Latest on Maricopa audit and Cyber Ninjas

[willdup]

@Zonadog, given your experience, I’m very curious to hear your thoughts on the content of the redacted text messages between Stefanie Lambert and Doug Logan that were just made public. I guess we know why the final report took so long to be released.

Of course the Trump supporters who funded much of the audit were demanding proof of fraud. Any reasonable person could have told you what was happening behind the scenes. Now we have the text messages to prove it.

Indicted Michigan lawyer pushed false claims of fraud for Arizona 'audit' report, texts reveal

A conspiratorial Michigan lawyer wanted to include false fraud claims in the report on Maricopa County's election "audit," newly uncovered texts show.

www.azcentral.com

 

[9836dawg]

@Zonadog, given your experience, I’m very curious to hear your thoughts on the content of the redacted text messages between Stefanie Lambert and Doug Logan that were just made public. I guess we know why the final report took so long to be released.

Of course the Trump supporters who funded much of the audit were demanding proof of fraud. Any reasonable person could have told you what was happening behind the scenes. Now we have the text messages to prove it.

Indicted Michigan lawyer pushed false claims of fraud for Arizona 'audit' report, texts reveal

A conspiratorial Michigan lawyer wanted to include false fraud claims in the report on Maricopa County's election "audit," newly uncovered texts show.

www.azcentral.com

The really ironic thing about all of this rigged election nonsense is the only fraud that has been proven has been committed by the very people trying to prove something that never happened. Think about that.

 

[Zonadog]

@Zonadog, given your experience, I’m very curious to hear your thoughts on the content of the redacted text messages between Stefanie Lambert and Doug Logan that were just made public. I guess we know why the final report took so long to be released.

Of course the Trump supporters who funded much of the audit were demanding proof of fraud. Any reasonable person could have told you what was happening behind the scenes. Now we have the text messages to prove it.

Indicted Michigan lawyer pushed false claims of fraud for Arizona 'audit' report, texts reveal

A conspiratorial Michigan lawyer wanted to include false fraud claims in the report on Maricopa County's election "audit," newly uncovered texts show.

www.azcentral.com

Reading through the editorial article it says that Doug Logan repeatedly refused outside pressure to compromise the audit results.

On my way out and can't respond to this fully, just yet. Will get back to it in a couple of days.

 

[KidneyStoned]

Reading through the editorial article it says that Doug Logan repeatedly refused outside pressure to compromise the audit results.

On my way out and can't respond to this fully, just yet. Will get back to it in a couple of days.

I will respond for you. In the face of irrefutable evidence that the entire thing was bought and paid for by election deniers, you will say that it was just a neutral, clinical audit.

The truth is that from the start it was intended to generate a particular result and everyone who participated was there in service of that goal. Ultimately it became clear that the clowns behind it were not going to get any plausible results, so they quit paying for it:

It was a charade. A stain on our Democracy.

 

[zingerdawg]

I will respond for you. In the face of irrefutable evidence that the entire thing was bought and paid for by election deniers, you will say that it was just a neutral, clinical audit.

The truth is that from the start it was intended to generate a particular result and everyone who participated was there in service of that goal. Ultimately it became clear that the clowns behind it were not going to get any plausible results, so they quit paying for it:

It was a charade. A stain on our Democracy.

I don’t disagree with a lot of this. But all of this bs lacks common sense. Why is it a stain on our democracy. Biden declared victory before midnight for one reason only. He wasn’t going to concede. He was going to contest the result. Disagree? Go listen to any Hillary Clinton interview for four years leading up to the 2020 election.

I don’t think anything was tampered with. I think the change in rules were bent. One side was overconfident and got bitten in the ass by this. Then lost their minds afterward.

Aren’t we supposed to contest weird happenings in elections. Why wasn’t it investigated further? No one wanted to touch it. Not the Supreme Court. Nobody.

There were over ten firsts that happened in that election number wise. We all know why they happened. For god sakes. Potato brain got more votes than Obama did. More than any president ever. Which wouldn’t be weird if trump didn’t get a bunch of votes too. Also the margin and amount of votes was staggeringly different.

Why was everyone so dead set against investigating? What worked in the election and what didn’t? How did the numbers explode so much? It isn’t like Biden and trump were super candidates. Trump has been indicted 11 billion times, and Biden is a cluster f of epic proportions. Challenging possibly worst president ever honors. If we have another pandemic, will it throw our election system into another briar patch? Pretty easy to know how fraud could have been committed in the last election. It is impossible to prove. I don’t think that is a good thing. I get the intense hate people have out there for trump. But this is bigger than him imo.

 

[KidneyStoned]

I don’t disagree with a lot of this. But all of this bs lacks common sense. Why is it a stain on our democracy. Biden declared victory before midnight for one reason only. He wasn’t going to concede. He was going to contest the result. Disagree? Go listen to any Hillary Clinton interview for four years leading up to the 2020 election.

I don’t think anything was tampered with. I think the change in rules were bent. One side was overconfident and got bitten in the ass by this. Then lost their minds afterward.

Aren’t we supposed to contest weird happenings in elections. Why wasn’t it investigated further? No one wanted to touch it. Not the Supreme Court. Nobody.

There were over ten firsts that happened in that election number wise. We all know why they happened. For god sakes. Potato brain got more votes than Obama did. More than any president ever. Which wouldn’t be weird if trump didn’t get a bunch of votes too. Also the margin and amount of votes was staggering different.

Why was everyone so dead set against investigating? What worked in the election and what didn’t? How did the numbers explode so much? It isn’t like Biden and trump were super candidates. Trump has been indicted 11 billion times, and Biden is a cluster f of epic proportions. Challenging possibly worst president ever honors. If we have another pandemic, will it throw our election system into another briar patch? Pretty easy to know how fraud could have been committed in the last election. It is impossible to prove. I don’t think that is a good thing. I get the intense hate people have out there for trump. But this is bigger than him imo.

Legitimate examinations conducted by authentication organizations are a welcome part of the process. Georgia did a hand recount conducted by qualified persons under the supervision of the Secretary of State. That’s just fine.

My problem is with “Audits” conducted by newly formed, totally unqualified, totally partisan organizations bought and paid for by a particular side. Those are garbage. They are intended to get a result, and/or undermine confidence in the election process.

 

[zingerdawg]

Legitimate examinations conducted by authentication organizations are a welcome part of the process. Georgia did a hand recount conducted by qualified persons under the supervision of the Secretary of State. That’s just fine.

My problem is with “Audits” conducted by newly formed, totally unqualified, totally partisan organizations bought and paid for by a particular side. Those are garbage. They are intended to get a result, and/or undermine confidence in the election process.

Audits are fine. And I 100 percent agree. But the elephant in the room is ballots that can’t be proven to be legit. Voting numbers were insanely different. Why? Not whether the election was stolen. What caused these major changes? Should we keep them? If not, what do we do if faced with the same issues again. Solve this issue.

 

[atlanta cock#]

Legitimate examinations conducted by authentication organizations are a welcome part of the process. Georgia did a hand recount conducted by qualified persons under the supervision of the Secretary of State. That’s just fine.

My problem is with “Audits” conducted by newly formed, totally unqualified, totally partisan organizations bought and paid for by a particular side. Those are garbage. They are intended to get a result, and/or undermine confidence in the election process.

Again, despite common sense saying it's awfully weird that Jomentia, who has never been particularly popular or beloved, got more votes than Obama in the same election that Trump received more votes than any GOP ever, my only real issue is with the pristine mail-in paper ballots. No folds, no dog ears, no smudges, and all for Biden. I'm sorry but that's impossible.

 

[willdup]

Again, despite common sense saying it's awfully weird that Jomentia, who has never been particularly popular or beloved, got more votes than Obama in the same election that Trump received more votes than any GOP ever, my only real issue is with the pristine mail-in paper ballots. No folds, no dog ears, no smudges, and all for Biden. I'm sorry but that's impossible.

The reason Biden got more votes than Obama is exceedingly simple. He was running against Trump, and a crap-ton of people felt very strongly about denying Trump a second term. It’s no more complicated than that.

 

[atlanta cock#]

The reason Biden got more votes than Obama is exceedingly simple. He was running against Trump, and a crap-ton of people felt very strongly about denying Trump a second term. It’s no more complicated than that.

Maybe…. but those pristine ballots. Years later and nobody has ever come up with anything that convinces me beyond doubt about them.

Kinda like the pristine bullet “found” at Parkland Hospital.

 

[9836dawg]

Again, despite common sense saying it's awfully weird that Jomentia, who has never been particularly popular or beloved, got more votes than Obama in the same election that Trump received more votes than any GOP ever, my only real issue is with the pristine mail-in paper ballots. No folds, no dog ears, no smudges, and all for Biden. I'm sorry but that's impossible.

Are you talking about this?

Former President Donald Trump fixated on Georgia, and particularly on Fulton County, after the November general election, claiming without evidence that fraud in the county contributed to his narrow loss in the state.

The brief filed Tuesday on behalf of Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger addresses allegations made in sworn affidavits filed with the lawsuit that say witnesses saw suspicious-looking absentee ballots during a hand count of ballots that stemmed from a state audit requirement.

“Based upon the witness statements and examination of approximately 1,000 absentee ballots and ballot images, the Secretary’s investigators have not uncovered any absentee ballots that match the descriptions given ... or otherwise appear to be fraudulent or counterfeit,” the brief says.

Investigators spoke with Susan Voyles, an auditor during the hand count. She said she saw a batch of “pristine” absentee ballots that appeared to have been marked by a computer rather than by hand and weren’t creased as they would have been if they had been put in envelopes.

Investigators examined the ballots in the batches and box identified by Voyles, but all had been creased and none appeared to have been marked by a computer. Voyles then told investigators she may have been mistaken and gave them another box number. Investigators determined the box-batch combination she cited didn’t exist

 

[atlanta cock#]

Are you talking about this?

Former President Donald Trump fixated on Georgia, and particularly on Fulton County, after the November general election, claiming without evidence that fraud in the county contributed to his narrow loss in the state.

The brief filed Tuesday on behalf of Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger addresses allegations made in sworn affidavits filed with the lawsuit that say witnesses saw suspicious-looking absentee ballots during a hand count of ballots that stemmed from a state audit requirement.

“Based upon the witness statements and examination of approximately 1,000 absentee ballots and ballot images, the Secretary’s investigators have not uncovered any absentee ballots that match the descriptions given ... or otherwise appear to be fraudulent or counterfeit,” the brief says.

Investigators spoke with Susan Voyles, an auditor during the hand count. She said she saw a batch of “pristine” absentee ballots that appeared to have been marked by a computer rather than by hand and weren’t creased as they would have been if they had been put in envelopes.

Investigators examined the ballots in the batches and box identified by Voyles, but all had been creased and none appeared to have been marked by a computer. Voyles then told investigators she may have been mistaken and gave them another box number. Investigators determined the box-batch combination she cited didn’t exist

No, I’m talking about this. Roughly page 193. The usual left leaning media loves to summarily talk about fraud claims being unfounded, but they never talk about this one. Now, don't get me wrong. I don’t know if there were enough to make a difference, but it’s never been explained. To my knowledge, I don't know if they ever really investigated. I don’t even think FOX did.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Malfeasance.html?id=7yCgEAAAQBAJ

 

[mitchelldawg]

Are you talking about this?

Former President Donald Trump fixated on Georgia, and particularly on Fulton County, after the November general election, claiming without evidence that fraud in the county contributed to his narrow loss in the state.

The brief filed Tuesday on behalf of Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger addresses allegations made in sworn affidavits filed with the lawsuit that say witnesses saw suspicious-looking absentee ballots during a hand count of ballots that stemmed from a state audit requirement.

“Based upon the witness statements and examination of approximately 1,000 absentee ballots and ballot images, the Secretary’s investigators have not uncovered any absentee ballots that match the descriptions given ... or otherwise appear to be fraudulent or counterfeit,” the brief says.

Investigators spoke with Susan Voyles, an auditor during the hand count. She said she saw a batch of “pristine” absentee ballots that appeared to have been marked by a computer rather than by hand and weren’t creased as they would have been if they had been put in envelopes.

Investigators examined the ballots in the batches and box identified by Voyles, but all had been creased and none appeared to have been marked by a computer. Voyles then told investigators she may have been mistaken and gave them another box number. Investigators determined the box-batch combination she cited didn’t exist

give it up......some will NEVER admit it because Trump will NEVER admit he lost. you can present facts till the cows come home and it won't matter. the cult will say it's "fake news", just like their leader does.

 

[atlanta cock#]

give it up......some will NEVER admit it because Trump will NEVER admit he lost. you can present facts till the cows come home and it won't matter. the cult will say it's "fake news", just like their leader does.

Hillary. Russia hoax, dude. Covid is next.

 

[cherrydawg]

I will respond for you. In the face of irrefutable evidence that the entire thing was bought and paid for by election deniers, you will say that it was just a neutral, clinical audit.

The truth is that from the start it was intended to generate a particular result and everyone who participated was there in service of that goal. Ultimately it became clear that the clowns behind it were not going to get any plausible results, so they quit paying for it:

It was a charade. A stain on our Democracy.

bought and paid for,,,,, you mean like the clinton dossier? The one that you dims used for years to try and overthrow the duly elected president threatening our democracy? Dims can't help but hypocrite.

 

[cherrydawg]

give it up......some will NEVER admit it because Trump will NEVER admit he lost. you can present facts till the cows come home and it won't matter. the cult will say it's "fake news", just like their leader does.

Dims don't know a fact when it hits them in the face! Tell us about the brandon crime family. LOL dims are more gullible than 5 yr olds.

 

[mitchelldawg]

Hillary. Russia hoax, dude. Covid is next.

trump lost dude

 

[cherrydawg]

trump lost dude

dude, trump has nothing to do with what we are saying, we are pointing out the hypocrisy of tds sufferers. "facts" only matter to you if it is negative toward trump. TDS sufferers could not care less about facts if they are against killary or btandon. You walk right into that with every post you make. YOU act like you are on the high road while ignoring the pedophile influence peddler you voted for or the fact that the dim nominee tried to steal the election by paying for a bunch of lies and pushing them to the complicit media and your current party of favor spent millions and a bunch of years trying to overthrow a president trying to steal the office. Think of all the good that could have been done if dims weren't using lies to interfere with trump. SMH how blind can a group of people be. Trump lost, he is not in office, yet all you tdsl' ers can do is talk about trump while the country crumbles around us thanks to brandon voters. SMH get your head out of the sand.

 

[zingerdawg]

The reason Biden got more votes than Obama is exceedingly simple. He was running against Trump, and a crap-ton of people felt very strongly about denying Trump a second term. It’s no more complicated than that.

No. I don’t buy that. That is the dem spin. There would have been much stronger support out there for Biden leading up to the election. No one expected the numbers to increase like that in a pandemic. Especially when a lot of the country was totally freaked out by covid at that time.

You once told me no one showed up to Biden’s campaign stops because of the pandemic. Now you want to also say, 22 million more showed up than ever to vote. Let’s be honest will. That is a really big stretch. 137 million voted in 2016. 159 million voted in 2020. In a pandemic.

I want to be clear here. I don’t believe the rules in place were broken. Bent. But not broken. Whatever the reason if pure, needs to be continued or fixed if unethical. No way they shouldn’t look into it. It isn’t crazy to think there would be flaws with so many new things happening.

In 2012. 130 million voted in the general. Considered lower because no one was beating Obama.

 

[cherrydawg]

The reason Biden got more votes than Obama is exceedingly simple. He was running against Trump, and a crap-ton of people felt very strongly about denying Trump a second term. It’s no more complicated than that.

your post is hog wash dim spin

 

[KidneyStoned]

Audits are fine. And I 100 percent agree. But the elephant in the room is ballots that can’t be proven to be legit. Voting numbers were insanely different. Why? Not whether the election was stolen. What caused these major changes? Should we keep them? If not, what do we do if faced with the same issues again. Solve this issue.

when your side gets less votes than the other side, you whine and protest and blah blah

 

[zingerdawg]

when your side gets less votes than the other side, you whine and protest and blah blah

Works both ways. And would have. No secret that Biden wasn’t conceding. And he declared victory before midnight while behind. So he could contest the results. Damn Hillary whined for four years, and told anyone who would listen don’t concede anything. I am not saying the vote wasn’t legit. But there were actually major changes to the voting process. Put your tds aside for a minute. 22 million more people voted. During a pandemic. It ain’t like Hillary and and the morons that were claiming the Russians hacked the system, and changed the results. Thank god James bond was there to stop those pesky Russians.

22 million more. During a time when people were driving around by themselves with masks on. For a guy who couldn’t draw 100 people to some rallies. Yes. My side loss. But those facts still remain incredibly strange.

 

[Pecanman]

I don’t care about the last election, but I sure as hell care about the one on the horizon. The past is the past. Question is, how‘s old Joe working out for our nation? Anyone with a shred of intelligence can see that our country is in decline at a dramatic pace.No one on the left can fix or wants to fix our nation’s problems, but at least a couple of men on the right will try very hard too( Trump or Desantis).

 

[Athens is Heaven]

Works both ways. And would have. No secret that Biden wasn’t conceding. And he declared victory before midnight while behind. So he could contest the results. Damn Hillary whined for four years, and told anyone who would listen don’t concede anything. I am not saying the vote wasn’t legit. But there were actually major changes to the voting process. Put your tds aside for a minute. 22 million more people voted. During a pandemic. It ain’t like Hillary and and the morons that were claiming the Russians hacked the system, and changed the results. Thank god James bond was there to stop those pesky Russians.

22 million more. During a time when people were driving around by themselves with masks on. For a guy who couldn’t draw 100 people to some rallies. Yes. My side loss. But those facts still remain incredibly strange.

We should ask the USPS what their actions were in this voter fraud and how much they were paid by Silicon Valley gang.

 

[MUTiger91]

Aren’t we supposed to contest weird happenings in elections. Why wasn’t it investigated further? No one wanted to touch it. Not the Supreme Court. Nobody.

There is nothing wrong with contesting election results in good faith in the court system. But...

1) Many of the cases were not in good faith. Some were so bad that people (e.g. Rudy) got disbarred. Lawyers aren't supposed to take a case to court that they know to be based on false claims.

2) The bigger problem is that what Trump did afterward was a fraudulent attempt to change the outcome of the election (fake electors, pressure campaigns with state official, Pence)

As far as the numbers difference, there are at least two factors at play:
1) There were 160M registered voters in 2020, but only 146M in 2008 when Obama drove high turnout. If you prefer the 2012 number, that was 150M registered voters. So that's between 10-14M additional registered voters.

2) Trump was a highly polarizing figure. He energized his fans to come out and vote for him. Similarly, he energized his detractors to come out and vote against. In 2008 61.6% of registered voters voted. In 2012 when the Obama novelty was gone, it dropped to 58.6% In 2020 it was 66.8% which was significantly higher.

Another aspect of point #2 is that there were more remote voting options in 2020 than there were in prior elections (generally favors Dems). In Georgia, there was a reduction in invalid ballots because of the introduction of a system for curing ballots with errors prior to the election

 

[atlanta cock#]

There is nothing wrong with contesting election results in good faith in the court system. But...

1) Many of the cases were not in good faith. Some were so bad that people (e.g. Rudy) got disbarred. Lawyers aren't supposed to take a case to court that they know to be based on false claims.

2) The bigger problem is that what Trump did afterward was a fraudulent attempt to change the outcome of the election (fake electors, pressure campaigns with state official, Pence)

As far as the numbers difference, there are at least two factors at play:
1) There were 160M registered voters in 2020, but only 146M in 2008 when Obama drove high turnout. If you prefer the 2012 number, that was 150M registered voters. So that's between 10-14M additional registered voters.

2) Trump was a highly polarizing figure. He energized his fans to come out and vote for him. Similarly, he energized his detractors to come out and vote against. In 2008 61.6% of registered voters voted. In 2012 when the Obama novelty was gone, it dropped to 58.6% In 2020 it was 66.8% which was significantly higher.

Another aspect of point #2 is that there were more remote voting options in 2020 than there were in prior elections (generally favors Dems). In Georgia, there was a reduction in invalid ballots because of the introduction of a system for curing ballots with errors prior to the election

What did Trump do afterward that "was a fraudulent attempt to change the outcome of the election?"

How was his request for alt electors any different than the calls in 2016 for electors to not cast their vote for Trump as many Ds pleaded?

How did Trump trick any elector? After all, that's what fraud is - compelling someone to do or not do something through trickery and/or deceit.

Most importantly, did any electors actually change or cast their vote in favor of Trump that otherwise was duty bound to vote for Biden? If not, there is no fraud.

The ppl screaming loudest are pols who go on MSNBC or speak to NYT that are preying on ignorant ppl who have let their TDS completely overtake their thinking. These ppl don't understand that merely claiming the election was rigged or even asking an elector to vote differently is not fraud. That term is tossed around a lot, but the hot heads on the Left don't even understand what fraud actually is.

 

[zingerdawg]

There is nothing wrong with contesting election results in good faith in the court system. But...

1) Many of the cases were not in good faith. Some were so bad that people (e.g. Rudy) got disbarred. Lawyers aren't supposed to take a case to court that they know to be based on false claims.

2) The bigger problem is that what Trump did afterward was a fraudulent attempt to change the outcome of the election (fake electors, pressure campaigns with state official, Pence)

As far as the numbers difference, there are at least two factors at play:
1) There were 160M registered voters in 2020, but only 146M in 2008 when Obama drove high turnout. If you prefer the 2012 number, that was 150M registered voters. So that's between 10-14M additional registered voters.

2) Trump was a highly polarizing figure. He energized his fans to come out and vote for him. Similarly, he energized his detractors to come out and vote against. In 2008 61.6% of registered voters voted. In 2012 when the Obama novelty was gone, it dropped to 58.6% In 2020 it was 66.8% which was significantly higher.

Another aspect of point #2 is that there were more remote voting options in 2020 than there were in prior elections (generally favors Dems). In Georgia, there was a reduction in invalid ballots because of the introduction of a system for curing ballots with errors prior to the election

I don’t disagree with any of that. Some of the way things were done weren’t right.

But you haven’t been here. The lefties here lose their ever loving minds anytime you suggest things in this past election may not have been perfect. You have some tds yourself. Which shows up right in your post.

4-8 million is normal for the amount of voters to go up. That is in the range over several elections. 22 million more voters in the middle of a pandemic isn’t. I don’t care how polarizing trump was. That is complete horseshit. And just spin. Biden couldn’t get 100 people to go to a rally due to the pandemic. (You can’t have it both ways)Yet when voting 22 million more showed up. That is complete crap. To say otherwise is being disingenuous, or agenda driven.

I do think Barr should have taken longer than a few days to declare the election on the up and up and in no need of change. I don’t believe it was stolen, but there has to be some accounting of what the rule changes brought about. Is this good or bad? And it shouldn’t be partisan. If there is another way to bring out more votes regardless of how they vote legally, it should be looked at. Not to contest the results, (not who wins, but the high number records set never done before) but understand them. Will be very interesting to see how those numbers work in 2024. You think we have 4-8 million more votes show up for the same two guys?




This just came out today. It is something that obviously needs to be curtailed right.

I am not condoning what trump did. It doesn’t surprise me. Both sides were going to contest the results either way. He just did it like a bully businessman would. Not a politician.

 

[MUTiger91]

What did Trump do afterward that "was a fraudulent attempt to change the outcome of the election?"

How was his request for alt electors any different than the calls in 2016 for electors to not cast their vote for Trump as many Ds pleaded?

How did Trump trick any elector? After all, that's what fraud is - compelling someone to do or not do something through trickery and/or deceit.

Most importantly, did any electors actually change or cast their vote in favor of Trump that otherwise was duty bound to vote for Biden? If not, there is no fraud.

The ppl screaming loudest are pols who go on MSNBC or speak to NYT that are preying on ignorant ppl who have let their TDS completely overtake their thinking. These ppl don't understand that merely claiming the election was rigged or even asking an elector to vote differently is not fraud. That term is tossed around a lot, but the hot heads on the Left don't even understand what fraud actually is.

Electors are chosen by the party in the state. You are either an elector for the winning candidate or you are not. In 2016, the request was for the duly elected electors to be "bad faith" electors (i.e. not voting for the candidate of the party who sent them). Article II of the Constitution does NOT restrict for whom the elector may vote. SCOTUS has ruled that states have the right to pass laws to bind electors to their candidate, so you would have to look at the acts on a state by state basis depending on that state's law.

What Trump did was enter into a conspiracy with Eastman, Chesebro et al to recruit people to be fake electors. It doesn't matter at all whether they were tricked or did it willingly. The overall activity of the group was a conspiracy to defraud the United States.

Your 3rd paragraph doesn't reflect an understanding of what happened. Every one of those fake electors cast a vote for Trump. Were they duty -bound to cast a vote for Biden? Of course not. They were not the real electors. They had NO duty.

TDS is really a false argument. It's what right-wing media tells you so that you can ignore rational arguments that don't agree with the propaganda you have been told.

 

[MUTiger91]

I don’t disagree with any of that. Some of the way things were done weren’t right.

But you haven’t been here. The lefties here lose their ever loving minds anytime you suggest things in this past election may not have been perfect. You have some tds yourself. Which shows up right in your post.

4-8 million is normal for the amount of voters to go up. That is in the range over several elections. 22 million more voters in the middle of a pandemic isn’t. I don’t care how polarizing trump was. That is complete horseshit. And just spin. Biden couldn’t get 100 people to go to a rally due to the pandemic. (You can’t have it both ways)Yet when voting 22 million more showed up. That is complete crap. To say otherwise is being disingenuous, or agenda driven.

I do think Barr should have taken longer than a few days to declare the election on the up and up and in no need of change. I don’t believe it was stolen, but there has to be some accounting of what the rule changes brought about. Is this good or bad? And it shouldn’t be partisan. If there is another way to bring out more votes regardless of how they vote legally, it should be looked at. Not to contest the results, (not who wins, but the high number records set never done before) but understand them. Will be very interesting to see how those numbers work in 2024. You think we have 4-8 million more votes show up for the same two guys?

View embedded media

This just came out today. It is something that obviously needs to be curtailed right.

I am not condoning what trump did. It doesn’t surprise me. Both sides were going to contest the results either way. He just did it like a bully businessman would. Not a politician.

It would not have made a bit of difference if Barr waited longer. There simply isn't any proof of material fraud in 3 years, many lawsuits and a lot of money spent. Further, team Trump was grasping at any and all crazy conspiracy theories. Listen to Trump's "perfectly good call" with Raffensperger. They try to tell him the truth and he attempts to shut them down.

Now did Democrats in some states seek advantage by using executive authority to make voting more accessible due to the pandemic. They probably did in some cases, but that's not election fraud. That's seeking to take advantage of the powers of their offices. The best analogy would be a state legislature Gerrymandering districts to gain advantage in congressional seats. When it happens, the courts require it to be corrected for the next election. It's certainly not a basis to invalidate votes by legally registered voters due to procedural concerns. In no way is that close to the "stolen" election claimed by Trump

As far as 2024 goes, I don't think we will have quite the same turnout. Republicans have done quite a bit to push back on forms of absentee voting and get laws changed. Different rules = different results.

 

[zingerdawg]

It would not have made a bit of difference if Barr waited longer. There simply isn't any proof of material fraud in 3 years, many lawsuits and a lot of money spent. Further, team Trump was grasping at any and all crazy conspiracy theories. Listen to Trump's "perfectly good call" with Raffensperger. They try to tell him the truth and he attempts to shut them down.

Now did Democrats in some states seek advantage by using executive authority to make voting more accessible due to the pandemic. They probably did in some cases, but that's not election fraud. That's seeking to take advantage of the powers of their offices. The best analogy would be a state legislature Gerrymandering districts to gain advantage in congressional seats. When it happens, the courts require it to be corrected for the next election. It's certainly not a basis to invalidate votes by legally registered voters due to procedural concerns. In no way is that close to the "stolen" election claimed by Trump

As far as 2024 goes, I don't think we will have quite the same turnout. Republicans have done quite a bit to push back on forms of absentee voting and get laws changed. Different rules = different results.

Your last sentence says it all. Different rules=different results.

I never said fraud happened. I said there were double digit firsts to ever happen in that election. It should have been looked at by a non partisan committee at the minimum. Push back on any kind of votes than can’t be validated should be a non partisan thing. A non trump thing. It should be a what everyone wants thing. The video above should be outlawed and prosecuted.

Of course the numbers won’t be the same. I am assuming trump has become less polarizing. Right? No. You pointed out the rules changed. If a ballot is cast, there should be a way to validate it right? Or do you believe this is incorrect?

I also never claimed Barr needed to overturn the election. He should have spent more time there. He didn’t want to touch it either. You can’t help but to react with a tds talking point. Are you even reading my posts.

 

[MUTiger91]

Your last sentence says it all. Different rules=different results.

I never said fraud happened. I said there were double digit firsts to ever happen in that election. It should have been looked at by a non partisan committee at the minimum. Push back on any kind of votes than can’t be validated should be a non partisan thing. A non trump thing. It should be a what everyone wants thing. The video above should be outlawed and prosecuted.

Of course the numbers won’t be the same. I am assuming trump has become less polarizing. Right. No. You pointed out the rules changed. If a ballot is cast, there should be a way to validate it right? Or do you believe this is incorrect?

I also never claimed Barr needed to overturn the election. You can’t help but to react with a tds talking point. Are you even reading my posts n

How is Trump less polarizing? If you believe his propaganda, he is a victim. If you believe your eyes and ears, he is a criminal who tried to steal the last election via fraud. I think most people don't know all of the details and are just weary of both Trump and Biden. That should result in more people staying home.

Also, what makes you think ballots were not validated? Every single secretary of state certified that the elections were done in compliance with state law. Again, I suggest listening to the "perfectly good call" if you haven't. One of my favorite points was when Trump was making claims about out of state voting or dead people voting. Trump tosses to a woman I didn't recognize expecting her to amplify his message. Instead, she talks about how they really need the data from the State of Georgia to support their claims. She basically admitted that they were guessing.

I never said anything about you wanting Barr to overturn the election. What you said is that Barr should have taken more time to look before making a declaration. My point is that had he waited 3 more years, he would have arrived at the same answer.

 

[zingerdawg]

How is Trump less polarizing? If you believe his propaganda, he is a victim. If you believe your eyes and ears, he is a criminal who tried to steal the last election via fraud. I think most people don't know all of the details and are just weary of both Trump and Biden. That should result in more people staying home.

Also, what makes you think ballots were not validated? Every single secretary of state certified that the elections were done in compliance with state law. Again, I suggest listening to the "perfectly good call" if you haven't. One of my favorite points was when Trump was making claims about out of state voting or dead people voting. Trump tosses to a woman I didn't recognize expecting her to amplify his message. Instead, she talks about how they really need the data from the State of Georgia to support their claims. She basically admitted that they were guessing.

I never said anything about you wanting Barr to overturn the election. What you said is that Barr should have taken more time to look before making a declaration. My point is that had he waited 3 more years, he would have arrived at the same answer.

I know you are responding to several people. Take a second longer to read. I said trump is just as polarizing. Yet the numbers will be a lot less. Making your explanation earlier hypocritical. No one from the left or with tds wants to say it. The election was a crap fest.

Or do you think it was free of shenanigans?

We could keep the rules the same. Then have a competition to see which side can stuff more absentee ballots in the box casting whatever vote they want. Meaningless ballots harvested from both sides to determine the most important election on the planet.

It was a presidential election. Barr could have said, my initial findings are that the election was on the up and up. However, it was an election handled with completely new rules. The numbers weren’t within the normal range. We need to investigate to see why the numbers spiked from 2016. Certify the election, then call for the process to be investigated. No one wanted to touch it. Even the Supreme Court said, don’t even think about it.

 

[MUTiger91]

I am assuming trump has become less polarizing.

I know you are responding to several people. Take a second longer to read. I said trump is just as polarizing.

Doesn't seem so from your above quote.

Or do you think it was free of shenanigans?

Don't be binary. There were minor shenanigans that don't come close to being fraud or a stolen election. Trump's election story as told is completely false. Don't try to diminish what he did by changing the topic to minor shenanigans. Ultimately, Dems benefit historically from higher voter turnout. What that means is that it is common for Dems to try to make voting easier and it's equally common for the GOP to make it take a bit of effort. I wish neither side played games like this, but that is the context.

We could keep the rules the same. Then have a competition to see which side can stuff more absentee ballots in the box casting whatever vote they want. Meaningless ballots harvested from both sides to determine the most important election on the planet.

This is a complete mischaracterization of what happened. There is zero proof of material ballot stuffing. I qualify it, because invariably someone will find an example from a non-contested case that were stuffed for a local race somewhere. That's not relevant.

I'm totally OK with having bi-partisan discussion about controls around elections, but that will NOT happen in the context of one side falsely claiming massive fraud.

Barr could have said, my initial findings are that the election was on the up and up. However, it was an election handled with completely new rules. The numbers weren’t within the normal range. We need to investigate to see why the numbers spiked from 2016. Certify the election, then call for the process to be investigated. No one wanted to touch it. Even the Supreme Court said, don’t even think about it.

I agree with your sentiment about the election beign over/decided, but going further wasn't Barr's place, nor was it his apparent intent.

• The Constitution says that the states certify the elections, so the states make the decisions
• The policy of the DoJ going forward was not going to be driven by Barr, because Trump lost. IMO, no point in him defining a go-forward policy that he can't make happen.
• Based on Barr's testimony to J6 committee, he was satisfied based on his conversations with the various Attorneys General and DoJ personnel in various states he was satisfied that there was no material fraud for each of Trump's claims. He also had the findings from 63 court cases. IMO, Barr understood the manipulation Trump was attempting and he didn't want to add fuel to the fire. He wanted to throw water on it.

 

[atlanta cock#]

Electors are chosen by the party in the state. You are either an elector for the winning candidate or you are not. In 2016, the request was for the duly elected electors to be "bad faith" electors (i.e. not voting for the candidate of the party who sent them). Article II of the Constitution does NOT restrict for whom the elector may vote. SCOTUS has ruled that states have the right to pass laws to bind electors to their candidate, so you would have to look at the acts on a state by state basis depending on that state's law.

What Trump did was enter into a conspiracy with Eastman Chesebro to recruit people to be fake electors. It doesn't matter at all whether they were tricked or did it willingly. The overall activity of the group was a conspiracy to defraud the United States.

Your 3rd paragraph doesn't reflect an understanding of what happened. Every one of those fake electors cast a vote for Trump. Were they duty -bound to cast a vote for Biden? Of course not. They were not the real electors. They had NO duty.

TDS is really a false argument. It's what right-wing media tells you so that you can ignore rational arguments that don't agree with the propaganda you have been told.

You're not getting it. As Tip O'Neill famously said, you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. I don't agree with your description of what happened, but even if it did happen like that, it's not fraud. The simplest definition of fraud is basically where you screw someone over through trickery. Even in your description, that's not what happened. Under your description, ppl lied in an effort to mislead. It's not fraud precisely bc nobody was misled.

If you hate Trump so badly that you're willing to continue to disrupt the country over it, come up with a different cause of action. It's not fraud.

 

[zingerdawg]

Doesn't seem so from your above quote.


Don't be binary. There were minor shenanigans that don't come close to being fraud or a stolen election. Trump's election story as told is completely false. Don't try to diminish what he did by changing the topic to minor shenanigans. Ultimately, Dems benefit historically from higher voter turnout. What that means is that it is common for Dems to try to make voting easier and it's equally common for the GOP to make it take a bit of effort. I wish neither side played games like this, but that is the context.


This is a complete mischaracterization of what happened. There is zero proof of material ballot stuffing. I qualify it, because invariably someone will find an example from a non-contested case that were stuffed for a local race somewhere. That's not relevant.

I'm totally OK with having bi-partisan discussion about controls around elections, but that will NOT happen in the context of one side falsely claiming massive fraud.

I agree with your sentiment about the election beign over/decided, but going further wasn't Barr's place, nor was it his apparent intent.

• The Constitution says that the states certify the elections, so the states make the decisions
• The policy of the DoJ going forward was not going to be driven by Barr, because Trump lost. IMO, no point in him defining a go-forward policy that he can't make happen.
• Based on Barr's testimony to J6 committee, he was satisfied based on his conversations with the various Attorneys General and DoJ personnel in various states he was satisfied that there was no material fraud for each of Trump's claims. He also had the findings from 63 court cases. IMO, Barr understood the manipulation Trump was attempting and he didn't want to add fuel to the fire. He wanted to throw water on it.

Go read that again. I am assuming trump has become less polarizing. What came after that. Right? No.(is what I posted. Meaning he isn’t less polarizing. Maybe more)

That part is wrong. Give me a minute to read the rest of your post.

 

[MUTiger91]

You're not getting it. As Tip O'Neill famously said, you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. I don't agree with your description of what happened, but even if it did happen like that, it's not fraud. The simplest definition of fraud is basically where you screw someone over through trickery. Even in your description, that's not what happened. Under your description, ppl lied in an effort to mislead. It's not fraud precisely bc nobody was misled.

If you hate Trump so badly that you're willing to continue to disrupt the country over it, come up with a different cause of action. It's not fraud.

The Tip O'Neill quote is accurate. However, you are the one choosing to have an opinion counter to the facts and using an overly narrow definition of fraud. I got the definition of fraud below from ChatGPT. My comments in parenthesis.

The key elements of fraud under common law, which also influence statutory definitions, typically include:

1. A representation of an important fact that is false; ("I am the duly-elected elector for <insert state here>"))
2. The person making the representation knows that it is false or is ignorant of its truth; (The secretary of state already certified the other side the winner.)
3. The maker intends to induce the recipient to act or refrain from acting in reliance on the representation; (In this case the intent was to allow Pence to throw out electors.)
4. The recipient justifiably relies on the representation; and (This was the intent. For the purpose of criminal conspiracy to defraud, it is not required that you are successful.)
5. The recipient suffers damage as a result of the reliance. (Not putting the right guy in the office would damage the integrity of our democracy.)

Trump has been indicted for 4 different conspiracy crimes related to his election-stealing antics.

 

[atlanta cock#]

 

[zingerdawg]

Doesn't seem so from your above quote.


Don't be binary. There were minor shenanigans that don't come close to being fraud or a stolen election. Trump's election story as told is completely false. Don't try to diminish what he did by changing the topic to minor shenanigans. Ultimately, Dems benefit historically from higher voter turnout. What that means is that it is common for Dems to try to make voting easier and it's equally common for the GOP to make it take a bit of effort. I wish neither side played games like this, but that is the context.


This is a complete mischaracterization of what happened. There is zero proof of material ballot stuffing. I qualify it, because invariably someone will find an example from a non-contested case that were stuffed for a local race somewhere. That's not relevant.

I'm totally OK with having bi-partisan discussion about controls around elections, but that will NOT happen in the context of one side falsely claiming massive fraud.

I agree with your sentiment about the election beign over/decided, but going further wasn't Barr's place, nor was it his apparent intent.

• The Constitution says that the states certify the elections, so the states make the decisions
• The policy of the DoJ going forward was not going to be driven by Barr, because Trump lost. IMO, no point in him defining a go-forward policy that he can't make happen.
• Based on Barr's testimony to J6 committee, he was satisfied based on his conversations with the various Attorneys General and DoJ personnel in various states he was satisfied that there was no material fraud for each of Trump's claims. He also had the findings from 63 court cases. IMO, Barr understood the manipulation Trump was attempting and he didn't want to add fuel to the fire. He wanted to throw water on it.

I think we can end the conversation. We are saying the same things mostly. Except you keep bringing up fraud. Tds reflex action from you I guess. I said shenanigans. I didn’t say fraud. It was within the rules. Just the rules were f’ed. What I suggested would have helped. Instead, barr looked like a lazy fool. Doing the same thing with the Biden laptop. Saying the doj was doing just fine with their investigation. Which also turned out to be a big no.

He didn’t miss fraud in the election. But he did miss a chance to say we may need to take a look at what happened. Since the rules have changed, we have seen at least four cases of ballot stuffing caught on camera in local elections. He missed a chance to placate both sides. And it could have been done in a way not questioned. Instead this is how the public now feels.

Americans' faith in election integrity drops: POLL

Only 20% of the public says it's very confident in the country's elections.

abcnews.go.com

You sound like another pub who will vote for Biden again over trump. Thank god there are a lot of middle Dems and life long Dems realizing how dangerous the policies from the left are. Making that switch too. I hope trump doesn’t win the primary. I will vote for someone else in the primary. But voting for Biden in any way is brainless. Good luck. You seem like a good enough guy.

 

[MUTiger91]

Go read that again. I am assuming trump has become less polarizing. What came after that. Right? No.(is what I posted. Meaning he isn’t less polarizing. Maybe more)

That part is wrong. Give me a minute to read the rest of your post.

Fair enough, but you said, "Right." not "Right?" That made me think the "no" was disagreeing with what I said rather than modifying your earlier hypothetical.

 

[zingerdawg]

Fair enough, but you said, "Right." not "Right?" That made me think the "no" was disagreeing with what I said rather than modifying your earlier hypothetical.

I reread the post and edited it. You quoted it before it was edited. Either way. You took a snipet without the right. And no. Are you with the msm. Lol. You could come to the same conclusion without the change in punctuation.