Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

[Darat]

I think it's clear that the Trump machine was ready for a Bush v Gore type situation, where such piddly crap could be the difference in tipping a narrow win in a pivotal swing state. The lawyers are running into a brick wall now because the election margins simply were too broad for such tactics to be effective. It's too many votes in too many states to haggle about what "fill out" means or whether a couple boxes of absentee ballots should be invalidated.

Seems to me the lawyers are going through the motions for their client and taking their beating with stoicism, but there was never any real hope for success here.

Or rather taking their fees with stoicism! In the end if a client insists all the lawyer can do is present the sow’s ear.

 

[shuttlt]

In the Wayne County lawsuit, there are not seventy affidavits. At least, there weren't yesterday. Yesterday there were five.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/n...-new-problems-tcf-counting-center/6223885002/

I don't know where the number 70 comes from.

I think that is a claim from Giuliani saying that they had only submitted a subset of the poll watchers who had seen problems. It could be that that is smeared across the different cases being filed. Time will make all of this clear.

 

[Darat]

A) The poll watchers are making claims without evidence.

B) maybe the point is security theater

C) they seem to be random nobodies

Remember that is “some” poll watchers are making claims. From reading a couple of the cases linked to in this thread it would appear that in some counts there could have been non-political party poll watchers. I would in regards to a civil case place more credence on complaints from them then the party organised ones. So far I’ve not see such watchers referenced in the cases.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The IRS uses this method to catch Tax Evaders... but then again, the IRS doesn't live in a world where they are frequently challenged, certainly not challenged in their ability to interpret the results correctly.

I very much doubt that the IRS uses this method to prosecute tax dodgers, because at best it's no more than an indication that something might be fishy with a data set. However, in a list of financial transactions that might span $1 to $100,000, there are plenty of orders of magnitude for Benford's Law to be a useful indication of whether or not there's something to investigate; the IRS would then have to do the investigation, work out exactly what crime has been committed, find evidence, and take that to court. There are a lot of steps on the way.

Dave

 

[johnny karate]

The real life dangers posed by Trump and his Republican enablers:

Philly elections officials are getting death threats as Trump targets the city

New York sex offender charged with threatening Schumer, Democrats: ‘Carnage needs to come’

Facebook took down a massive “Stop the Steal” group after its members called for violence

 

[Paul2]

And I doubt a Supreme Court that is going to let the Aca survive is going to support a coup. Yes, the jusjtisces are more conservative then I would like,but I really doubt they would go for a overturning of the election unless Trump had some real evidence.

Please, oh, please, oh pretty please. Please?

Seriously, that does make sense. Even Kavanaugh is apparently capable of putting rational thought over partisanship at times. Who'da thunk?

 

[johnny karate]

I think that is a claim from Giuliani saying that they had only submitted a subset of the poll watchers who had seen problems. It could be that that is smeared across the different cases being filed. Time will make all of this clear.

What evidence is there to support Guiliani’s claim?

 

[Darat]

I think that is a claim from Giuliani saying that they had only submitted a subset of the poll watchers who had seen problems. It could be that that is smeared across the different cases being filed. Time will make all of this clear.

You don’t even know where the figures you use come from?

 

[Dave Rogers]

You have no idea what you are talking about. You lifted an incorrect descriptive phrase regarding Benford's Law and passed yourself off as an Expert. Now you write a lengthy paragraph as if you posses inherent mathematical skills.

You are a fake.

Now that we've all seen that I was right all along, and you've gone so far beyond admitting that your insistence that Benford's Law is unambiguously the correct tool to detect election fraud was in fact erroneous as to challenge its applicability to detection of any kind of fraud, I eagerly await your apology.

Dave

 

[pgwenthold]

The real life dangers posed by Trump and his Republican enablers:

Philly elections officials are getting death threats as Trump targets the city

They are eating their own. Any republican who dares defend the legitimacy of the presidential election*** is now getting attacked.

***BTW, what about all those congressional and senate seats that the Republicans won? Oh wait....there are like 10 republicans congresspeople in Pennsylvania who believe that their election was perfectly legit, while still not disavowing claims of voter fraud

 

[slyjoe]

Their status as poll watchers doesn’t automatically grant their claims legitimacy.

They still need to provide evidence for their claims.

Have they?



Please provide an example of one these claims and the method by which it could be disproven to the satisfaction of everyone who believes the claim.



The statements are merely claims.

Are claims evidence?

It should be easy to provide more than affidavits. Wasn't there a process in place at the polls for observers to make objections? Where is the evidence for that? Or, did the observers not make objections when they saw these alleged violations?

 

[JoeMorgue]

They are eating their own. Any republican who dares defend the legitimacy of the presidential election*** is now getting attacked.

***BTW, what about all those congressional and senate seats that the Republicans won? Oh wait....there are like 10 republicans congresspeople in Pennsylvania who believe that their election was perfectly legit, while still not disavowing claims of voter fraud

The Democrats are so sinister that can commit voter fraud on only certain elections on the same ballot!

 

[pgwenthold]

I will go back to a comment I made recently, but perhaps more narrow, and so now to make it more broadly:

All these standards that are being applied to this nit-picky accusations need to be applied to the 2016 election, as well.

Hey shuttit, how many poll observer malfeasance affidavits were there in 2016? Is 70 a large number?

Is there any reason to think that the number of reported "violations" this year is any different from what has happened in the past?

If the claim is that THIS election is rife with voter fraud, you need to show that THIS election is different from 2016, which was certified and official.

And no, Trumps claims that there was voter fraud in 2016, too, don't count as evidence (his own commission failed to find any)

 

[Paul2]

[deleted; ninja'ed to irrelevancy]

 

[crescent]

Would the claims here count as more than piddly transgressions?
https://greatlakesjc.org/wp-content/uploads/Complaint-Costantino-FINAL-With-Exhibits.pdf
If this is substantiated, it looks like we would be talking about more than a handful of votes.

People are filing suits, lots of them. I mentioned earlier that more than 200 suits were filed challenging Barack Obama's place of birth or citizenship. And - most of the people filing those suits knew full well he was an American citizen born in Hawaii.

Judging by the number of suits already thrown out due to lack of evidence, it seems clear that once again we are seeing a large number of bad-faith lawsuits filed.

The wolf ain't coming.

 

[shuttlt]

I will go back to a comment I made recently, but perhaps more narrow, and so now to make it more broadly:

All these standards that are being applied to this nit-picky accusations need to be applied to the 2016 election, as well.

Hey shuttit, how many poll observer malfeasance affidavits were there in 2016? Is 70 a large number?

I don't know. I would have thought if there was such evidence about 2016 we might have heard about it by now. 2016 clearly can't be undone at this point, but if there is anything like the evidence for cheating in 2016 that there is in 2020 then I'd be in 100% agreement with you that it should be looked into and acted on accordingly.

Is there any reason to think that the number of reported "violations" this year is any different from what has happened in the past?

That seems like a pointless question. If last time the process was corrupt, we should keep it corrupt this time as well because counting the vote honestly this time would be unfair?

If the claim is that THIS election is rife with voter fraud, you need to show that THIS election is different from 2016, which was certified and official.

No. It could have been corrupt in 2016, I don't know. If it was then the solution isn't to keep it corrupt in 2020.

And no, Trumps claims that there was voter fraud in 2016, too, don't count as evidence (his own commission failed to find any)

OK, so there wasn't evidence of voter fraud in 2016? I think we should concentrate on 2020 rather than going through all the elections from 1788 first in case elections have been cheated in the past so it should be allowed to continue. The issue is whether there is any issue with THIS election.

 

[shuttlt]

It should be easy to provide more than affidavits. Wasn't there a process in place at the polls for observers to make objections? Where is the evidence for that? Or, did the observers not make objections when they saw these alleged violations?

At least some of the poll watchers claim that officials at the count wouldn't log objections.

 

[crescent]

....Last night, I heard somebody on CNN say that the fraud allegations are the new Birtherism. I think they were right on the money. Republicans have just reached the interview with Obama's grandmother stage, with fake birth certificates from various places in Africa just around the corner.

That wolf never came either.

Also we're supposed to just ignore the fact that Trump has been whining about the Democrats stealing the election since before the election started.

That wolf never arrived.

You haven’t checked to see if they do have the evidence? Surely that is the first stage, taking their claims on faith seems a rather strange way to consider if something has merit or not. If I said I had 70 witnesses to seeing Bigfoot would you simply accept that?

What if they saw a wolf?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/presidential-advisory-commission-election-integrity/

"On May 11, 2017, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order establishing the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. Vice President Mike Pence chairs the Commission, and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach serves as the vice chair."

https://www.npr.org/2018/01/03/5755...roversial-election-commission?t=1605109853130

"Trump created the commission in May 2017 after he continued to insist that as many as 5 million votes were cast illegally in the November 2016 presidential election where he bested Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. But there has been no evidence to back up that claim, and the president's assertions have been dismissed by election officials and experts. Trump won the Electoral College, giving him the White House, but he lost the popular vote to Clinton by almost 3 million votes."

"Kansas Republican Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who has long claimed there is widespread voter fraud by noncitizens despite providing no evidence of any such improprieties and only prosecuting a few fraud cases in Kansas."

Massive wolf hunt, no wolves found.

But this time, really, definitely, there's a wolf. People say so.

Never mind that rewards are being offered for such testimony, that crowdsource funding pops up for such people, and that few seem to be able to provide any meaningful actual evidence. Pretend that no lawsuits have already been dismissed. Also, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

 

[slyjoe]

At least some of the poll watchers claim that officials at the count wouldn't log objections.

They claim a lot - but never seem to provide evidence.

 

[Paul2]

I think it's clear that the Trump machine was ready for a Bush v Gore type situation, where such piddly crap could be the difference in tipping a narrow win in a pivotal swing state. The lawyers are running into a brick wall now because the election margins simply were too broad for such tactics to be effective. It's too many votes in too many states to haggle about what "fill out" means or whether a couple boxes of absentee ballots should be invalidated.

Seems to me the lawyers are going through the motions for their client and taking their beating with stoicism, but there was never any real hope for success here.

They get paid regardless.