Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

[dann]

I take it that she hasn't apologised or corrected herself over her first lie...

If she has, I haven't seen it reported in the Danish media so far.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It's bad. They spend the first half getting his confidence and the second half pressuring him into rephrasing the affidavit so it is weaker. They push, push, push for an hour and rewrite the addifavid for him. I'd say he was a fool for not insisting on a lawyer, but smart people have made the same mistake. The only thing that saves him is the recording he made which he tells them about at the end.

Unless there is another interview where he then recants this second affidavit.... the congress creature who said he recanted is a damned liar.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...b70eda-2470-11eb-8599-406466ad1b8e_story.html
November 11, 2020 at 10:39 p.m. EST

The two-hour recording shows that Richard Hopkins recanted claims he had made in a sworn affidavit that top Republicans cited over the weekend as potential evidence of widespread election irregularities and fraud.

Hopkins told federal investigators on Monday his allegations were based on fragments of conversation among co-workers in a noisy mail facility in Erie, Pa., according to the recording.

When an agent from the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General asked Hopkins if he stood by his sworn statement that a supervisor “was backdating ballots” mailed after Election Day, Hopkins answered: “At this point? No.”
He also agreed to sign a revised statement that undercut his earlier affidavit.
THATS CALLED RECANTING YOUR EARLIER STATEMENT ...But shuttlt said the congress creature who said he recanted is a damned liar. ? Gee, who to believe....

On Tuesday, following a story in The Washington Post that quoted officials as saying Hopkins had recanted his earlier claims, Hopkins said in a YouTube video that he had not done so, and that the recording of the interview would show as much.

During the recorded interview, however, federal agents repeatedly reminded Hopkins that his cooperation was voluntary, and Hopkins agreed to sign a document stating that he was not coerced.

Hopkins also repeatedly expressed regret for signing the initial affidavit because it overstated what he knew and witnessed, according to the recording.

...

In the interview with federal agents, though, Hopkins said he overheard only a few portions of a conversation between the postmaster and another worker. The two were standing at a distance that made it difficult to hear the full conversation, but Hopkins said he could make out three phrases: “ballots on the 4th,” “all for the 3rd,” and “one postmarked on the 4th.”

“My mind probably added the rest,” he told the investigators, before acknowledging that he never heard anyone use the word “backdate.”...

Under questioning by the agents, Hopkins agreed to sign the revised affidavit, which replaced many of his factual assertions with statements couched as his “assumptions” or “impressions,” according to the recording.

...

Hopkins told investigators that he collected one ballot on his route on Nov. 5, and secretly wrote the date on the back of it in case a supervisor backdated the appropriate postmark. He said he had no direct knowledge of any directive to backdate ballots, nor did he witness anyone manipulate a ballot.
As …expected. Nothing to see here. Exactly as the WAPO initially claimed.

 

[Meadmaker]

Not sure if this has yet been posted. The low level contractor for Dominion working at TCF has an affidavit:

If things are as bad as this fellow says, an audit will make it clear fairly quickly.

One of the interesting things is that, unlike any of the others that I have seen, actually has a specific name, that of his supervisor, in the affidavit. That at least gives some sort of opportunity to check out part of his story.


One thing I have to wonder about is what the process of these ballot watchers is to report complaints, and if the complaints were recorded. Something that strikes me in so many of the affidavits are statements like, "At some point I saw someone violate the rules by...."

If I were doing the count observer's job, I'm pretty sure I would have a pen and paper with me, and would be writing down, "While observing at Table 16 at 4:04 am, I observed a poll worker run the same batch of ballots twice." Assuming there was some sort of system in place to record that sort of thing, I would make sure to put in an official report.

Maybe they didn't have such a system. That would be rather embarrassing. I've been involved in some pretty amateurish event planning activities, like at Robotics competitions, and we have forms that get filled out to record the occurrence of unusual activities. You would think a group like this would have something similar, but maybe not.

ETA: And, I think I must have clicekd the big grin smiley by mistake, but can't seem to edit it out. Sorry if that causes any confusion.

 

[johnny karate]

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Exactly. If someone accused you of pedophilia, and I respond “shuttit is not a pedophile”, the correct response would be “Assumes facts not in evidence”.

We can’t know for certain that you haven’t committed pedophilia until evidence has been presented that you haven’t committed pedophilia.

 

[turingtest]

Unlike Trump, who assumes evidence not in facts.

Dave

Nommed for the perfect pith.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yep the Dragon in my Garage definitely voted illegally. Don't worry guys I'll have a talk with him.

 

[johnny karate]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...b70eda-2470-11eb-8599-406466ad1b8e_story.html
November 11, 2020 at 10:39 p.m. EST

The two-hour recording shows that Richard Hopkins recanted claims he had made in a sworn affidavit that top Republicans cited over the weekend as potential evidence of widespread election irregularities and fraud.

Hopkins told federal investigators on Monday his allegations were based on fragments of conversation among co-workers in a noisy mail facility in Erie, Pa., according to the recording.

When an agent from the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General asked Hopkins if he stood by his sworn statement that a supervisor “was backdating ballots” mailed after Election Day, Hopkins answered: “At this point? No.”
He also agreed to sign a revised statement that undercut his earlier affidavit.
THATS CALLED RECANTING YOUR EARLIER STATEMENT ...But shuttlt said the congress creature who said he recanted is a damned liar. ? Gee, who to believe....

On Tuesday, following a story in The Washington Post that quoted officials as saying Hopkins had recanted his earlier claims, Hopkins said in a YouTube video that he had not done so, and that the recording of the interview would show as much.

During the recorded interview, however, federal agents repeatedly reminded Hopkins that his cooperation was voluntary, and Hopkins agreed to sign a document stating that he was not coerced.

Hopkins also repeatedly expressed regret for signing the initial affidavit because it overstated what he knew and witnessed, according to the recording.

...

In the interview with federal agents, though, Hopkins said he overheard only a few portions of a conversation between the postmaster and another worker. The two were standing at a distance that made it difficult to hear the full conversation, but Hopkins said he could make out three phrases: “ballots on the 4th,” “all for the 3rd,” and “one postmarked on the 4th.”

“My mind probably added the rest,” he told the investigators, before acknowledging that he never heard anyone use the word “backdate.”...

Under questioning by the agents, Hopkins agreed to sign the revised affidavit, which replaced many of his factual assertions with statements couched as his “assumptions” or “impressions,” according to the recording.

...

Hopkins told investigators that he collected one ballot on his route on Nov. 5, and secretly wrote the date on the back of it in case a supervisor backdated the appropriate postmark. He said he had no direct knowledge of any directive to backdate ballots, nor did he witness anyone manipulate a ballot.
As …expected. Nothing to see here. Exactly as the WAPO initially claimed.

I am shocked to find out that shuttit’s version of Project Veritas’ audio recording does not comport with reality.

Shocked.

 

[shuttlt]

Exactly . If someone accused you of pedophilia, and I respond “shuttit is not a pedophile”, the correct response would be “Assumes facts not in evidence”.

We can’t know for certain that you haven’t committed pedophilia until evidence has been presented that you haven’t committed pedophilia.

Who goes about flat out denying accusations about people on the internet that they don't know?

 

[johnny karate]

Who goes about flat out denying accusations about people on the internet that they don't know?

Good point. I retract my denial.

 

[shuttlt]

I am shocked to find out that shuttit’s version of Project Veritas’ audio recording does not comport with reality.

Shocked.

WAPO are partisan hacks. You might as well quote a Huffpo summary, or the Biden campaign. I have listened to the recording and the WAPO are not being honest.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Who goes about flat out denying accusations about people on the internet that they don't know?

You know when you're so deep in your alternative universe that you have to question the motives of the hypothetical person who is defending you of accusations of pedophilia... seek help.

 

[JoeMorgue]

WAPO are partisan hacks. You might as well quote a Huffpo summary, or the Biden campaign. I have listened to the recording and the WAPO are not being honest.

Post Fact World Rule #1. All sources are biased, so there is no place to go to get actual information.

 

[Meadmaker]

Wouldn't this same argument make organized crime impossible? There have been loads of financial scandals where low level people were either instructed to, or encouraged to do things that were clearly improper without it being discovered for years.

That's a good question. I don't have time to answer it, and I have to run out. I don't want it to get lost in the high volume thread, so if I don't answer it this evening, bring it up again. It's a fair question, and actually something I used to wonder about.

 

[johnny karate]

WAPO are partisan hacks. You might as well quote a Huffpo summary, or the Biden campaign. I have listened to the recording and the WAPO are not being honest.

There are actual quotes from the audio recording cited.

Do you deny the accuracy of those quotes?

 

[shuttlt]

If things are as bad as this fellow says, an audit will make it clear fairly quickly.

Yes. That is my hope. One way or another there will be some level of clarity.

One thing I have to wonder about is what the process of these ballot watchers is to report complaints, and if the complaints were recorded. Something that strikes me in so many of the affidavits are statements like, "At some point I saw someone violate the rules by...."

One of the affidavits from a poll watcher said that there was some official who they were supposed to report concerns to, but the official refused to record the complaints. Some of the affidavits says that the witness had contacted the FBI.

If I were doing the count observer's job, I'm pretty sure I would have a pen and paper with me, and would be writing down, "While observing at Table 16 at 4:04 am, I observed a poll worker run the same batch of ballots twice." Assuming there was some sort of system in place to record that sort of thing, I would make sure to put in an official report.

There are descriptions of taking notes in the statements from the poll watchers. They talk about noting managing to note down some of the ballots they felt were being improperly recorded. Some photographs are also claimed to have been taken.

Maybe they didn't have such a system. That would be rather embarrassing. I've been involved in some pretty amateurish event planning activities, like at Robotics competitions, and we have forms that get filled out to record the occurrence of unusual activities. You would think a group like this would have something similar, but maybe not.

You would think so. Ultimately we have to wait and see.

ETA: And, I think I must have clicekd the big grin smiley by mistake, but can't seem to edit it out. Sorry if that causes any confusion.

 

[shuttlt]

There are actual quotes from the audio recording cited.

Do you deny the accuracy of those quotes?

Unlike most people I've listened to the recording, so I know they are being deliberately dishonest. If you are going to claim you can't take a few sentences, after two hours of questioning by people with an interest in undermining the person being questioned, to create a false impression you are either a fool or a liar.

 

[shuttlt]

Post Fact World Rule #1. All sources are biased, so there is no place to go to get actual information.

They are all biased. That's why primary sources are important. If you let politically motivated people tell you what the evidence shows without checking up on it at least once in a while, then you've outsourced your brain to one or other party.

 

[johnny karate]

Unlike most people I've listened to the recording, so I know they are being deliberately dishonest. If you are going to claim you can't take a few sentences, after two hours of questioning by people with an interest in undermining the person being questioned, to create a false impression you are either a fool or a liar.

You didn’t answer my question. Do you deny the accuracy of the quotes cited?

 

[Mader Levap]

Oh, and we don't elect a President by popular vote. It'd be downright silly to let California choose every President of the US.

We can add geography (beside preschool-grade math) to subjects that you do not know anything about.
Protip: California does not have half of eligible voting population of USA.

The best we can do is look at a probably cause standard making stuff up in hope that something sticks.

FTFY.

Time for meme fitting for this ridiculous thread:

 

[Armitage72]

One affidavit could be 232 pages....

How many actual unique affidavits are you referring to with your claim of 232 pages? 70?

Plus, when multiple parties are offering cash rewards for information on voter fraud, the volume of claims becomes vastly less significant than the quality of the claims, which has been negligible to date.