Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

[johnny karate]

No. For the same reason that Nixon didn't push the recount publicly and eventually backed down. There is a political cost to doing it. Eisenhower told him he would look like a sore loser and didn't back him. He wanted to run again, and the party didn't want to damage itself.


Yes, that is possible. However at that point it's a question of what the people, the individual states and congress decide to do about it.


That's not an issue about recounts and audits, that is an issue of whether the losing side believes and is willing to accept the results. You can't make people believe the result by refusing to investigate it and pointing to some rulebook that says you don't have to. I agree that audits may not fix the lack of belief.


The burden of proof is on the accuser in court. As with impeachment, ultimately an election is a political process.

Election officials across the country, both Democrat and Republican, and the federal agency that oversees election security have declared that there is no evidence of significant fraud.

These are the people and agencies specifically tasked with looking for this evidence.

They have found none.

None.

 

[shuttlt]

In other words, they didn't even get to the point of robust processes, because they caught it even before they used the robust processes.

What robust process are you talking about that would have caught it? It's all well and good to say "robust process", but again you are assuming your own conclusion. If we know from the start that there is a "robust process" then I don't understand why recounts are even allowed.

 

[johnny karate]

What robust process are you talking about that would have caught it? It's all well and good to say "robust process", but again you are assuming your own conclusion. If we know from the start that there is a "robust process" then I don't understand why recounts are even allowed.

Election officials across the country, both Democrat and Republican, and the federal agency that oversees election security have declared that there is no evidence of significant fraud.

These are the people and agencies specifically tasked with looking for this evidence.

They have found none.

None.

 

[Vixen]

Indeed...

"This Tweet is from a suspended account."

Ah, ninja-ed.

 

[Vixen]

Apologies for my post not hitting a mark I wasn't aiming for. Any case that one points out is going to differ in some way from the case at hand, and hence can be dismissed out of hand. I thought this case would be interesting to Darat as I believe he is from the UK and the case if from the UK. I also thought it would be interesting to the specific poster who was talking about whether organizing something like this would be possible given that lots of people would have to know about it. That poster seemed genuinely interested in dialog rather than just reflexively saying "no" to everything.

It seems to me that on the community organizing side of election fraud, in the right community, it is perfectly possible to organize a crazy blatant level of fraud. Given the security in place on the election, I'm not sure how you would catch it. Maybe an audit.

Wherever there is 'gain' - usually money but can be passing exams, winning elections, winning a horse race, an athletic competition, deciding a match score in advance - there will ALWAYS be individuals looking to 'get around' the system and achieve the specific gain by cheating. That is not an amazing revelation.

 

[Myriad]

Or, "I don't know how bank security actually works, but I am not open to the possibility that a bank could be robbed. Examples of bank robberies just go to show how good the security is and that banks can't be robbed."

More like, "Bank robbery has repeatedly been shown to be more than sufficiently difficult and detectable to be confident that the current economic downturn was not caused by large amounts of money being surreptitiously robbed from banks."

 

[Mader Levap]

Watching multiple people trying to engage with shuttlt is absolute cringe.

Shuttlt, your fuhrer lost election. Get over it.

 

[gnome]

More's to the point--ballot fraud is like robbing the tellers. The real game, the kind that tanked the economy in '06, is played outside the scope of actually tampering with the voting itself. It's all about manipulating voters' choices, gerrymandering, candidate selection, enabling voting of people favorable to you and suppressing voting of people unfavorable to you.

Nobody's hands are clean in that game, except maybe comparatively. Election security is a need, but convincing people that this is where the fix goes is a misdirection. The other methods are less risky and more effective. Some of them can be done openly.

 

[catsmate]

Speaking as someone with experience of court as an expert witness there is, I think, a common misconception amongst some supporters of the legal challenge(s) against the Biden votesa regarding the standard or evidence required and extent of legal scrutiny. TV and film typically portrays this very poorly, as it focusses on drama (for obvious reasons).


Any assertion must be supported by substantive evidence and, depending on jurisdiction, corroborative material. The responding or defending party then has an opportunity to interrogate this in very considerable detail in advance of any evidence in chief (for example).



Unsubstantiated claims will founder almost immediately, as will non-sequiturs or arguments from incredulity. Calls for perfection do not, in my experience, fare well in (Scottish) court nor do perceived minor procedural claims.


The trouble in the sections of the affidavit which I've seen is that they make all these mistakes. It's just not convincing. And whilst absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the Trump campaign cannot win their cases based on this kind of evidence.

Welcome back.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

This is what happens when delusions meets reality: one of the two has to give.

And in the case of Trumpafarians, it's never delusion.

 

[Vixen]

You say they were caught for this reason. Do you have details of how they were caught?


There were 275 votes for the Aston ward on the table when the police broke in. The case also says that they were engaged in fraud in the neighbouring Bordesley Green ward. A hand writing expert concluded hundreds of ballots were forged, but who can say what the actual total is? There are only a few thousand votes cast in Aston local elections. I can't find the totals for that year, but going by the most recent data I could find, only about 6000 people voted. So just on the table was north of 4% of the total votes cast.

I agree with you that Trump would have to show something as bad as this was going on at a much larger scale. Even supposing it was happening, proving it in the few weeks Trump has is going to be tough.

Well, common sense tells us that where large scale fraud has been succesfful, we'll never know about it now, except by chance. The ones we know about are the unsuccessful ones. How to deal with fraud?

You test the system. You think about every which way a fraudster could cast an illegal vote. You bring in stamps and division of duties, so that the person at he polling station is not the same person opening the ballot box, or the same person sorting the papers or the same person counting.

In retrospect, you can apply statistical models to see how probable your results are or how reliable. For example, comparing it with previous years, neighbouring wards, you do a straightforward audit using a Montecarlo Simulation (random numbers assignment and looking a those specific ballot papers to see if they follow the trend of the outcome). There are many many things you can do to get into the mind of a fraudster and thwart them at every turn.

 

[Firestone]

NMeanwhile, in the real world, the Trump campaign effectively drops its case against Maricopa county, AZ.

https://twitter.com/NicoleSganga/status/1327305969739640838?s=19

Elsewhere, a Michigan judge has rejected a GOP effort to stop the certification of election results in Wayne County pending an audit —*"sinister, fraudulent motives were ascribed ... Plaintiffs' interpretation of events is incorrect and not credible".

The judge's rather scathing text, embedded in the tweet, is worth a read.

https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1327315886802341889?s=19

 

[shuttlt]

Wherever there is 'gain' - usually money but can be passing exams, winning elections, winning a horse race, an athletic competition, deciding a match score in advance - there will ALWAYS be individuals looking to 'get around' the system and achieve the specific gain by cheating. That is not an amazing revelation.

I agree. I hadn't thought of it, but since you mentioned exams, you reminded me of those celebrities paying bribes to get their kids into college. Conspiracies that lots of people know about happen all the time.

 

[Meadmaker]

In case anyone wants to read about another dismissed lawsuit, the Wayne County judge has dismissed that one.

https://www.scribd.com/document/484...60149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate

Plenty more in Michigan that will be dismissed soon enough.

 

[shuttlt]

More's to the point--ballot fraud is like robbing the tellers. The real game, the kind that tanked the economy in '06, is played outside the scope of actually tampering with the voting itself. It's all about manipulating voters' choices, gerrymandering, candidate selection, enabling voting of people favorable to you and suppressing voting of people unfavorable to you.

Nobody's hands are clean in that game, except maybe comparatively. Election security is a need, but convincing people that this is where the fix goes is a misdirection. The other methods are less risky and more effective. Some of them can be done openly.

I agree

 

[Vixen]

Thread is too fast moving ... I would respond to some post about the PA lawsuit if I could find it in this mess of a thread...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/13/business/porter-wright-trump-pennsylvania.html
Law Firm Stops Representing Trump Campaign in Pennsylvania Suit
Porter Wright said in a court filing that it would no longer represent the campaign in a federal lawsuit alleging widespread voter irregularities.
...
Previously, Porter Wright had filed a number of other actions in Pennsylvania courts challenging aspects of the state’s voting process. It isn’t clear if the firm will continue to represent Mr. Trump’s campaign on those cases. A Porter Wright representative didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday.

In the words of Rick Wilson: ETTD (Everything Trump Touches Dies)

That can mean either two things: the lawyers have been sacked by their client or they decline to represent them further, usually because of 'no reasonable prospect of success' or unpaid fees.

Plus they could get into trouble for bringing their profession into disrepute.

 

[trustbutverify]

I agree. I hadn't thought of it, but since you mentioned exams, you reminded me of those celebrities paying bribes to get their kids into college. Conspiracies that lots of people know about happen all the time.

Or people paying someone to take their SAT tests, and then using family members to do their college coursework.

 

[shuttlt]

That can mean either two things: the lawyers have been sacked by their client or they decline to represent them further, usually because of 'no reasonable prospect of success' or unpaid fees.

Plus they could get into trouble for bringing their profession into disrepute.

Wasn't the Lincoln Project handing out the names and contact detail of their staff and clients and encouraging people to harass them? This is not a good thing.

 

[pgwenthold]

NMeanwhile, in the real world, the Trump campaign effectively drops its case against Maricopa county, AZ.

https://twitter.com/NicoleSganga/status/1327305969739640838?s=19

Elsewhere, a Michigan judge has rejected a GOP effort to stop the certification of election results in Wayne County pending an audit —*"sinister, fraudulent motives were ascribed ... Plaintiffs' interpretation of events is incorrect and not credible".

The judge's rather scathing text, embedded in the tweet, is worth a read.

https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1327315886802341889?s=19

I'm kind of confused. The Trumpets dropped the case based on "mootness," but isn't the whole point that flipping Arizona would keep hopes alive?

What changed since yesterday to make it moot? The only thing I know is that media has now called Arizona for Biden [fixed]. But the trumpet view is that the media doesn't determine the outcome of the election. The filing says, "The tally of the votes makes the case moot." But they were supposed to be contesting the tally of the votes?

They appear to be conceding that the vote tally in Arizona is accurate.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The lawyers are dropping the RNC as their client, because the risk of being charged with a Rule 11 violation is too great: if any of the lawyers are sanctioned, their insurance premiums will go through the roof.