Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

[johnny karate]

No, it's not that is "must be true", but you guys seem to be utterly ignorant about the claims that are being made. At the moment, I agree with you all that it's all quite preliminary and it could be that it all ends up being rebutted.

What evidence is there to support these claims?

 

[johnny karate]

Well, I guess it goes back to Sceptic Ginger claiming that the claims were "piddly" and only about insignificant numbers of votes. You guys seemed to be almost completely ignorant about what the claims actually are. Hence I thought maybe it would be worth letting you know what the claims actually are since clearly what ever sources of news you are relying on aren't telling you.

What evidence is there to support these claims?

 

[The Atheist]

What evidence is there to support these claims?

Ah, I've been keeping a record of the evidence and have listed it below for you in handy format.











The end.

 

[johnny karate]

Sure. But then I'm not coordinating any of the court cases, so that isn't particularly surprising.

What do you find legally compelling about any of these cases?

 

[shuttlt]

Maybe try reading the WAPO article in the first place?

But on Monday, Hopkins, 32, told investigators from the U.S. Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General that the allegations were not true, and he signed an affidavit recanting his claims, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe an ongoing investigation. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee tweeted late Tuesday that the “whistleblower completely RECANTED.”

Hopkins did not respond to messages from The Washington Post seeking comment through his social media accounts, family members and phone messages earlier this week. But in a YouTube video he posted Tuesday night, he denied recanting. “I’m here to say I did not recant my statements. That did not happen,” he said.
Who says he signed it? What did he sign?

The standards of WAPO are clearly much higher than the NY post. The officials are not anonymous to the WAPO authors - just to us.

if you have a reliable source, let me know. The WAPO aren't reliable. I've provided a video of Giuliani talking to back up what I said he said. I provided the court documents to show what the court cases were about. I'm not taking the word of a political actor like WAPO for something like this.

For them to be wrong about hopkins signing an affidavit recanting his claims would be a bigger deal than him lying in a YT video.

The media have been "wrong" lots of times with unnamed sources describing unseen documents.

 

[Meadmaker]

What ACORN did was systematic election fraud across multiple states. There are many other prosecutions which took place in states besides the examples I have presented. This is an epidemic of sorts & engenders the dangers of absentee ballots.

It may seem a bit of a nitpick, but what Acorn did was systematic violation of election laws across multiple states. That's not the same as fraud across multiple states.

In fact a lot of the cases I've seen described lately, by Acorn and others, don't actually involve changing votes, inventing votes, or destroying votes. They involve bypassing safeguards that are intended to make fraud impossible, but they are not, themselves, fraud.

The reason I think the distinction is significant, though, is that I think a lot of people could be convinced to accept compensation for registering voters. Some would not even realize that it's a crime. Others would rationalize that it shouldn't be a crime. The end result of such a crime is that people who are perfectly legal voters will cast perfectly legal votes, but who otherwise might not have done so.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be prosecuted. It's just not the same thing as faking votes in an election.

 

[shuttlt]

What evidence is there to support these claims?

You know perfectly well. To go further we will have to wait.

 

[johnny karate]

https://nypost.com/2020/11/11/usps-whistleblower-denies-wapo-claim-he-recanted-allegations/


"In a video posted Tuesday evening, Richard Hopkins, a United States Postal Service worker in the must-win swing state, denied taking back his statements when speaking to authorities.

“I’m here to say I did not recant my statements. That did not happen,” said Hopkins, 32."

Richard Hopkins, the Postal worker, has stated the WAPO should recant their article.

And it appears to be another example of fake news by the Washington Post. Now I'll just go ahead and let everyone know in advance that I'm not going to debate whether his allegations are true or false. I'm merely pointing out that you have been had by the WaPo. The evidence of a Postal worker recant is fake news. Why would they do that?

Three unnamed people were told by some other unnamed people that the guy who says he didn't recant, recanted.... glad we are keeping to our standard of evidence.

This information came from the USPS Office of the Inspector General and members of the House Oversight Committee.

 

[johnny karate]

You know perfectly well. To go further we will have to wait.

No evidence then, thanks.

What do you find legally compelling about the cases upon which these evidence-free claims are based?

 

[wareyin]

if you have a reliable source, let me know. The WAPO aren't reliable. I've provided a video of Giuliani talking to back up what I said he said. I provided the court documents to show what the court cases were about. I'm not taking the word of a political actor like WAPO for something like this.


The media have been "wrong" lots of times with unnamed sources describing unseen documents.

First: Hahahahahahaah seriously, a video of Giuliani making a claim is evidence for his claim?

Second: the documents were not unseen by the House Oversight Committee.

 

[pgwenthold]

This information came from the USPS Office of the Inspector General and members of the House Oversight Committee.

But he had a youtube video denying it

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Wait, the guy who is upset that his GoFundMe page worth some $130k is being held up because he recanted is now claiming that he didn't recant? Yeah, I totally believe him because he has absolutely no motive to lie now that he's about to lose his job.

It seems to me he could make a lot more money by filing suit against the Washington Post. You know it's a proven fact they've done this sort of thing before.

How quickly some seem to forget the Covington KY boys and Nick Sandman. He seems to be at least one individual to have come out on top in his defamation battle with the WaPo.

I suppose as long as you have deep pockets you can publish whatever you wish your narrative to be, true or not. Kinda like driving above the speed limit, though sometimes you may have to pay a price.

 

[wareyin]

It seems to me he could make a lot more money by filing suit against the Washington Post. You know it's a proven fact they've done this sort of thing before.

How quickly some seem to forget the Covington KY boys and Nick Sandman. He seems to be at least one individual to have come out on top in his defamation battle with the WaPo.

I suppose as long as you have deep pockets you can publish whatever you wish your narrative to be, true or not. Kinda like driving above the speed limit, though sometimes you may have to pay a price.

Given that the House Oversight Committee who has the document also says he recanted, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say no, Hopkins isn't going to be able to Sue WAPO for accurately reporting that he recanted. Not even if he makes another Youtube video.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Maybe try reading the WAPO article in the first place?

But on Monday, Hopkins, 32, told investigators from the U.S. Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General that the allegations were not true, and he signed an affidavit recanting his claims, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe an ongoing investigation. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee tweeted late Tuesday that the “whistleblower completely RECANTED.”

Hopkins did not respond to messages from The Washington Post seeking comment through his social media accounts, family members and phone messages earlier this week. But in a YouTube video he posted Tuesday night, he denied recanting. “I’m here to say I did not recant my statements. That did not happen,” he said.

Who says he signed it? What did he sign?

1) presumably USPS Office of the Inspector General investigators and members of the House Oversight Committee.
2) an affidavit recanting his claims

You know, when the investigation is over, they can show us this affidavit, right ?

if you have a reliable source, let me know. The WAPO aren't reliable. I've provided a video of Giuliani talking to back up what I said he said. I provided the court documents to show what the court cases were about. I'm not taking the word of a political actor like WAPO for something like this.

A guiliani presser is news and evidence, but the WAPO is a political actor.

Can I have some of what you are smoking ?

The media have been "wrong" lots of times with unnamed sources describing unseen documents.

I'm not sure why you put wrong in quotes.....

 

[acbytesla]

You know perfectly well. To go further we will have to wait.

Why? There is no law against a plaintiff predenting his evidence to the publc. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE can file suit. This is hardly a reason to believe the turds being served up by right wing nutjobs is chocolate.

What I can see is you throwing everything up against the wall in a desperate attempt to find something that sticks. Yesterday it was Benford's law proved fraud. Not that you understood Benford's law. Are you still holding to that claim or have you moved on?

 

[Meadmaker]

Remember the days when Giuliani was himself seen as a credible presidential candidate? Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It seems to me he could make a lot more money by filing suit against the Washington Post. You know it's a proven fact they've done this sort of thing before.

How quickly some seem to forget the Covington KY boys and Nick Sandman. He seems to be at least one individual to have come out on top in his defamation battle with the WaPo.

I suppose as long as you have deep pockets you can publish whatever you wish your narrative to be, true or not. Kinda like driving above the speed limit, though sometimes you may have to pay a price.

Take an actual position:

Do you think believe Hopkins told investigators from the U.S. Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General that the allegations were not true, and he signed an affidavit recanting his claims, or not ?

Why?

 

[shuttlt]

1) presumably USPS Office of the Inspector General investigators and members of the House Oversight Committee.
2) an affidavit recanting his claims

Right, so you don't actually know. Because we are talking about claims from anonymous sources saying what other anonymous people told them aren't we?

You know, when the investigation is over, the can show us this affidavit, right ?

Sure, but you will fall foul of the rest of the forum if you just post claims like this without evidence.

A guiliani presser is news and evidence, but the WAPO is a political actor.

Giuliani is a political actor as well, however... footage of him talking is better evidence of what he said, which is what I was demonstrating, than the WAPO saying that three anonymous people told them some other anonymous people told them something is evidence of anything.

I'm not sure why you put wrong in quotes.....

Because there are all sorts of ways of lying that are different degrees of deniable. It would be like saying that somebody "misspoke" when they said something on an open mic that they shouldn't.

 

[shuttlt]

This information came from the USPS Office of the Inspector General and members of the House Oversight Committee.

Do you at least have a link to a named individual saying this? At the moment all we have is the usual anonymous sources describing what an unseen document says. We've been here before and the record of these things being impartial and objective is *cough* not 100% spotless.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Right, so you don't actually know. Because we are talking about claims from anonymous sources saying what other anonymous people told them aren't we?


Sure, but you will fall foul of the rest of the forum if you just post claims like this without evidence.


Giuliani is a political actor as well, however... footage of him talking is better evidence of what he said, which is what I was demonstrating, than the WAPO saying that three anonymous people told them some other anonymous people told them something is evidence of anything.


Because there are all sorts of ways of lying that are different degrees of deniable. It would be like saying that somebody "misspoke" when they said something on an open mic that they shouldn't.

I think it has been amply demonstrated in this thread that there is no fraud evidence to be taken seriously.

I do , however, appreciate your response, as one of the few defending the fraud allegations. You've given it your best, but like trump, fallen way short of the mark.

Cheers.