Some Trump electors voting illegally

[Cylinder]

Hmmms, lets see....

On one hand a group of non-partisan lawyers who wrote a report with evidence and submitted it to Congress.

On the other hand an anonymous internet poster who is making assertions without evidence.


Who should I believe...... That's a really hard one that is.

From the Executive Summary:

..because we are not election law experts, we cannot guarantee all the law contained herein is complete or that the evidence is accurate. We are not providing any legal advice. We strongly suggest that memebers of Congress employ their own legal team to verify our work.​

 

[Dumb All Over]

I'm not the one making any claims. The lawyers that filed the report made claims and backed it with evidence. You are making claims and backing it with nothing

What evidence?

 

[PhantomWolf]

What evidence?

Go and read the article.

 

[Dumb All Over]

Go and read the article.

I did.

What evidence?

 

[PhantomWolf]

I did.

What evidence?

If you read it you should know.

They looked at three areas...

Where the Law required voters to be resident in the district they were representing.

Where the Law prohibits a person from holding two offices at the same time.

And finally where the Law requires that separate voting tallies be provided for President and Vice President.

They provide cases where they claim that these things were not done correctly.

If they are correct, then do you not believe that there should be censure for those breaking these laws?

Saying, no law was broken is not an answer here.

The question is, if the law was broken, then should there be censure? Not if the law was actually broken. I have never claimed that it actually was, my point from the start, which you have taken issue with, is that if the law was broken then there should be repercussions for those that broke it. You seem to be of the opinion that even if the law was broken there shouldn't be.

 

[Dumb All Over]

They provide cases where they claim that these things were not done correctly.

And that is the crux of it.

They have made a claim (an extraordinary one, in my opinion) and do not offer credible evidence to support it (something I require in order to believe it). I am not oobliged to accept their cockamamie assertions at face value. What little evidence they do offer is questionable and suspect and a misrepresentation of the legal facts. Unless presented with something more substantial, I don't believe them.

If they are correct, then do you not believe that there should be censure for those breaking these laws?

I would prefer to establish first if they are correct.

Saying, no law was broken is not an answer here.

The question is, if the law was broken, then should there be censure?

Sorry, that is not the question. The question is, "Did electors vote illegally?"

Not if the law was actually broken. I have never claimed that it actually was, my point from the start, which you have taken issue with, is that if the law was broken then there should be repercussions for those that broke it. You seem to be of the opinion that even if the law was broken there shouldn't be.

This thread is about the claim that electors voted illegally. I have been arguing that no credible evidence supports the claim. You seem to want to discuss censure and repercussions based on a hypothetical. Perhaps that topic deserves its own thread.

Oh, and, no law was broken.

 

[BobTheCoward]

And that is the crux of it.

They have made a claim (an extraordinary one, in my opinion) and do not offer credible evidence to support it (something I require in order to believe it). I am not oobliged to accept their cockamamie assertions at face value. What little evidence they do offer is questionable and suspect and a misrepresentation of the legal facts. Unless presented with something more substantial, I don't believe them.



I would prefer to establish first if they are correct.


Sorry, that is not the question. The question is, "Did electors vote illegally?"

This thread is about the claim that electors voted illegally. I have been arguing that no credible evidence supports the claim. You seem to want to discuss censure and repercussions based on a hypothetical. Perhaps that topic deserves its own thread.

Oh, and, no law was broken.

Let's establish what premise you object to so we don't waste our time proving something you accept.

Assuming the electors did live outside their district, would you agree that violates state law? Would you agree that would be an illegal vote?

 

[PhantomWolf]

And that is the crux of it.

They have made a claim (an extraordinary one, in my opinion) and do not offer credible evidence to support it (something I require in order to believe it). I am not oobliged to accept their cockamamie assertions at face value. What little evidence they do offer is questionable and suspect and a misrepresentation of the legal facts. Unless presented with something more substantial, I don't believe them.

Really? It's not like they are claiming aliens voted. Sound more like typical politics at play to me. Person X contributes a lot of money to the campaign and in return gets to be the representative to a district, even if they don't live there. What exactly is extraordinary about that?

I would prefer to establish first if they are correct.

Why? Do you need to have an example of a law being broken before you can say if the law should be enforced? That makes no sense. Either a law should be enforced or it shouldn't be, you don't need to have examples to determine that.

Sorry, that is not the question. The question is, "Did electors vote illegally?"

No, that's the question you want it to be, it never has been the question I'm concerned with. If you don't want to answer my question, but your own, you should never have responded to my postings.

This thread is about the claim that electors voted illegally. I have been arguing that no credible evidence supports the claim. You seem to want to discuss censure and repercussions based on a hypothetical. Perhaps that topic deserves its own thread.

Actually until this post you have never argued that "no credible evidence supports the claim" you have merely and repeatedly stated...

no law was broken.

 

[gnome]

Point/Counterpoint

I say, let 'em crash.

 

[abaddon]

Wow, we're losing the race to be able to boost large payloads to low earth orbit for the cheapest price. What are we going to do??

Fail. Again.

Ever hear about comparative advantage? Here's a link.

Yup. It doesn't apply in this case.

 

[Aepervius]

I did.

What evidence?

The evidence presented are much stronger than the evidence of illegal voting presented by republican to add deplorable law adding burden onto normal voter in certain states, were far flimsier or even NIL than what is presented in the report. In fact report by university and independent bodies studies showed than the number of illegal vote is in dozen/hundred part per million at most.

Yet I don't see you protesting against those law either.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

And that is the crux of it.

They have made a claim (an extraordinary one, in my opinion) and do not offer credible evidence to support it (something I require in order to believe it). I am not obliged to accept their cockamamie assertions at face value. What little evidence they do offer is questionable and suspect and a misrepresentation of the legal facts. Unless presented with something more substantial, I don't believe them.

You must have wandered into the wrong forum by mistake. You sound just like a "skeptic." Shame on you.

 

[theprestige]

Let's establish what premise you object to so we don't waste our time proving something you accept.

Assuming the electors did live outside their district, would you agree that violates state law? Would you agree that would be an illegal vote?

Which electors? Which state laws?

 

[phiwum]

You must have wandered into the wrong forum by mistake. You sound just like a "skeptic." Shame on you.

The man who confidently repeats that no law was broken, without investigating the laws involved and each of the electors discussed, doesn't sound much like a skeptic to me.

Now, he's claiming that there is no credible evidence. That's a little better, but again, unless he has gone through the report carefully and checked the allegations one by one, the conclusion is still too strong.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You must have wandered into the wrong forum by mistake. You sound just like a "skeptic." Shame on you.

Dumb all over is not a skeptic. Or is unable to describe their point. We actually have no idea what he or she objects to. Are they saying the laws are not Constitutional? That the laws are being interpreted incorrectly? That the laws are correct but no evidence they are violated? Hiding behind a wall of skepticism while refusing to lay out what kind of evidence would change your mind is not skepticism.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Which electors? Which state laws?

Pam Bondi and Joe negron in Florida violating their dual office law that I linked to earlier.

 

[theprestige]

Pam Bondi and Joe negron in Florida violating their dual office law that I linked to earlier.

Elector isn't an office.

 

[phiwum]

Elector isn't an office.

You might be right, but surely you need some sort of evidence that this view is supported -- indeed, that no state regards elector as an office. Because actual lawyers with training said it is not obvious whether this is the case or not, if I understand correctly.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Elector isn't an office.

That is something that can be debated. My problem with DAO is that he or she refuses to say if that is or is not their objection. Do they believe like you? Do they believe it is an office but not a Constitutional issue? Do they need evidence Bondi was an elector and state attorney general?

I would gladly argue any of them. But I won't blindly argue all of them.

 

[theprestige]

The question is, if the law was broken, then should there be censure?

At most, the state should be censured for not having a more reliable and consistent process for certifying their electors *before the EC votes*.

But it's not clear to me who would have standing to censure the states, or what form that censure would take. Perhaps the citizens of a state could sue to have their state implement a better certification system, and that state's courts could order that state's government to implement such a system. That's about the level of "censure" that seems right to me.

Once the EC has voted, I don't think it's Congress's problem how each state certified its electors. They simply need to tally the votes cast, and review *constitutional* challenges to the electors' eligibility.

At the time of the tally, no constituonal challenges were raised. And Congress further declined to consider any challenges based on state law. Which I think is as it should be.

Even if the claims were not hypothetical, I don't think Congress should have censured anything, beyond telling the people of whatever offending state that if they have a problem with how they certify their own electors, they are welcome solve it themselves *before* the EC next convenes.