• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
MinnesotaBrant said:
unless it's a election coup the Republicans then its going for, then its going to be no easy win for either side. I was wondering about the faithless electors angle and heard conflicting blogs. One said that only about half the states forbid faithless electors and another blog said that the supreme court made faithless electors illegal. I also saw one website that said Ameripac is a democratic pac and another that said it was conservative. I am starting to wonder about the internet.
Click to expand...


Starting?
 
ServiceSoon said:
The Great Zaganza said:
Trump administration says we should investigate even if there is no evidence?

I thought the stance of Trump's lawyers was that you aren't allowed to investigate unless you have already actionable evidence.
Click to expand...


What a quandary you have constructed there! You cannot investigate unless you have evidence, but you cannot get evidence unless you investigate :confused:
Click to expand...


You seem to have overlooked something.

The quandary is not TZG's. It is the conflicting stances of Trump's own people, which flip-flop depending on what is most useful to them at any given moment.
 
pgwenthold said:
Now this one is useful.

Here are the ONGOING cases listed

Pennsylvania


This has to do with people correcting their ID information on their ballot. Apparently they had to have it done by yesterday to be counted. Initial claims were denied, but the judge says set those ballots aside anyway. Won't affect many at all, I'm sure.



Regarding 600 votes in suburban Philadelphia. Won't affect anything.



Haven't been included in the totals anyway, right? Not going to affect the outcome in PA.


That's it. Those are the only cases ongoing. Nothing in Mich, Arizona, Nevada or Georgia.

There have been plenty dismissed in those states. They have tried the "sharpie" claim in Arizona, but gave up.

This is the real Trump case for overturning the election. A few votes in PA.

The rest is bluster.
Click to expand...

There is still one in AZ about over-votes. All 180 of them.
 
shuttlt said:
crescent said:
Was being rerun - past tense. It was early last year.

Election re-run in North Carolina after voter fraud inquiry
Click to expand...
Yes, I have already been corrected on that. It doesn't alter the point though. Fraud does occur that impacts the results of elections.
Click to expand...


But that attempt at fraud was stopped. The malefactors were apprehended and exposed. The (Repugnican) candidate who was to have benefited withdrew his candidacy.

It was an example of the system working. I don't see how it bolsters any point you are trying to make.
 
shuttlt said:
That isn't the question. The question is whether election law was broken.
Click to expand...

That is one question, but it's not a very interesting question.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that election law was broken by not allowing poll watchers within six feet from the beginning, what would happen? Is the remedy to throw out votes by mail? That certainly is not going to happen. is the remedy to throw someone in jail? That is certainly not going to happen without evidence of actual fraud. Is the remedy to re-run the election? I doubt it's possible, but it would only be considered if there was evidence of actual fraud that was enough to put the question in doubt to a reasonable observer.

Mark Levin and some other crazy people have said that having discovered an irregularity, let's even say a violation, just for the sake of argument, the Pennsylvania legislature, without the consent of the Democratic governor, could nullify the election in Pennsylvania and appoint a new set of electors pledged to Donald Trump. That suggestion is not only not going to happen, but the suggestion that it might happen is a sign that someone is delusional, or simply lying for the benefit of their viewers.

And to me, that seems about where this election stands right now. There are lots of allegations, but no specifics. Trump has let loose his AG to look for more dirt, although the AG doesn't seem incredibly enthusiastic about the task, in my opinion. Of all the lawsuits and things that have been talked about publicly so far, the only one that appears to have any sort of basis at all is an argument about whether poll watchers were allowed close enough. (People have been saying they were allowed 10 feet away, but I read it was 25 feet prior to the court order.) It is conceivable that they might get a minor win on that one, but they won't get to change any votes, because they haven't presented any evidence that any votes were changed in Biden's favor.

The fat lady has well and truly sung on this one, but I'm sure she has the ability to return for an encore.
 
Meadmaker said:
....
Mark Levin and some other crazy people have said that having discovered an irregularity, let's even say a violation, just for the sake of argument, the Pennsylvania legislature, without the consent of the Democratic governor, could nullify the election in Pennsylvania and appoint a new set of electors pledged to Donald Trump. That suggestion is not only not going to happen, but the suggestion that it might happen is a sign that someone is delusional, or simply lying for the benefit of their viewers.
.....
Click to expand...

I wouldn't dismiss that idea so lightly. The notion that Repub legislatures could substitute their own slates of electors for the elected ones has been kicked around for months. They might not ultimately succeed, but they sure could try.

The eventual goal is to throw the election into the House, where the Repubs -- one vote per state -- would select Trump.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...gislature-appoint-electors-end-democracy.html
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/202...es-hijack-the-2020-presidential-election.html
 
I think the scenario of state legislatures interfering is probably the one to be most worried about right now. Biden's win was large enough with on-time votes on election day that the feared avenues of legal challenge seem like long-shots.

Ginning up propaganda that the vote was rigged might not sway the courts, but it could certainly give political cover to state reps who want to nullify the losing vote.
 
Like I've said many times I'm sure there is "some" limit to how far the GOP will let Trump go. I just don't particularly enjoying finding out what that limit is in real time.
 
quadraginta said:
You seem to have overlooked something.

The quandary is not TZG's. It is the conflicting stances of Trump's own people, which flip-flop depending on what is most useful to them at any given moment.
Click to expand...

Indeed. ServiceSoon seems to have forgotten the Trump Lawyers' stance over Trump's tax affairs, that the President could not even be investigated unless there was first evidence of wrongdoing.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Like I've said many times I'm sure there is "some" limit to how far the GOP will let Trump go. I just don't particularly enjoying finding out what that limit is in real time.
Click to expand...

They're all still scared of him. He will be a loud voice in Repub politics for a long time. They don't want him mad at them. (They gave up their spines years ago.)
 
Bob001 said:
I wouldn't dismiss that idea so lightly. The notion that Repub legislatures could substitute their own slates of electors for the elected ones has been kicked around for months.
Click to expand...

By crazy people.

There are an unfortunately large number of such crazy people, but they are crazy.

(Exception: If a state really were too close to call, and there was any credible hint of actual legal violations, I could see it happening in a state, but none of those conditions exist.)
 
I like how "Oh noes they might use the Electoral College as exactly as it was intended to be used" is some crazy, far out conspiracy theory.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I like how "Oh noes they might use the Electoral College as exactly as it was intended to be used" is some crazy, far out conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

C'mon. It used to be intended to be used that way.

That use case has changed, and the changes have been codified into state law.
 
Bob001 said:
I wouldn't dismiss that idea so lightly. The notion that Repub legislatures could substitute their own slates of electors for the elected ones has been kicked around for months. They might not ultimately succeed, but they sure could try.
Click to expand...


Yes, that's technically a possibility. But using the excuse of a minor violation of election laws that produced no discernible effect on the outcome of the election to go straight to the nuclear option of invalidating the entire election and reversing the outcome of the election would be the death knell for democracy in the United States.

And it wouldn't even change who will be President come January 20th, because even nuking this one state's election results wouldn't be enough.

The legislators would all have be be literally insane to take this stance in reality. I'm sure there are a few who are that insane, but I'm pretty sure there aren't enough.
 
Meadmaker said:
By crazy people.

There are an unfortunately large number of such crazy people, but they are crazy.

(Exception: If a state really were too close to call, and there was any credible hint of actual legal violations, I could see it happening in a state, but none of those conditions exist.)
Click to expand...


They don't have to actually exist. They just have to be used as excuses/rationalizations for action. It doesn't appear that there is anything in law or the Constitution that would prevent it.

Mike Pompeo just said he doesn't expect any problems with a transition because the transition will be to Trump's second term. That's the mentality that's in charge.
 
Meadmaker said:
That is one question, but it's not a very interesting question.
Click to expand...
Given that it's the question that's presumably going to go to court about the poll watchers not being allowed to observe the handling of the ballots, I'd have thought it is the important question on that topic.

Meadmaker said:
If we assume, for the sake of argument, that election law was broken by not allowing poll watchers within six feet from the beginning, what would happen? Is the remedy to throw out votes by mail? That certainly is not going to happen. is the remedy to throw someone in jail? That is certainly not going to happen without evidence of actual fraud. Is the remedy to re-run the election? I doubt it's possible, but it would only be considered if there was evidence of actual fraud that was enough to put the question in doubt to a reasonable observer.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with what you say here. The issue is if you can just ignore election law and court orders, but the result stands, then there is no meaningful downside to breaking the rules. Take the rule about correcting the ballots. Republic counties seem to have followed the rule, some Democrat ones didn't... hence the Republican's are disadvantaged. Why on Earth would either side follow the rules if there aren't consequences that matter? A minority of any fraud/rule breaking is likely to be detected, so so long as you don't go hog wild you are off to the races.

Meadmaker said:
Mark Levin and some other crazy people have said that having discovered an irregularity, let's even say a violation, just for the sake of argument, the Pennsylvania legislature, without the consent of the Democratic governor, could nullify the election in Pennsylvania and appoint a new set of electors pledged to Donald Trump. That suggestion is not only not going to happen, but the suggestion that it might happen is a sign that someone is delusional, or simply lying for the benefit of their viewers.
Click to expand...
I imagine that that would be a political move just like impeachment. I doubt it is going to happen though.

Meadmaker said:
And to me, that seems about where this election stands right now. There are lots of allegations, but no specifics. Trump has let loose his AG to look for more dirt, although the AG doesn't seem incredibly enthusiastic about the task, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Of course not. There is almost no path out that isn't going to cause him to be hated by somebody.

Meadmaker said:
Of all the lawsuits and things that have been talked about publicly so far, the only one that appears to have any sort of basis at all is an argument about whether poll watchers were allowed close enough. (People have been saying they were allowed 10 feet away, but I read it was 25 feet prior to the court order.) It is conceivable that they might get a minor win on that one, but they won't get to change any votes, because they haven't presented any evidence that any votes were changed in Biden's favor.
Click to expand...
We'll have to see what evidence turns up. Again, political realities will probably mean that Trump loses, but I don't like the idea of violating court orders and destroying evidence that would have indicated wrongdoing if it happened having no meaningful downside. Why on Earth would they not continue destroying such evidence and resisting poll watchers in future?

I imagine there are a lot of people (Barr, the Supreme Court etc....) hoping that nothing happens to put other states in doubt so the question becomes moot. Pennsylvania needs to sort out it's elections though.
 
Bob001 said:
Mike Pompeo just said he doesn't expect any problems with a transition because the transition will be to Trump's second term. That's the mentality that's in charge.
Click to expand...


That's the mentality that's in charge in the White House.

To pull this off, they'd have to have this mentality in multiple State Legislatures, and a majority of the US Congress.

That's not quite so clear yet. Indeed, with several GOP State level officials themselves pushing back on this nonsense, there's good evidence that they don't have this mentality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom