Election Fraud and path forward

[SomeDude]

I suspect SomeDude’s comment about martial law may be alluding to this tweet by the attorney Lin Wood today:

https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/133 ... 37537?s=20

No i didn't see that. It was an option in my poll

[Mountaineer]

his opinion appears to be without any knowledge or investigation of the substantial irregularities and evidence of systemic fraud.

Yes, I am sure Barr loves to just throw random thoughts that are floating around in his brain to the media without having a good sense of what's going on. Sounds like someone, but not Barr.

If I get any vibe from Barr, he is a 4D chess, look 30 moves ahead kind of guy.

Maybe so. I'm kind of thinking that Barr knows the election was a screwed up mess from the get go and is trying to put some oil on the waters to head off a potential revolution - presuppositon being that he is a person who cares deeply about the country. Who knows?

[pmward]

skeptically questioning those who question government and dismissing them as conspiratorial (a loaded word meant to imply derision and encourage immediate dismissal with out any need to be considered ) is not even remotely the same thing... and is in fact the exact opposite of skepticism of government..

and for the record i didn't trust trump i took a chance on him.. and i give him support for his accomplishments, i will also turn on him in a heartbeat when he goes against the people.. but there is just WAY TO MUCH "non-evedence" that we have crossed the line between representative republic and banana republic,
what is going on in this election is wrong in so many ways, i will gladly abandon the comfortable status quo of returning to government as usual, in favor of chaos and court drama to get to the bottom of what seems like a overt and blatant big push to achieve a permanent state of corruption..

I've said many times I'm all for investigation if there is question. BUT I very much disagree that we should give any mind to baseless conspiracy theories. If I brought a left-wing conspiracy theory you guys would shred me to pieces. I show the right wing conspiracy theorists here more respect than they would show me if I brought a left-wing conspiracy theory to the board. There is a very large bias and hypocrisy on this board. You have lost many forum members over the last year or two because of this. And your claims of "overt and blatant big push to achieve a permanent state of corruption" are baseless. Like you can say these words, but with no proof they are nothing more than conjecture.

well i am about done with the round and round on this, but again you miss the point completely...

nobody here is looking for lizard people yet you keep using "conspiratorial" a loaded word meant to imply derision and encourage immediate dismissal with out any need to be considered.. to describe the right .. which very few of us, myself included actually are.. we are not the brain dead hillbilly trump idolators you make us out to be.. (the board is intellectual libertarian leaning if anything BTW)

here https://www.newsmax.com/us/election-the ... id/998968/
it is not facts presented in a court of law so i know you cant hear this.. and will deny it is evidence... (it is actually an article about a lack of curiosity..)

but if this were a game of craps, and one guy gets exactly the roll he needs at exactly the right time "he would be lucky", if he does it repeatedly, on all the right throws exactly where he needs to, and the other shooter is doing very well except every spot where the pot gets big and then he rolls snake eyes every time... nothing to see here right?

but its not evidence ... so how about we settle this over a game of dice

No I get it. I'm not unfamiliar with this. Have you never taken a statistics class??? There's a BIG difference between improbable and impossible. "Improbable" happens all the time. Hell this entire universe, world, and life itself coming out of nothing is the most "improbable" thing ever, yet is anyone arguing that because it is ridiculously improbable that life itself is some conspiracy theory and does not exist? This article is not proof or evidence of anything. It is conjecture. It's low-grade not credible bullshit. It has no merit. No judge would allow these arguments in court. No lawyer would even attempt to present this argument in court, it would be career suicide. And you cannot expect people to respect and allow you to spread conjecture. In the same way you wouldn't respect and allow us to spread "left" conjecture uncontested. We're here calling you on your bullshit. I challenge you to PROVE us wrong. If you cannot do so with real credible evidence then it's time to stop the silly paranoid bullshit. These are legal matters, not political matters. Opinion does not matter. This is not a philosophy discussion where we both can argue our points but neither can 100% prove them. In legal matters, proof is everything. Bring proof that is credible and admissible to court or GTFO.

[pmward]

so your position is that circumstantial evidence is not evidence?

we can't demand an investigation of a murder, because being seen in the immediate area of a murder victim with a bloody knife... isn't evidence... and it is not worthy of demanding an investigation and a court case... because it hasn't already been proven in a court of law yet?

your mind is closed... i am done

No. I've never said there should be no investigation. I'm saying your arguments are not proof or evidence. They are imagination.

i haven't made any argument about proof... read the words... not what you think i said...
i posted an article about a lack of curiosity by the media (and the left), it is not presented by the author or by me as proof of anything, just a lot of inconceivable results (circumstantial evidence) that really should make anyone with an open mind question the veracity of the election and hope for a full and deep investigation....

[pmward]

just a lot of inconceivable results (circumstantial evidence) that really should make anyone with an open mind question the veracity of the election and hope for a full and deep investigation....

Exactly, it's a bunch of conjecture. It's baseless. Once again, I'm not saying there shouldn't be an investigation. BUT there already is an investigation and legal filings that are public record. So why on earth would we go to newsmax when we could go directly to the source? You claim you're so "skeptical", so why don't you show skepticism towards baseless internet claims? Why are you so quick to accept something on the internet that could be completely made up and reject the actual evidence that we have official public record of? Once again, I'm not against investigation, I am simply against the common theme here of rejecting the actual "evidence" (or lack thereof) that is a part of the public official court record and acceptance of crazy internet tinfoil hat conspiracy theories that have no proof and are not admissible to court.

i haven't made any argument about proof... read the words... not what you think i said...
i posted an article about a lack of curiosity by the media (and the left), it is not presented by the author or by me as proof of anything, just a lot of inconceivable results (circumstantial evidence) that really should make anyone with an open mind question the veracity of the election and hope for a full and deep investigation....

again i and the author are not presenting this as proof of crime but as plenty of indication of crime that demands attention.
to you it is baseless, lack of evidence , your mind is made up.. which is fine but you are not convincing anyone there is a lack of evidence just because it hasn't finished its trip through the court system..

[SomeDude]

so your position is that circumstantial evidence is not evidence?

we can't demand an investigation of a murder, because being seen in the immediate area of a murder victim with a bloody knife... isn't evidence... and it is not worthy of demanding an investigation and a court case... because it hasn't already been proven in a court of law yet?

your mind is closed... i am done

This is basically identical to the scenario I was imagining, except I was thinking the knife was at the crime scene with fingerprints on it.

[pmward]

i haven't made any argument about proof... read the words... not what you think i said...
i posted an article about a lack of curiosity by the media (and the left), it is not presented by the author or by me as proof of anything, just a lot of inconceivable results (circumstantial evidence) that really should make anyone with an open mind question the veracity of the election and hope for a full and deep investigation....

again i and the author are not presenting this as proof of crime but as plenty of indication of crime that demands attention.
to you it is baseless, lack of evidence , your mind is made up.. which is fine but you are not convincing anyone there is a lack of evidence just because it hasn't finished its trip through the court system..

Those are not "indication of crime"... it is a flat out lie to claim so.

[yankees60]

From the epilogue of the book on the 2000 election. In comparison the allegations and behaviors for the 2020 were nothing.

Vinny

“In most cases,” acknowledge Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas, “comity and respect for federalism compel us to defer to the decisions of state courts on issues of state law.” There are, however,“a few exceptional cases,” and “this is one.” Why?

Why, suddenly, do inter-county and intra-county differences in election procedures, which are quite common in every state, rise in the Florida case to the level of “equal protection” problems solvable only by uniform standards (by implication, uniform national standards) and strict scrutiny from federal courts?

How can the conservative jurists on the Court find prima facie fault with what the Bush legal team disparaged as “crazy quilt” local laws and procedures?Why,in any case,weigh the alleged problem in Florida without taking cognizance of how election procedures vary from polling station to polling station and from county to county in, say, Pennsylvania? And why, in reversing a state’s highest court for not following the U.S. Constitution, and for infringing upon the state legislature’s authority, does the nation’s highest court substitute its own resolution of the ultimate “political question” for the Constitution’s explicit, black-letter reliance on state legislatures and, if need be, the U.S. Congress?…

I would like to believe there was a time when conservatives would have instinctively recoiled at the way we have all now fallen into thinking of and battling for the presidency as if it, rather than the Congress, were constitutionally the first branch of our national government. There was a time when conservatives understood that the localisms of little platoons and county governments were good and to be preserved and protected by law and custom unless proven bad by experience…. There was even, I suppose, a time when conservatives would rather have lost a close, hotly contested presidential election, even against a person and a party from whom many feared the worst, than advance judicial imperialism, diminish respect for federalism, or pander to mass misunderstanding and mistrust of duly elected legislative leaders.

If there ever was such a time, it has now passed, and conservatives ought to do what they can to bring the country back to this future. Regrettably, Bush v. Gore does no such thing. Desirable result aside, it is bad constitutional law.



Certainly George W. Bush and his minions did everything they could to stand in the way of anyone—witness Tucker Eskew’s discrediting of the media attempts to examine the ballots—trying to get to the bottom of whom tax-paying, God-fearing, Americans voted for. * Baker said “NO RECOUNTS” early on, as was his right, and the lawyers and pols followed through, almost entirely within the legal system. GOP lawyers on the ground—Wallace, Scherer, Martinez, De Grandy—stalled, whined, obstructed. Politicians and spinners—Fleischer, Eskew, Racicot—exaggerated, misled, lied. Lawyers in the courts set traps, like Carvin, and disingenuously represented the facts as they wanted them to be seen by the court, like Olson. The trial lawyers hired by Baker—Bartlit, Beck, Terrell, Richard—went after victory in court regardless of The Truth or, in some cases, even their own personal politics. Political operatives—Mehlman, Blakeman, the emboldened Miami-Dade wusses—injected venom into the air, making an already tense situation even uglier. Bush and Cheney sat back and reaped the benefits of the ugliness their organization was putting out there.

In other words, the American system worked exactly as it’s supposed to.

Was the Gore team any better behaved? With two exceptions, no. Generally, the Democrats were just as disingenuous, just as power-thirsty, and just as hypocritical. They co-opted Theresa LePore and lied about the official number of votes that came in from Palm Beach County after the extended deadline. They, too, cajoled, misrepresented, misled, lied. Daley bullied Butterworth; Wexler lied about LePore; Gore told the American people just Daley bullied Butterworth; Wexler lied about LePore; Gore told the American people just plain falsehoods about Seminole County; Strep Throat spread malicious gossip about Harris; Burton and Penelas were slammed for selling out voters for their own personal gain, with little evidence to back up the claims.

But in two respects, the Gore team was better behaved. First, the Democrats were more restrained on the ground, and with a few exceptions—Nadler, Jackson, Dershowitz—more responsible in their rhetoric. Of course, maybe they had to be calmer. After all, they were the ones asking for hand recounts, getting deadlines extended, contesting the election. Gore was never officially ahead in the Florida vote count; they had to be more temperate.

And, let’s not forget, Gore did call, however lamely, for a statewide hand recount, the only thing that could have truly and honestly brought us to at least the neighborhood of an answer as to whom a majority of the citizens of Florida really chose on November 7. But, on the other hand, despite Gore’s lofty rhetoric, at no point did his political operatives or lawyers make an attempt to have all the votes counted. Not during the protest, not during the contest, not on the ground when various counters called and asked if they wanted the votes in, say, Lake County, checked out.

Throwing a huge question mark into any depravation assessment, of course, is the Republican overseas-absentee-ballot conference call. All the other shenanigans that took place in this mess—delaying tactics, vote trolling, standards adjusting—did so within the confines of the law. Except for this. If this order was carried out, it was illegal. If ballots cast after the election came in, and were counted, that was cheating.

I seriously doubt, however, that there will be any investigation into the matter. People want this thing to be over with. And remember who’s in charge of the country now. There is, in my mind, a much greater likelihood of Bush team dirty-tricksters and spinners launching a campaign to discredit this author and this book than there is of any sort of law-enforcement investigation into the overseas-absentee-ballot matter. Despite the fact that this book also points out examples of nasty behavior of Democrats, and lies by Gorebies ranging from the Veep himself to Reverend Jackson to Congressman Wexler, since the Republicans are in the White House, the charges against them might seem harsher. After all, at this point, who really cares if Harry Jacobs lied on Hardball? But this, too, is part of the problem.

[yankees60]

For those of you who do believe in that there was election fraud this person who was on C-Span's Washington Journal this morning should appeal to you.

A transcript of a snippet from it below.

DECEMBER 3, 2020 | PART OF WASHINGTON JOURNAL 12/03/2020

Washington Journal

Representative Rose on Federal Response to the Coronavirus Pandemic

Representative John Rose (R-TN) talked about Congress and the Trump administration’s coronavirus pandemic response.https://www.c-span.org/video/?506896-5/ ... s-pandemic

Vinny


THAT THE OUTCOME IS JUST. I THINK THAT THAT IS WHERE THIS ELECTION HAS PROBABLY FALLEN SHORT. I THINK IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE THAT THE PRESIDENT AND MANY OF HIS SUPPORTERS, INCLUDING ME, HAVE MANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ELECTION. FRANKLY, WE SAW AN UNPRECEDENTED NUMBER OF CHANGES ACROSS THE COUNTRY, MANY OF THE PROCEDURES NOT TESTED BEFORE THE ELECTION. MOST OF THE PROCEDURES RESULTING IN A DELAY IN GETTING TO AN ANSWER. NOW WE SEE A RUSH TO JUDGMENT. DESPITE HAVING INTRODUCED UNTESTED PROCEDURES, QUESTIONABLE PROCEDURES IN SOME CASES, YOU MIGHT SAY, NOW MANY WANT TO JUST PUSH PAST THE ACTUAL CAREFUL COUNTING OF THE BALLOTS AND OF THE SCRUTINY THAT IS DESERVED TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE, THIS RAFT OF NEW PROCEDURES ARE IMPLEMENTED IN A JUST WAY. SO, I THINK THE PRESIDENT IS JUSTIFIED. I THINK IT'S FOR THE GOOD OF THE DEMOCRACY THAT WE CONTINUE TO DIG INTO THIS MATTER AND MAKE SURE, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT WE SEE TO IT THAT EVERY LEGAL VOTE IS COUNTED AND THAT EVERY ILLEGAL VOTE OR INAPPROPRIATE VOTE IS NOT COUNTED. I'M NOT SURE WE ARE THERE YET AND FRANKLY, I'M NOT SURE THAT THE CURRENT CONSTITUTIONAL CALENDAR, WITH RESPECT TO THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, ALLOWS ENOUGH TIME TO APPROPRIATELY AND THOROUGHLY GET TO THE END OF THAT QUESTION.