Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

[shuttlt]

So as I asked above but I'll try to make it more explicit: how in a particular state that is meant to have been subject to election fraud this election could you have committed election fraud to change the result from Trump to Biden?

I'll bite. I'd do it at a number of levels.

1. I'd maximize the number of mail in ballots out there and maximize the amount of time that those ballots could be counted. That way I have the maximum scope both for ballot harvesting in the sense of going round old folks homes and what ever and helping people make the right choice and delivering their ballots for them. It would also give scope for collecting ballot applications that had gone astray or weren't being used and filling them in for people in the hope that they would get through.

2. I would want the maximum number of drop offs for the ballots with the minimum security on them to make it easier for the ballot harvesters.

3. I'd want to be as slack as possible with cleansing the electoral roll to make it easier for anybody who was submitting fraudulent ballots to do so.

4. I would remove, or not follow as many checks as possible that might catch fraudulent ballots. I'd drop signature checks. I'd drop confirming the details on the ballot. If these rules were still in place, I'd make it as easy as possible for people on the ground to not comply with the rules.

5. I'd create a culture where everybody in the process demonized the opposition publicly to make it harder to question what was going on. Look what happened to the postal worker when the USPI interviewed him. I would not enjoy being a lone whistle blower in a culture like that.

6. I'd try and minimize access to anybody not on my side to view the process.

7. I'd hold back as many ballots as possible until the target was known. Ideally I'd aim to be just the right side of the limit for an automatic recount, but we would be doing this live on the night so that might not be possible.

8. As a last resort, I'd hand create as many ballots as I needed against a list of people whose votes hadn't been received or discarded opposition ballots.

I'd say that the first 6 clearly go on (ignoring any claims about peoples motivation), the only question is at what level. I'm not sure that any of this needs a top down conspiracy, beyond knowing that this kind of corruption is going to go on and encouraging/facilitating it as much as possible. Whether or not any of this actually happened is another question, but it looks like this is what the various witnesses are claiming. I don't think any of it requires the Biden campaign, or the DNC to directly organize.

What would you see if this kind of thing was going on? There would be instances where individual people, or a small group of people were caught committing fraud, but none of it individually would be big enough to change the result.

 

[shuttlt]

I I got caught I would say "I misinterpreted the rules".

 

[Darat]

I'll bite. I'd do it at a number of levels.


...snip...

You fell at the first hurdle....

I.e. Which state?

 

[shuttlt]

How did that judge put it "hearsay on hearsay"?

If that is a typical example of the type and quality of affidavits raised by 70 witnesses then it doesn't bode well for any case that is using them as part of their legal argument.

The IT worker trained on the machine observed people loading ballots in a way that would cause them to be counted 8 times and felt that they had not been trained, and this is "hearsay on hearsay"? Hearsay on hearsay would be the WAPO article where unnamed sources said that other unnamed sources had said that some other people had said something.

 

[shuttlt]

You fell at the first hurdle....

I.e. Which state?

You didn't ask. Now you are disappearing off into the weeds of specifics. Without legal authority or budget, I'm going to have a hard job doing a forensic analysis over the internet. You asked a general question and I answered it. I would imagine there would be variation by state, county and precinct in terms of what was politically and logistically possible. The descriptions of TCS on election night would be a good place to start. The claims are that there is essentially no control over the process and what ever checks that there are supposed to be aren't being done.

 

[smartcooky]

You fell at the first hurdle....

I.e. Which state?

Yup. He would fail at the old "read the entire list of questions first" test

 

[shuttlt]

And we've got responses in other cases that the checks were actually done by the proper people to do them, but that the watchers were trying to insist they be done at the wrong stage of the process by people neither qualified nor required to do them. All of this could easily be simply due to watchers failing to understand the process they were supposed to scrutinise and trying to take on the role of supervising it rather than observing it.

We also have someone processing the ballots and supporting the counting machines saying they weren't done. Of course the people running the count would say that there was no fraud. If there was they are hardly likely to say so.

Let's look at that one, shall we? He says the proper procedure is to re-scan the group of ballots with the problem one at the top. So the proper procedure is to scan the ballots a second time, which means either that it's normal procedure to double count any ballots with a problem anywhere in the batch - which is patently absurd - or that the software checks for repeat scans and rejects duplicates. If it's the latter, which is the only interpretation that makes a lick of sense, then running the same batch through multiple times will simply result in a set of votes being repeatedly overwritten, not multiply counted. Yes, it'll waste the counters' time, but the effect on the number of votes tallied will be a big fat zero.

The IT worker supporting the counting machines says they weren't following the procedure and observed them counting some 50 ballots 8 times.

 

[shuttlt]

How, and please explain how in line with the actual state legislation in the state that you claim you could do it in.

This is only important if the people running the process actually follow the election law. The claim is that they haven't, hence the law in the state isn't relevant.

 

[Darat]

You didn't ask. ...snip...

Yes I did - I asked twice in fact and you quoted my second time in the your post!

So as I asked above but I'll try to make it more explicit: how in a particular state that is meant to have been subject to election fraud this election could you have committed election fraud to change the result from Trump to Biden?​

I'm not interested in a hypothetical state - I want to see how you or anyone else would conduct elector fraud in an actual state. As I pointed out in both my responses many of the ways Chris said he "could" carry out election fraud wouldn't have been possible in PA as they have SOPs in place to prevent that kind of fraud.

I'm willing to do the work and go and research the SOPs but only if those claiming they could carry out election fraud are also willing to do the same and compare their claimed methods against the actual SOPs in place in a real state that is being accused of allowing election fraud to happen.

(Plus of course it has to election fraud.)

 

[shuttlt]

Don't forget that one of the cases that have got to court that was given as an example of this thread's topic had the plaintiff lawyer adamantly stating that the case was not about fraud! This seems to be quite a recurrent issue, the cases are not about the topic of the thread. Mistakes are not fraud.

I don't understand why that is significant. As much as Trump is saying fraud loudly, lots of his claims are that procedures were implemented/followed in a way that broke election law/violated the constitution. One might think that the not following of procedures was part of a fraud, but I'm not sure that that needs to be proved in court to get the result he's looking for.

 

[Darat]

This is only important if the people running the process actually follow the election law. The claim is that they haven't, hence the law in the state isn't relevant.

Nope, that is moving the goal posts. We are not talking about mistakes we are talking about election fraud - it is rather prominent in the title of the thread....

 

[Darat]

The IT worker trained on the machine observed people loading ballots in a way that would cause them to be counted 8 times and felt that they had not been trained, and this is "hearsay on hearsay"?

Yep.

Hearsay on hearsay would be the WAPO article where unnamed sources said that other unnamed sources had said that some other people had said something.

And?

 

[dann]

The Trump ambassador to Denmark has complained that her vote wasn't registered and counted.
The Danish media don't believe her, and there seems to be no reason whatsoever to do so:

USA's ambassadør påstod, hendes stemme ikke var talt med - men det var den (TV2.dk, Nov. 12, 2020)
The US ambassador claims that her vote had not been counted, but it had been counted
(The article includes a couple of ambassadorial Tweets.)

USA's ambassadør i Danmark tordner løs om valgsvindel: Men hun er ikke blevet snydt (DR.dk, Nov. 12, 2020)
The US ambassador to Denmark is raging about election fraud: But she hasn't been cheated

All in all, the Danish media find the fraud allegations hilarious:
Mens Trump taler om svindel, søger internettet efter beviser - her er, hvad der dukkede op (TV2.dk, Nov. 10, 2020)
While Trump is talking about fraud, the internet is looking for evidence: This is what turned up

 

[Dave Rogers]

The IT worker supporting the counting machines says they weren't following the procedure and observed them counting some 50 ballots 8 times.

Repeating the allegation doesn't invalidate the response. If the proper procedure involves double counting then there must be a means of eliminating duplicates, so there isn't a problem.

Dave

 

[shuttlt]

Yes I did - I asked twice in fact and you quoted my second time in the your post!

So as I asked above but I'll try to make it more explicit: how in a particular state that is meant to have been subject to election fraud this election could you have committed election fraud to change the result from Trump to Biden?​

That's a different question to the one I was answering. Since as I said in the case of TSA laws and procedures weren't being followed, the specific laws in these states about what checks there should be and so forth don't seem relevant to me. That level of detail can only come out of an investigation. You are asking a ridiculous and impossible question if you want to go into that level of detail.

I'm not interested in a hypothetical state - I want to see how you or anyone else would conduct elector fraud in an actual state.

The issue there is that to answer the specific details about any given state one would have to be an election official or have similar inside knowledge of the process. We see ballot harvesting going on. I can't answer to every aspect of how the ballot harvesting is done and how it may differ from state to state, but you can't make it go away by insisting that unless we know the inside leg measurement of the people doing it, then it's all hypothetical.

As I pointed out in both my responses many of the ways Chris said he "could" carry out election fraud wouldn't have been possible in PA as they have SOPs in place to prevent that kind of fraud.

Are they following them?

I'm willing to do the work and go and research the SOPs but only if those claiming they could carry out election fraud are also willing to do the same and compare their claimed methods against the actual SOPs in place in a real state that is being accused of allowing election fraud to happen.

I don't see the point since the accusation is that the procedures weren't followed. I'm sure they have great documents saying how it is supposed to run. All it takes is people on the ground saying - "OK we aren't following the procedure today" and the document is worthless.

(Plus of course it has to election fraud.)

I'm not sure that fraud needs to be proven. Malfeasance, systematic irregularities, breaching election law..... you are setting a bar far higher than Trump actually needs to prove by saying fraud. Trump is saying "fraud" a lot publicly, but the cases he's bringing aren't restricted to that.

 

[Darat]

I don't understand why that is significant. As much as Trump is saying fraud loudly, lots of his claims are that procedures were implemented/followed in a way that broke election law/violated the constitution. One might think that the not following of procedures was part of a fraud, but I'm not sure that that needs to be proved in court to get the result he's looking for.

Thread topic: Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

To paraphrase:

"There was fraud" people: "Here is a link that is about the topic of the thread"

I read the link: "Hang on, the plaintiff lawyer in that case is adamant that is is not about election fraud"

You "that's not significant"

Sorry but it is very "significant" when we find out a case being used as an example of election fraud i.e. the topic of this thread turns out to not be about election fraud!

 

[shuttlt]

Repeating the allegation doesn't invalidate the response. If the proper procedure involves double counting then there must be a means of eliminating duplicates, so there isn't a problem.

Dave

She says they weren't following the proper procedure for handling reprocessing the ballots and that to her knowledge, as a trained tech support for the machines, this would result in multiple counting. Now she may be wrong, but this is first hand testimony of the most qualified person on the ballot counting machine that we have heard from. It isn't "hearsay on hearsay" as Darat incorrectly stated.

 

[Darat]

That's a different question to the one I was answering. ...snip...

Then a FYI.

It may help you in future not to start a post with the question I actually asked and then say "I'll bite" and then go on to answer a question I didn't ask....

I suggest that most people would have thought you were answering my post....

Indeed even more so when after I pointed it out that you failed at the first hurdle i.e. didn't state the state you then claimed I hadn't asked about a specific state...

 

[gypsyjackson]

The Trump ambassador to Denmark has complained that her vote wasn't registered and counted.
The Danish media don't believe her, and there seems to be no reason whatsoever to do so:

USA's ambassadør påstod, hendes stemme ikke var talt med - men det var den (TV2.dk, Nov. 12, 2020)
The US ambassador claims that her vote had not been counted, but it had been counted
(The article includes a couple of ambassadorial Tweets.)

USA's ambassadør i Danmark tordner løs om valgsvindel: Men hun er ikke blevet snydt (DR.dk, Nov. 12, 2020)
The US ambassador to Denmark is raging about election fraud: But she hasn't been cheated

All in all, the Danish media find the fraud allegations hilarious:
Mens Trump taler om svindel, søger internettet efter beviser - her er, hvad der dukkede op (TV2.dk, Nov. 10, 2020)
While Trump is talking about fraud, the internet is looking for evidence: This is what turned up

Yeah, the NYT busted her for that already: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/11/11/us/joe-biden-trump

 

[shuttlt]

Thread topic: Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

To paraphrase:

"There was fraud" people: "Here is a link that is about the topic of the thread"

I read the link: "Hang on, the plaintiff lawyer in that case is adamant that is is not about election fraud"

You "that's not significant"

Sorry but it is very "significant" when we find out a case being used as an example of election fraud i.e. the topic of this thread turns out to not be about election fraud!

If you

Edited by Agatha: 

Mods and admins are posting as ordinary members unless their words are in edit/info/mod boxes or they are posting in the Forum Management Feedback. Do not discuss moderation outside FMF

want to keep this thread narrowly focused only on the legally defined fraud aspect of trumps attempt to overturn the counts, then that seems overly restrictive to me. Specific aspects of a general fraud may not themselves necessarily be fraud.