. Moms may have personal knowledge of particular facts about particular elections. "Moms" are not "respected" election experts because they are not experts at all. Although some experts, who are in fact experts, may be mothers. But in that case, their primary credential is not "mom."

rehajm said...

...and the demands for censorship of Trump? It's one more factual data point demonstrating the metamorphosis of legacy media into totalitarian agitprop.

Fuck you all...

David Begley said...

Trump isn’t being very strategic about election integrity unless he is working to fix the problem for future elections.

I read the PA Supreme Court decision on changing the election laws and it was an abortion. Hackery.

I also watched the beginning of the oral argument in the WI case and the female marathon runner is a hack.

We don’t have direct election of judges in NE. The Governor appoints. I can’t imagine any other system.

Chuck said...

The next thing is that while Trump claims, in his own usual reckless way, that all of his laundry list items point to "fraud," in truth none of them amount to any actionable fraud, even if there had been a whiff of truth to them. Trump regularly tosses out baseless shit like, "More votes than voters!", and "Fraud!"; he can't back up any of it, and good luck trying to get Trump to sit down to an interview where he could be cross-examined on all of it in detail.

Fandor said...

How can we ever trust the outcomes of our national elections if we don’t “FIX 2020 FIRST“ ?

tim in vermont said...

by Philip Bump in The Washington Post. From the headline, you might think you're going to get a point-by-point fact check...

You already said Washington Post, so no, I didn't expect any kind of fact check. I expected an assertion that we shouldn't even look into it.

The brother of a PA Supreme Court vote holder, (I won't call him a 'justice') is elected and mobbed up, his brother is a mob figure in PA, and involved in ballot stuffing in Philadelphia. But it's *crazy town* to talk about election fraud in PA! Some of the very judges who ruled on issues on Election Day may have been elected through fraud. The Justice Department won't tell us which of those judges were elected by the guy they busted, almost by accident. They came across the election fraud on a mob investigation. There is no way the FBI would have gone after somebody just on evidence of election fraud alone.


Former U.S. Congressman Michael "Ozzie" Myers was indicted Wednesday for his an involvement in an alleged scheme to rig elections in Philadelphia.

The indictment comes two months after a South Philly judge of elections pleaded guilty to accepting political bribes. Myers allegedly was the Democratic operative waving the money.
. - Philly Voice

He’s important to the country now because he’s currently under indictment for bribing a state elections judge to stuff ballots for Democratic candidates. Among the candidates he was paid to get elected are three as-yet-unnamed judges sitting on the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court. That’s where President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign has to go when local election officials refuse to let campaign monitors oversee ballot integrity, as has been the case these past few days throughout Pennsylvania. - The Federalist

You can read about what I am saying above on the Department of Justice's own website, if you think it's not true because you never read about it in the WaPo or NYT or heard about in on Fox or CNN.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-congressman-charged-ballot-stuffing-bribery-and-obstruction

Yes, let's look under this rock in Philadelphia.

Fandor said...

How can we ever trust the outcomes of our national elections if we don’t “FIX 2020 FIRST“ ?

RMc said...

One reaction (...) is to criticize the Wall Street Journal for publishing the letter without verifying all of the assertions

Unless the assertions made by Democrats, of course.

Chuck said...

So let's start with Trump's first point of contention:

• 71,893 mail-in ballots were returned after Nov. 3, 2020, at 8 p.m., according to Audit the Vote PA. None of these should have been counted according to the U.S. Constitution and the state Legislature, which didn’t approve this change.

So this is an old Trumpist meme; that anything about any of the state election procedures that happened without the exacting say-so of Republican majorities in state legislatures was "illegal," "unconstitutional," and/or "fraud." It's a stupid and baseless claim. Due to the COVID emergency, the Pennsylvania Attorney General filed suit to clarify how long mailed ballots could be received and counted. If there was any clear evidence that the ballots were cast or mailed after election day, they would not be counted. Otherwise, they would be counted. For three days. Per Pennsylvania law, as determined by the state's Supreme Court. Given the number of ballots in question, there is no possible way that they would have been determinative of the state's electoral votes.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

I think you are manifestly correct in this, and it is revealing that the Washington Post thinks otherwise. The "things we should know" make it sound like they are facts, when they are actually "things we want you to believe."

Just like Trump, when you think of it. They do exactly the sme thing here, while expressly condemining it in others.

rhhardin said...

I think Trump really won but there's no gain in whining about it. It's the eternal margin of fraud thing.

Bad voting practices ought to be stopped. Vote in person, mechanical counting or counting by both republican and democrat counters by hand. If there are lots of voters there are also lots of people available for counting, no it's not a speed problem. Manual counting scales up.

rehajm said...

The WSJ opinion section is run by conservative journalists.

The WSJ news section is run by liberal journalists.

The WSJ news section wrote a letter demanding the WSJ fire the WSJ opinion section.

Ergo, WSJ is shit.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Shorter Trump: It was unconstitutional for Pennsylvania courts to thwart my plan to bottle up absentee ballots at the Philadelphia Post Office.

Amadeus 48 said...

"Now that Trump's letter is published, it's time to do the point-by-point fact checking."

Prediction: you will never see that. You will, however, see a number of "Republicans pounce!" articles about the bad effects of continuing the dispute over the 2020 election, including a large number written by Republican politicians who clearly want Trump to go away, but leave his voters with them. You will see some quibbling over the assertions made, with several being awarded three Pinocchios and "mostly false" while actually being technically true.

2020 was a train wreck.

https://www.ericpetersautos.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/the-trainwreck-a-real-train-wreck.jpg



Drago said...

Philip Bump to this very day remains one of the biggest pushers of far left debunked conspiracies related to Hoax Collusion, hoax money laundering, the hoax dossier, etc.

Bump is simply part of the crew that is attempting to establish a permanent communication ban on all opponents of the democraticals by test driving the tactics against Trump.

Chuck said...

• 10,515 mail-in votes from people who do not exist on the Pennsylvania voter rolls at all.

I wish that Trump could be more specific about this. I recall this being a number that Rudy Giuliani had claimed represented "dead people voting." That claim by Giuliani formed part of the basis for his disbarment in New York.

Sebastian said...

"That's not a fact "you need to know," just an opinion about journalistic professionalism. Is there a general rule in journalism"

I appreciate your keeping tabs on the SOBs in the MSM for us, but really, you could save yourself the trouble to point out the obvious evasions, inconsistencies, and special pleading.

Do the run-of-the-mill lefties over there ever make any argument in good faith?

mikee said...

The seriousness of an accusation, regardless of its factual basis, has been used by Leftists to attack and defame and destroy opponents on the Right since at least the Nixon administration. That a serious accusation was made at all, was considered enough to destroy a career, an election, an appointment. That the serious accusation was later itself found to be untrue did not matter at all.

So Trump makes a serious accusation, and suddenly the rules change? I don't think so. Sorry, Leftist chumps, you made the rules, you have to live up to them now.

SteveM said...

I think that the WaPo is afraid of is that the WSJ’s publication of Trump’s letter makes it no longer socially unacceptable for people to harbor doubts about the fairness of the 2020 election and to express those doubts, not unlike changing social acceptability of alternative views on the origin of Covid. Also, WaPo may also be afraid of its losing its ability to dismiss claims that the election was unfair without addressing the merits of specific claims such as presented in Trump’s letter.

Uncle Pavian said...

So,it turned out that Daniel Patrick Moynihan was wrong..

Fandor said...

'Move on' is what EVERYONE on the LEFT shouts. And there are others, who think of themselves as the voice of reason, like Scott Adams, who advise the same thing.If you can't swallow the lie, at the very least, appease those applying the pressure to "forget about it". If it happens again, they say, next time we'll all lock arms together and take those damned DOMINION voting machines and throw them in the bay. (Scott Adams speak).
HELL NO!
Moving on, or appeasing, or waiting till "next time", will never allow us to come to grips with, or solve the theft of, what the Democrats and Republicans perpetrated on United States citizens in the election of November 2020, and then arrogantly certified on January 6, 2021.
We can no more move on from this, appease or sanction, the election outrage anymore than we could have other seminal events in our history. What would have happen, where would we be, if that is the course we had taken after CONCORD, FORT SUMTER or PEARL HARBOR?
The world would have been a darker place. But, as the Bible tells us, "Sin whispers to the wicked" and Satan never sleeps.
VIGILANCE should always be our watch word and action.
Our republic is in grave danger and has been for some time.
Are we running on empty, just barely surviving on life support?
This is why we cannot move forward until we
"FIX 2020 FIRST".
IF we can, mustering the courage to do it, and looking into the mirror of our slothful soul, acknowledge the wrong turn we have allowed ourselves to be lead down, we may have a fighting chance to save our republic a second time.
The question is, do we have the resolve and courage to stand up and fight the wicked who are leading us astray?

Iman said...

Bump has always been a clueless chump. There’s not an honest bone in his body.

Mike of Snoqualmie said...

Joe Biden said “We’re in a situation where we have put together, and you guys did it for our administration…President Obama’s administration before this. We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.”

Who are we to dispute Joe Biden? He said that election fraud was used to elect Barrack Obama and will be used to elect him. The conduct of the November 2020 election certainly confirms his statements:

- Election law and conduct changed by the courts and elections offices without the approval of the legislature.
- Republican observers kicked out of polling places and counting locations
- Observers blocked from observing because of "covid" concerns.
- Trump is ahead of Biden by 100,000s of votes in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Then the counting centers in the biggest cities shutdown for the night and send everyone home, including the observers and the press with instructions to come back at 8:30 the next morning. Then a miracle happens! These centers release new, virgin ballot batches in the early morning that favor Joe Biden by 95%. Batches created without the use of election workers because all of the election workers were sent home! That rivals the virgin birth of Jesus.

After the virgin release of those ballot batches, Joe Biden is now leading in those four states. Yet, the Lie-Stream Media says there was no voter fraud. In fact, they say that election fraud is a mirage of the Republican Party. Of course they say that, since election fraud is one of their specialties. Election fraud exists because it gives a Democrats a big advantage to garner money and power. That's human nature, and human nature can't be denied.

Mike Sylwester said...

Philip Bump in The Washington Post [writes] ... "The Wall Street Journal should not have published it without assessing the claims and demonstrating where they were wrong, misleading or unimportant."

Maybe The Washington Post should report about Democrats' claims that way.

M Jordan said...

After the election I read everything I could on the discrepancies, shady things, statistical forensics, etc. I was convinced of true fraud done in a conspiracy. I still believe that though I’ve forgotten a lot of the details and have no interest in redigging. I don’t care so much that my guy lost as that rigging elections seems the darkest sin in a democracy. Biden is president and he is taking us to the end of this mad progressive belch so in some respects I’m perversely happy. Republicans will win in 2022 and 24 and who knows how far into the future but that doesn’t take away the stain a rigged election has on this nation’s national conscience.

The worst and darkest part of this sin has been the collective effort of institutions inside and outside government to deny and demonize inquiry into this scandal. Even the Supreme Court is complicit. The media is the front lines of defense though and they are still madly fighting to prevent any crack in the armor that might allow light to shine through. Trump’s letter is a crack and they are worried.

Kevin said...

Now that Trump's letter is published, it's time to do the point-by-point fact checking.

Of both sides.

When we "fact-check" one side but not the other we send a very specific message, don't we?

Mike of Snoqualmie said...

Bump is just covering for the Democrat Party. To use an Instapundit phrase, he's a Democrat Operative with a Byline, a DOB. He's not interested in the truth, just the coverup.

Achilles said...

That's not a fact "you need to know," just an opinion about journalistic professionalism. Is there a general rule in journalism — a rule Bump's newspaper follows — that you don't publish accusations before you've independently checked them? If so, I see that rule broken every day. Maybe there's the idea that Trump's challenge to the 2020 election is a special case, because we need to be committed to the legitimacy of the current government and because there's too much discord and a decent newspaper shouldn't be roiling people up on this subject.


Now do Russian Collusion.

Dressing Room Rape.

Impeachment.

Tax Evasion.

Hunter's Laptop.

When is the last time the people who are against transparency and for censorship were the good guys?

You have thousands of years of history.

Let's see what you leftist shitheads can come up with.

Kevin said...

While we're at it, how about fact-checking Garland's testimony and the statements from Senators from yesterday?

Oh bloody hell, let's just start with widely reporting what was said.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Isn't it funny how all the norms and rules apply - except where Trump is concerned. He's not allowed to speak or have any platform whatsoever- even after Hillary and her corrupt lawyers, and liar Maddow and the corrupt FBI did all they could to smear Trump with Russian collusion lies.

Wince said...

The first criticism I read was... by Philip Bump. From the headline, you might think you're going to get a point-by-point fact check, but that's not what this is. Bump's list begins with the assertion... That's not a fact "you need to know," just an opinion about journalistic professionalism.

Terminology matters: did Althouse just do a Fisk Bump, or deliver a Bump Fisk?

RonF said...

"The Wall Street Journal should not have published it without assessing the claims and demonstrating where they were wrong, misleading or unimportant."

Why should the WSJ do "journalism" any differently than the Washington Post does? Or MSNBC or CNN or any of the rest? They constantly print rumors and allegations couched in careful language ("It has been reported that ...." or "Unnamed sources high in [some organization] say ...") generally slanted towards supporting the left and attacking the right.

I'd say that they're just mad because the WSJ did the same thing, but in fact they didn't - Trump himself says these things, he's not leaking it out anonymously.

RonF said...

"Is there a general rule in journalism — a rule Bump's newspaper follows — that you don't publish accusations before you've independently checked them?"

There used to be, back when journalism was actually practiced. Back in the days of the Chicago News Bureau of Chicago (an independent wire service for Chicago newspapers) there was a slogan posted on the wall of their newsroom:

"If your mother says she loves you, check it out."

Remember Bill Bradlee requiring Woodward and Bernstein to get independent verification of the allegations during the Watergate story? Nobody does THAT anymore ....

Chuck said...

• From 2016 to 2020, during my term as president, Republicans out-registered Democrats 21 to 1. This translated to a 659,145-vote lead at 12:38 a.m. on election night, with “Trump” up a full 15 points.

Where is he getting this? What is his point? Even if we assume this garbage to be true, how is it “fraud”?

Here’s a well-written and detailed story on statewide PA voter registration as of November 1, 2020. Nothing about “21-to-1”:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pennlive.com/elections/2020/10/democrats-still-outnumber-republicans-in-pa-but-gop-has-closed-the-gap.html%3foutputType=amp

Mike Sylwester said...

Philip Bump in The Washington Post [wrote] ... that "The Wall Street Journal should not have published it without assessing the claims and demonstrating where they were wrong, misleading or unimportant."

Shortly before the 2020 election, some former US Intelligence officials issued a statement that revelations about Hunter Biden's laptop computer seemed to be Russian disinformation.

How did The Washington Post report about that statement?

Did The Washington Post assess those claims and demonstrate where they were wrong, misleading or unimportant?

Maynard said...

One reaction to Trump's letter is to criticize the Wall Street Journal for publishing the letter without verifying all of the assertions.

What a clever endorsement of censorship.

The fascist Left cannot win the war of ideas, so they have to shut down the opposition.

... as it always was...

rehajm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Big Mike said...

Kessler will give Trump 4 Pinocchios because it wasn’t “39,911 people... were added to voter rolls while under 17 years of age,” it was 39,912.

MikeD said...

Well, as Biden said on the campaign trail, "we choose truth over facts". Inasmuch as a left wing trope is "my truth" one can see where water carrying Bump is coming from.

John henry said...

Waiting anxiously to hear what my favorite llr has to say about this.

Gonna hold off on form an opinion until they llr me what it should be.

LGBTQ!

John Henry

TreeJoe said...

People are deliberately choosing facts to check that make their case, rather than deal with facts that are indisputable and wrong REGARDLESS OF ELECTORAL OUTCOME.

Did Pennsylvania electoral overseers issue unilateral rules and regulations in the days and weeks prior to the election that were in direct contradiction to the elected representatives laws? Yes.

Did they change the rules in ways that violated laws and then certify those electoral results? Yes.

Did the assembly subsequently vet those rule changes and approve them as legitimate for future elections? No.

I could go on....the bottom line is that Pennsylvania's election rules were changed by executive fiat in last minute, behind the scenes moves by political appointees.

You don't need to question the results to know that was wrong. Wrong. CAPITAL W wrong. And that those appointees and their elected political associates should be punished heartily.

Chuck said...

• Hundreds of thousands of votes were unlawfully counted in secret, in defiance of a court order, while Republican poll watchers were thrown out of buildings where voting took place.

Trump and his henchmen have made this claim in a number of contexts, all of them false. In Detroit, at the absentee ballot counting center located within the TCF Center, it was alleged that all the Republican poll watchers were thrown out. That wasn’t true. It was never true. A call had gone out to Republican poll watchers (I know one who got this call), to come to the TCF Center on an emergency basis. But there was already a maxed-out contingent of Republicans inside the main room. Others, arriving later, were denied entry in that basis. Nothing was “counted in secret.” A federal court judge later reviewed the circumstances. As did a Republican-majority state senate oversight committee. They all found nothing wrong with what was done.

In Philadelphia, the basic dispute was whether Republican poll watchers could get within six feet of poll workers during the pandemic vote counting. A lower court said they could but an appellate court reversed.

And the “fraud” there is... ?

Here’s the real story, written by and for people who have more than a handful of brain cells to rub together:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/11/17/pennsylvania-supreme-court-philadelphia-ballots-437082

Real American said...

if Trump thinks relitigating the 2020 election results via a prism of this "rigged election" narrative is a worthwhile strategy, he's going to lose in a landslide.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Trump pretty much sticks to facts and published opinions from auditors, so his letter surpasses most network or newspaper veracity levels easily, specifically when it comes to coverage of the 2020 election, the only one our monoparty Media is declaring free fair and fraudless.

Owen said...

Prof. A: well parsed.

Also: Bump is a hack.

Ira said...

This "fact checking" has gotten out of hand and is based on the 'fact' that the editors of certain newspapers believe that their readers are not smart enough to think for themselves.

wendybar said...

The first criticism I read was "The 14 things you need to know about Trump’s letter in the Wall Street Journal" by Philip Bump in The Washington Post. But the Washington Post didn’t do that, did it? Why not?

Chuck said...

• 39,771 people who registered to vote after the Oct. 19, 2020, deadline, still voted in the 2020 election—simply not allowed.

Notwithstanding the fact that this number couldn’t possibly be determinative, I’d like to know more about it. And of course it couldn’t possibly be Trump, to articulate what it was. Is this a reference to persons who registered late, or whose registrations were disputed, and then cast provisional ballots under HAVA. I’m looking for a detailed, serious answer. So I am not looking to Trump.

MadTownGuy said...

This link should get past the WSJ paywall: The Election for Pennsylvania’s High Court

Chuck said...

Here’s a big pile of garbage — none of it representing an actionable allegation of fraud — that we can lump together for simplicity’s sake:

Highly respected Audit the Vote PA found numerous data integrity problems the Pennsylvania Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors (SURE) system, including:

• 305,874 voters were removed from the rolls after the election on Nov. 3rd.

• 51,792 voters with inactive voter registrations at the end of October 2020 nevertheless voted.

• 57,000 duplicate registrations.

• 55,823 voters who were backfilled into the SURE system.

• 58,261 first-time voters 70 years and older.

• 39,911 people who were added to voter rolls while under 17 years of age.

• 17,000 mail-in ballots sent to addresses outside of Pennsylvania.
...

Registration issues. Not one claim of a fraudulent vote cast. Did any of the “double” registrants vote twice? Did any under-age person vote? Philly and Pittsburgh are large metroplexes near state lines. And PA is a big state with a large electorate. Not surprising at all, that absentee ballots for PA residents who were military, out of state students, traveling for work assignments, etc, etc, would need their absentee ballots sent to an out of state mailing address. Again, these aren’t even allegations of fraud, much less evidence of fraud, or proof of fraud, or proof of a stolen election.

Chuck said...

• Another analysis of Montgomery County, Pa., found 98% of the eligible voting population in the county was already registered to vote—not possible.

• A canvass of Montgomery County has identified 78,000 phantom voters, with roughly 30% of respondents unaware that there are people registered and voting from their address.

Whose “analysis”?

Whose “canvass”?

Chuck said...

• 25,000 ballots were requested from nursing homes at the exact same time.

LMFAO. Trump hyperlinks to a Washington Examiner story which included Sen. Lindsey Graham’s breathless reveal that a PA postal worker alleged that he knew of a plan to backdate postmarks on election materials. The guy signed an affidavit to that effect. And then later confessed that it was all a hoax.

Chuck said...

• Numerous reports and sworn affidavits attested to poll watcher intimidation and harassment, many by brute force.

Isn’t this blog the place where y’all come to say that there isn’t really any intimidation of school boards? There have now been at least two Congressional hearings on the threats and intimidation experienced by poll workers and election officials at the hands of the Trump mob. Not even counting January 6.

Chuck said...

• Attorney General Bill Barr ordered U.S. Attorney Bill McSwain to stand down and not investigate election irregularities.

Aha! Inspector Trump has solved it! It was US Attorney General Bill Barr who stole the election!

Chuck said...

• Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook poured over $17 million to interfere in the Pennsylvania election, including $5.5 million on “ballot processing equipment” in Philadelphia and $552,000 for drop boxes where the voting pattern was not possible.


This is just a profoundly disappointing allegation as far as I am concerned, because it says nothing about George Soros, who we all know was in on this crime. Steve Apple, Mike Apple, and Mark Apple were also involved, many people say. Many, many people say that. Bill Gates, too. Hope his divorce works out for him hahaha.

Those guys never did anything about Hillary’s server, which they helped hide. Along with Hunter Biden’s laptop.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

"Now that Trump's letter is published, it's time to do the point-by-point fact checking."

You might have noticed that the one thing Democrats do NOT want to do about the 2020 elections is actually look at what happened.

See all their screaming and fighting of the AZ audit.

In 2016, when Democrats accused Trump of stealing the election, we Republicans said "have fun! Audit whatever you want!" because we knew their claims were BS.

It's only when you thing your side did steal the election that you feel the need to suppress anyone who makes that claim, and fight any effort to actually look into what happened

Doug Brockman said...

The idea that all editorials should be accompanied by explanatory language from the publisher seems to promote the idea that we are all children susceptible to propaganda.

Tim said...

I agree that now that the letter is published, it is time for a fact check. But since there exists exactly zero trustworthy fact checkers, it will never happen. Instead, we will get 1. It is a lie that 39,900 17 year olds were registered. 3 weeks later, it will be clarified that only 39,200 17 year olds were registered. That kind of fact check is all that will be allowed. I do not think the Democrats understand that they are playing with fire.

Narayanan said...

how many Americans know why and how audit and recount are different?

many commenters on WSJ believe they are same!!

rehajm said...

But it is too late. Joe Biden has destroyed the democrat party for generations. Democrats are not going to get elected anywhere without wholesale voter fraud.

Fortunately for them...

Vance said...

Heh. Totally not surprised to see Chuck spazzing out. Chuck's got less credibility than a spokesman for Joseph Goebbels--Goebbels was more honest than Chuck ever has been.

I mean, even the Nazis allowed that the British and Americans were worthy enemies and had points. Chuck cannot criticize a Democrat or believe a Republican (real Republican, not a RINO like Bill Kristol) no matter what.

If Jesus Himself came down and on National TV spent 3 hours explaining how Biden stole the election, Chuck would claim it was all a lie and who was Jesus to question the almighty Democrat party?

Narayanan said...

They came across the election fraud on a mob investigation. There is no way the FBI would have gone after somebody just on evidence of election fraud alone.
--------------
mob investigation >>> neat way of like doing mob-consultation out in the open

Chuck said...

The Journal seems to have done something very slippery, per a column I just read at Poynter.

If the Trump letter had been an op-ed, there would have been fact-checking and editing. There clearly was none. (Look for the Journal editors to restate that, very emphatically, very soon.)

The Journal ran it as a letter to the editor. But there is a formal or informal rule that letters are limited to 200 words. Trump’s missive was 600 words. And I d know that the Journal does some editing of letters that they publish, particularly for length. They have published letters from me, and they did just that.

The Journal has some very pointed explaining to do. I hope that the WSJ news department covers this story, and all inaccuracies in the Trump letter, as they should. Current and former news division reporters are expressing their objections to the Editorial Board’s decision to use the OpinionJournal pages for this stunt.

MadTownGuy said...

Chuck said...
"Well let's start...[excess verbiage deleted] Although some experts, who are in fact experts, may be mothers. But in that case, their primary credential is not "mom."

Chuck invents the 'ad mominem' logical fallacy.

Darkisland said...

In the past couple of days I have seen a couple of articles/blogposts/podcasts talking about Kamala leaving the vice-presidency.

Scott Adams discussed it yesterday in his podcast for one.

So, just a low level speculative rumor for the moment. But that is how these things always start. In a week or two people in the M5M will be discussing it in prime time. "When will she leave?" "Will it be to spend more time with her family?" (Unlikely, as she has none) "Who will replace her?"

It will increase gradually over a few weeks until POOF! we wake up one morning and she is gone like she never even existed.

Then endless speculation of who will replace her with endless talk of possibilities. But that will only last a day or so because one morning President* Biden will announce our current president emeritus is his nominee.

Massive meltdowns and posturing will dominate the news all day. Then, about 2AM that night House and Senate will vote to confirm by 1-2 vote margins.

And, by inauguration day 2022, Biden resigns and our president emeritus becomes president again. Maybe sooner. Maybe by December 31.

Just to be clear, I am speaking of President Donald J Trump.

Chuck and I have a $50,000 bet on this happening. Not necessarily on the details of how, but on the end result of President Trump being sworn in Jan 22 or sooner.

Unless you want to withdraw, Chuck?

John Henry

Elliott A said...

Per the constitution, state legislatures, (and per the SCOTUS, the people by referendum) have the sole power to make election rules. In Pennsylvania, both the state supreme court and the executive changed them unconstitutionally. No one knows how many ballots were cast illegally and were counted as legal votes. Regardless of whether the outcome was affected or not, the election was a failed election (per the 1887 Electoral count act). An election whose rules are changed by unqualified individuals from one side can well fit the definition of a fraud,

Narayanan said...

@Chuck : since you are attempting some sort of inventory of naughty and nice : how would you clarify what is audit and what is recount?

Bruce Hayden said...

“So this is an old Trumpist meme; that anything about any of the state election procedures that happened without the exacting say-so of Republican majorities in state legislatures was "illegal," "unconstitutional," and/or "fraud." It's a stupid and baseless claim. Due to the COVID emergency, the Pennsylvania Attorney General filed suit to clarify how long mailed ballots could be received and counted. If there was any clear evidence that the ballots were cast or mailed after election day, they would not be counted. Otherwise, they would be counted. For three days. Per Pennsylvania law, as determined by the state's Supreme Court. Given the number of ballots in question, there is no possible way that they would have been determinative of the state's electoral votes”

You forgot to show the statutory justification for waiving PA statutes by executive fiat. According to the US Constitution, the state legislatures have plenary power to set out rules for national elections. Not governors. Not Attorney Generals. Exclusively the legislatures. And that means the power to waive those rules for any reason, real or imagined (and the COVID-19 emergency was imagined - regular voting worked just fine (I did it in MT)with social distancing and sanitizing surfaces and pens between uses far safer than grocery shopping).

For the PA Executive branch (which includes their AG) to waive election law provisions, the AG needed specific statutory authority to do so, because he could not have it otherwise. The power grant by the US Constitution is expressly to the state legislatures, and they can delegate some of their power to their Executive Branch. The legal question is whether they did. Did the legislature expressly delegate sufficient power and authority to their AG allowing him to waive the election law provisions that they enacted through their plenary power to control election laws?

Drago said...

Pro-marxist pro-CRT Biden voter LLR Chuck ince again, very wisely, avoids dealing with the actual substance of an assertion.

This newer "avoidance" strategy by our FakeCon LLR Chuck is due to his getting obliterated by the facts when he doubled and tripled down on his last 30 or so democratical narratives over the last several months, whether the topic is Merrick Garlands "domestic terrorist" lies re: school boards, Biden's Earpiece lies about Afghanistan and the economy, Chuck's beloved Psaki lies, etc.

Its this ability to ever so slightly alter his #StrongDemocraticalDefender tactics that has allowed Chuck to regain his lead as More Capable Lefty Troll over the hopelessly hapless gadfly.

Congrats on retaking the lead Chuck!

Drago said...

You will note the extraordinary anger anger displayed by LLR Chuck when anyone challenges the ethics of Chuck's beloved democraticals.

Who can forget the outrage expressed by Chuck a few years back when the corruption by democraticals in Detroit elections was raised. You've never seen an angrier person than LLR Chuck who loudly and proudly defended the pristine and above reproach ethics of Detroit democraticals. Chuck also used that occassion to attack republican election officials!

Its strange isn't it? Not even democraticals will attest with such Chuck-like vehemence the "innocence" of democratical election officials.

Interesting.

Is this the correct moment to also mention LLR Chuck still claiming Trump will be indicted any day now?

Drago said...

Tim: "I do not think the Democrats understand that they are playing with fire"

I do not think the Democrats/LLR's (but I repeat myself) understand that they are playing with fire.

FIFY

Drago said...

Greg: "In 2016, when Democrats accused Trump of stealing the election, we Republicans said "have fun! Audit whatever you want!" because we knew their claims were BS."

Its fair to note that online fake republicans, including 1 at Althouse, went All In with the Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election narrative.

And to my knowledge, our fake online republican has never retracted that charge.

Kevin said...

• 10,515 mail-in votes from people who do not exist on the Pennsylvania voter rolls at all.

I wish that Trump could be more specific about this.


How many decimal places would you like?

Drago said...

And now we see Liz Cheney complete her "transition" to Full On Leftist/LLR-lefty by fighting to have Tucker Carlson removed from his show.

Silencing and censoring non-leftists/LLR-leftists to appease the far left.....in order to "conserve conservatism". LOL

Looks like Liz has fully accepted her inevitable electoral defeat next year and has moved into Permanent MSNBC-Contributor Interview Mode.

The next Nicole Wallace/Steve Schmidt type, all strong far left democraticals now....just like our resident "LLR"...

Paul said...

"Now that Trump's letter is published, it's time to do the point-by-point fact checking."

And if every one of Trumps assertions, point-by-point, are correct.. then what?

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

7:38 Tim in Vermont.

What you posted is well worth reading.

TheOne Who Is Not Obeyed said...

I am impressed at Chuck's ability to cut and paste Dem talking points so quickly. Of course, none of them actually refute Trump's points, but that shouldn't bother Chuck. After all, he still believes in the Russia Collusion hoax, believes that Hunter's laptop is Russian disinformation, still believes Christine Blasey Ford's accusations against Kavanaugh, etc etc.

Chuck probably would love to invite Pelosi up to his apartment for a drink.

Jim at said...

Trump was up 700k in Pennsylvania before they - along with five other states - suddenly stopped counting.

Of course there's nothing suspicious about how it all turned out three hours later.

Drago said...

Paul: "And if every one of Trumps assertions, point-by-point, are correct.. then what?"

Then it will be time to gin up another hoax dossier or 2, or 35.

Whatever it takes.

And with "parents are domestic terrorists" Garland running a fully weaponized Stasi-DOJ, how hard will it be to launch another Alfa Bank-like hoax against Trump?

LLR Chuck already "Pre-Believes" the next 17 democratical hoaxes.

Darkisland said...

Wow! 17% of all comments by Chuck.

Our president emeritus must really be scaring the crap out of him.

All I want for Christmas is President Trump in the White House. If Chuck's panic is any indication, I feel even more confident than ever that I'm gonna get my wish.

Trump 21!

John "LGBTQBNY" Henry

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Chuck said...
So this is an old Trumpist meme; that anything about any of the state election procedures that happened without the exacting say-so of Republican majorities in state legislatures was "illegal," "unconstitutional," and/or "fraud."

Why yes, Chuck, if the law does not allow you to vote that way, then "counting" that "vote" anyway is illegal (you know, violating teh law) and fraudulent.

Did you miss out on "I'm just a Bill" as a kid? You know, laws get passed by the Legislature, and then signed by the chief executive (or the executive vetos, and the Legislature overrides it).

There's no "except when Democrat executives and judges decide they don't care what the law says" execution.

So, thank you for confirming that Trump is right about this.

From the US Constitution:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Tell us, how is it that someone who claims to be so knowledgable about elections and election law missed out on that?

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Chuck said...
In Philadelphia, the basic dispute was whether Republican poll watchers could get within six feet of poll workers during the pandemic vote counting. A lower court said they could but an appellate court reversed.

And the “fraud” there is... ?


The fraud there is that any time you can't monitor what democrat "vote counters" are doing, they're committing fraud and stealing the election.

Because no honest vote counter tries to act in secret.

eLocke said...

@Tim in Vermont

You said, "There is no way the FBI would have gone after somebody just on evidence of election fraud alone."

Well, there is Dinesh D'Souza.

Howard said...

If you people really believed that the election was stolen why haven't you started a revolution?

You have abandoned your brothers from the January 6th movement calling them tourists and dupes of either the FBI or antifa.

Is it no wonder you continue to worship a con man who regurgitates the mad ravings of the lowest common denominator among you.

Joe Smith said...

It's an opinion piece...not on the news pages.

Chuck said...

The Friday WSJ versus the Thursday WSJ:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-facts-on-donald-trumps-fraud-letter-2020-election-11635449578

And the unquestioned loser is...

Donald Trump. They publish the Trump letter, and within 24 hours, deconstruct that letter so thoroughly that they are left with the impression that Trump’s “monomania” calls into question his fitness for office.

Vance said...

Odd, how Chuck is all over this thread, but completely absent on the thread where Democrat Huma Abedin is accusing a Democrat senator of assaulting her.

Why isn't that worthy for Chuck to comment on? Isn't he going to defend the honor of the Democrat Senator? I mean, even most of the conservatives here are defending the Senator to some degree.

But not Chuck--he is so fixated on "Trump is the worst person in the history of the world, worse than Satan!" that he has lost his mind.

Does anyone doubt that if Chuck ran into Trump, and Chuck had a gun, that even if Trump had the cure for cancer, lung disease, AIDS, and Covid, plus the solution to world hunger and war, but he had to write it all down, thus depriving Chuck of the honor of killing Trump.... Chuck would pull the trigger and make sure that we all continue to suffer, because Chuck is that deranged?

Drago said...

Howard: "Is it no wonder you continue to worship a con man who regurgitates the mad ravings of the lowest common denominator among you."

Interesting observation: Howard spent 6 months calling antifa the most heroic and courageous in recent history and telling us the antifa types were the literal equivalent to the men that stormed Normandy....and Howard kept that until the very moment his democratical betters told him the narrative had changed, for ibvioys political reasons, and Howard this turned on a dime and voila! Antifa never existed. At all.

Howard, and his lefty pal LLR Chuck, ought to address that someday.

Drago said...

Vance: "But not Chuck--he is so fixated on "Trump is the worst person in the history of the world, worse than Satan!" that he has lost his mind."

To be fair, LLR Chuck attacks anyone who does not support the far left/democratical agenda. But yes, he is fixated on Trump.

Amadeus 48 said...

I am beginning to suspect that Chuck in fact is not a life-long Republican.

Well, I never...!!!

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

You forgot to show the statutory justification for waiving PA statutes...

No he did not "forget" at all. His main thesis is that breaking the rules, laws, spirit of laws, statutes and normal procedures is necessary to preserve the Deep State against any Trump threat to the their cheese. Graft, as the Biden family illustrates, is the main game of progressives, with actually running the government far down on their list of priorities. Trump's insistence on order and rule of law annoys his type, and stirs up deeper anger than against Al Queda or ISIS or even the lying spying red chinese. It's a fact.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Howard said...
If you people really believed that the election was stolen why haven't you started a revolution?

Wait until the 2022 election.

If truck bombs end up outside of every single Democrat "vote counting" stronghold in "Purple" States, don't say you weren't warned

You have abandoned your brothers from the January 6th movement calling them tourists and dupes of either the FBI or antifa.

You are such a fucking moron.

They were tourists and dupes.

I real insurrection would have involved people with guns, and at least a couple hundred dead Democrat members of Congress.

Is it no wonder you continue to worship a con man who regurgitates the mad ravings of the lowest common denominator among you.

No, Howard, you're the idiot worshipping kind.

We're the kind who can tell the difference between a competent President who makes America better off for average Americans, and an incompetent sleaze bag who's administration only makes things better of for non-American criminals and rich Americans.

It must suck to be so disgusting a human being that you side with the sleaze bag.

Are you enjoying your Bidenflation?

Chuck said...

Lol.

Now that the Journal Editorial Board has weighed in with a headline-making follow up to the Trump letter, let’s see how the blog responds. Of course the blog hostess can blog whatever topics interest her. But she specifically asked for the fact-checking to begin. She was taunting the Journal’s critics (critics of the decision to publish Trump) in general.

And even as she was publishing her blog post, the Journal Editorial Board was crafting its eye-opening follow-up. Trump’s 2020 election “monomania” calls into question his fitness for office.

Trump’s letter to the editor, as an “own-goal.”

Mixing our sports metaphors, this ball is right back in Althouse’s court.