Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Election fraud

Leigha Offline
(Dec 2, 2020 01:09 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:I'm talking more on local levels, individual ballot handlers, and such.

I think mistakes have been made here and there, and dead people on registers, but I wouldn't call that fraud. It's not like anyone planned it. And certainly not enough errors to effect the results of the election.
That's the key, ''not enough errors'' to change the outcome of the election. Supposedly, Trump's legal team is claiming that there are quite a few witnesses who haven't been interviewed, yet. But, that may only amount to ''hearsay,'' if there is no other tangible proof. 

Quote:"WASHINGTON — Attorney General William Barr said Tuesday that there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election, defying President Donald Trump's ongoing efforts to reverse the results.

Quote:"To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election," Barr said in an interview with The Associated Press."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-h...p-n1249581

Barr and Trump usually see eye to eye on many things, unless that was just a ruse on Barr's part. I wonder what fate awaits Barr now that he has gone against Trump but at this point, what is Trump's end game, here? Holding out for ''faithless electors?''
Reply
Syne Offline
While this is the headline from non-legacy media sources, this was buried in the 12th paragraph here:

Raffensperger said the secretary of state's office reviews "credible claims" of illegal voting and election law violations. He said it currently has 250 open cases from the 2020 election. That includes a complaint from a Republican election commissioner in Gwinnett County who alleged absentee ballots outnumbered absentee envelopes and claims about "double voters" and votes from dead people.

As Georgia simultaneously prepares for two closely watched Jan. 5 Senate runoff elections, Raffensperger on Monday also announced investigations into four progressive third-party groups allegedly seeking to register out-of-state voters illegally in Georgia.
...
Raffensperger accused the group America Votes of sending absentee ballot applications to people in addresses they haven't lived at since 1994; Vote Forward of trying to register a dead Alabama voter in Georgia; and the New Georgia Project of sending voter registration applications to residents in New York City. He said a fourth group has been telling college students in Georgia they can change their residency to vote in Georgia.

"Let me very clear again," Raffensperger said. "Voting in Georgia when you are not a resident of Georgia is a felony. And encouraging college kids to commit felonies with no regard for what it might mean for them is despicable. These third-party groups have a responsibility to not encourage illegal voting. If they do so, they will be held responsible."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...464658002/


From Democrats in 2018:

Senators ask vote machine vendors about Russian access to source code
Two Democratic senators on Wednesday asked major vendors of U.S. voting equipment whether they have allowed Russian entities to scrutinize their software, saying the practice could allow Moscow to hack into American elections infrastructure.

The letter from Senators Amy Klobuchar and Jeanne Shaheen followed a series of Reuters reports saying that several major global technology providers have allowed Russian authorities to hunt for vulnerabilities in software deeply embedded across the U.S. government.

The senators requested that the three largest election equipment vendors - Election Systems & Software, Dominion Voting Systems and Hart Intercivic - answer whether they have shared source code, or inner workings, or other sensitive data about their technology with any Russian entity.
...
“According to voting machine testing and certification from the Election Assistance Commission, most voting machines contain software from firms which were alleged to have shared their source code with Russian entities,” the senators wrote. “We are deeply concerned that such reviews may have presented an opportunity for Russian intelligence agents looking to attack or hack the United States’ elections infrastructure.”

U.S. voters in November will go to the polls in midterm elections, which American intelligence officials have warned could be targeted by Russia or others seeking to disrupt the process.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-e...SKCN1GJ2S5


Why did these concerns just evaporate?

From the NYT in 2018:

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/w8eujrTyRRE

The professor featured in the Times' video, J. Alex Halderman, says that the Dominion voting machines are "vulnerable to sabotage and even to cyberattacks that could change votes."


Why is the NYT no longer concerned or covering this issue?

From Politico in 2016:

How to Hack an Election in 7 Minutes
With Russia already meddling in 2016, a ragtag group of obsessive tech experts is warning that stealing the ultimate prize—victory on Nov. 8—would be child’s play.
...
One of the companies, Sequoia, later acquired by Dominion, once threatened Princeton’s Felten and Appel with legal action if they attempted to examine one of their models.


Why is Politico no longer concerned about Dominion?

Hillary even thought the voting machines could be hacked:

Clinton’s rhetoric would lead you to believe that Putin wanted Trump to win, and his actions during the election helped ensure that outcome. Claims that Russian government hacked Democratic politicians, had undue influence over the Trump campaign and even that it compromised voting machines all contributed to this narrative.
...
Some computer scientists flagged anomalies in the results of several counties that used electronic voting in three swing states — Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan — prompting calls for recounts.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2016/...-election/


So Democrats called for recounts over anomalies in electronic voting? But any such recounts or lawsuits are wholly unwarranted now?

Hypocrites and liars are easily presumed to be cheaters.

Even CNN:

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/bpMfM9qa570
Reply
Zinjanthropos Offline
Not wanting to piss anybody off and all this talk of fraud makes me think of how fair the SC is if there's more of one party represented than the other. Do they have to make decisions based on their party affiliation? Is there a way a SC judge can declare a conflict of interest because of the possibility they'll be alleged to be seen as playing political favourites? Do they care or is it accepted practice? This seems like a flaw to me, that a judge's political affiliation is known, or is that what Americans have to put their trust in....the morality, honesty and impartiality of a judge?
Reply
Syne Offline
In case anyone has any doubt that state legislatures can assign whoever they like as electors:

Today few people would consider the Electoral College to be a “deliberative” body as it was once imagined because the Electors are appointed mechanistically to winners according to vote totals in the states.
...
Still, the Electors do possess the legal prerogative to vote as they wish, and under extraordinary circumstances they might exercise that prerogative to change the expected outcome dictated by popular election returns.

The colloquially-named Electoral College arises from Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3, which state that:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector."
...
In the first presidential election, five state legislatures—in Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, New Jersey, and South Carolina—themselves simply designated presidential Electors without having any popular election at all.
...
All of these variations are allowable under the constitutional design. As the Supreme Court wrote in McPherson v. Blacker (1892), which rejected a constitutional challenge to a Michigan law providing for selection of Electors by a district system, “the appointment and mode of appointment of Electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States.” We have no uniform national system for appointing Electors, which means the legislatures do not have to consult the public at all. When members of the Florida legislature in 2000 threatened to abandon the results of the statewide popular contest and appoint Electors for a particular candidate, the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore (2000) appeared to endorse their power to do so by denying that citizens have a constitutional right to vote in presidential elections. As the majority put it, “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for Electors for the President of the United States. . .”  When it comes to presidential elections, the voters are at the mercy of the state legislatures.
https://constitutioncenter.org/interacti...lauses/350


And guess who controls the majority of these swing state legislatures? That's right, Republicans.
So at the end of the day, the lawsuits and vote certifications don't matter at all.

And while some states have laws that penalize and/or void faithless elector votes, GA, PA, and WI count faithless votes without any penalty, and those three alone would be enough to give the election to Trump.
   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

(Dec 2, 2020 06:52 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: Not wanting to piss anybody off and all this talk of fraud makes me think of how fair the SC is if there's more of one party represented than the other. Do they have to make decisions based on their party affiliation? Is there a way a SC judge can declare a conflict of interest because of the possibility they'll be alleged to be seen as playing political favourites? Do they care or is it accepted practice? This seems like a flaw to me, that a judge's political affiliation is known, or is that what Americans have to put their trust in....the morality, honesty and impartiality of a judge?

While conservative judges don't tend to play politics with the judiciary, Democrat ones do all the time.

‘The judge miraculously “found” enough ballots that he felt were okay …’Democrats face voter fraud allegations after ballot review by Dem judge erased Republican lead

Conservative judges aren't activists, so there's no reason to think they would let their personal feelings alter their rulings. Granted, activist leftists on the court will always project their own partisan motives on the conservative justices. And because conservative justices aren't biased, they are unlikely to rule Trump has won, although they could invalidate some of the more egregious election fraud (but not likely enough to change the outcome).
Reply
Zinjanthropos Offline
What is the likelihood of a Democrat with an electoral vote not wanting Kamala Harris as POTUS some day, casting their vote for Trump? Just trying to think of what might make an electoral college voter side with Trump. Biden's awkwardness perhaps a risk to the party?
Reply
Syne Offline
(Dec 2, 2020 07:28 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: What is the likelihood of a Democrat with an electoral vote not wanting Kamala Harris as POTUS some day, casting their vote for Trump? Just trying to think of what might make an electoral college voter side with Trump. Biden's awkwardness perhaps a risk to the party?

That's not how it would work. Instead of hoping that an elector pledged to Biden would by some miracle vote for Trump, the state legislatures would simply appoint Trump-supporting electors. So in a sense, they wouldn't even be "faithless", as they would be specifically chosen to vote Trump.

Now, that does leave the possibility that a Trump-supporting elector is faithless and votes for Biden.
Reply
Syne Offline
https://epochtimes.today/powell-dominion...ing-order/
https://usareally.com/8498-fulton-county...as-removed

So a Georgia judge issued a restraining order to keep election officials from deleting election results from Dominion voting machines, then a few hours later rescinded it supposedly because the county election officials in possession of the machines were not named defendants in the suit, then a few hours latter reinstated the restraining order, having allowed the plaintiff to add county officials to the suit.

But it looks like the first restraining order only alerted the election officials, and while it was rescinded, an election server coincidentally crashed, and Dominion tech came out, and the server was removed.
Reply
Syne Offline
(Dec 2, 2020 01:09 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:I'm talking more on local levels, individual ballot handlers, and such.

I think mistakes have been made here and there, and dead people on registers, but I wouldn't call that fraud. It's not like anyone planned it. And certainly not enough errors to effect the results of the election.

"WASHINGTON — Attorney General William Barr said Tuesday that there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election, defying President Donald Trump's ongoing efforts to reverse the results.

"To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election," Barr said in an interview with The Associated Press."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-h...p-n1249581

But the DOJ stressed that it had not stopped investigating and if it receives credible allegations of fraud it will continue to pursue these types of cases.

“Some media outlets have incorrectly reported that the Department has concluded its investigation of election fraud and announced an affirmative finding of no fraud in the election. That is not what the Associated Press reported nor what the Attorney General stated," a DOJ spokesperson said. "The Department will continue to receive and vigorously pursue all specific and credible allegations of fraud as expeditiously as possible.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-h...p-n1249581

Reply
Magical Realist Offline
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch...-like-vice

"Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said Wednesday that it appears President-elect Joe Biden will win the state after a second recount of ballots cast.

“It looks like Vice President Biden will be carrying Georgia, and he is our president-elect,” Raffensperger said while announcing that the second Georgia recount requested by President Trump’s campaign has not resulted in any “substantial changes.”

“We have seen no substantial changes to the results from any county so far, and that’s what we expected,” he said at a press briefing.


“As many of us have said, we wish that our guy would have won the election,” he said. “But it doesn’t look like our guy has won the election."
Reply
Syne Offline
Recounting fraudulent ballots does nothing.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Article Russia's shift to online voting: ‘unlimited potential for fraud’ C C 0 70 Apr 9, 2023 11:06 PM
Last Post: C C
  Arizona "audit" of 2020 election finds no evidence of fraud Magical Realist 0 96 Sep 24, 2021 09:04 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  ‘Lockdown is a class war by proxy’ + Fish fraud is rampant C C 1 90 Jul 27, 2021 11:33 AM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos
  Republicans' bizarre Arizona election audit Magical Realist 1 189 May 7, 2021 01:23 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Postal worker recants claim of ballot fraud Leigha 17 530 Nov 13, 2020 06:17 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Trump's lies about the election Magical Realist 14 528 Nov 8, 2020 02:07 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Biden admits voter fraud Syne 2 194 Oct 27, 2020 05:45 AM
Last Post: Syne



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)