“No evidence” of election fraud?
From what I’ve gleaned from discussions with liberal friends, this statement is true:
…evidence of massive election fraud in swing states during the 2020 election is widely known and understood by Americans who obtain their information from independent and conservative media. Those who only pay attention to legacy media sources, and most members of the political class, are almost completely unaware of that fraud and/or have swallowed the Democrat-media narrative that the fraud was insufficient to have changed the outcome of the election.
I purposely left out the first word of the quote, however. It was “Direct” as in “Direct evidence.” I left it out because I’m not so sure there is much direct evidence. First, take a look at what “direct evidence” is:
Evidence that directly links a person to a crime, without the need of any inference (for example, they were seen committing the crime).
Much of the evidence we’ve seen so far is indirect and comes in the form of extremely suspicious activities (throwing out observers, videos of ballots that were under tables, etc.), and statistical anomalies that are very convincing but are not “direct evidence.”
There is eyewitness testimony in the form of affidavits of witnesses who allege wrongdoing, and eyewitness testimony can be direct evidence, but certainly not always:
For example: a witness who testifies that they saw the defendant shoot the victim gives direct evidence. A witness who testifies that they saw the defendant fleeing the scene of the crime, or a forensics expert who says that ballistics proves that the defendant’s gun shot the bullet that killed the victim both give circumstantial evidence from which the defendant’s guilt may be inferred.
It is my understanding that most of the eyewitness affidavits involved observations of suspicious activity that amounts to circumstantial evidence. I’m not even sure what direct evidence there could be, short of something of this sort, for example: an eyewitness wearing an invisible cloak (needed because observers were either not allowed to stay in the disputed polling places or were required to stay so far away that they couldn’t see much of anything), sitting next to a poll worker close enough to see everything that worker does, and seeing that worker falsify signatures on previously-blank ballot after previously-blank ballot. The observer would also have to keep a count of such falsified ballots. Even then, the testimony of the eyewitness observer would be subject to the counter-argument that this is only one worker and doesn’t represent nearly enough fraudulent votes to have mattered in terms of changing the results of the election.
So unless there were thousands of such invisibly-cloaked observers acting at every stage of the process in all the disputed arenas, it’s hard to see how direct eyewitness evidence, especially of the magnitude required, could ever be obtained.
Of course, in a normal trial, circumstantial evidence is also used to convict a criminal. However, that takes at least three things. The first is enough time to prepare a case, the second is access to the evidence, and the third is a court that doesn’t dismiss the case on technical grounds. With allegations of widespread fraud in the 2020 election, we don’t have nearly enough time, in many cases those who supervised the election are not willing and/or able to make the harder evidence available (for example, how does one match envelopes to ballots once the latter have been separated from the former?), and most of the cases so far have been dismissed on technical grounds such as lack of standing or the doctrine of laches.
Unfortunately, if a party is willing and able to commit massive election fraud, the legal system is inherently unable to deal with it in time, even if it had the will to do so. I think our system presently lacks both will and ability, and the MSM is invested in saying “nothing to see here; move along.” Therefore, this split will continue between the portion of the populace that believes such a fraud was perpetrated and the portion that thinks the first group to be delusional.
[NOTE: To clarify, indirect circumstantial evidence can definitely be enough to prove a case. But in these election fraud cases, I think when people state there is “no evidence” they usually mean no direct evidence, just as the quote said. In addition, as far as I know, so far no court has actually given the circumstantial evidence a hearing, nor is any court likely to do so in time for it to matter. They have avoided it on procedural grounds.]
Circumstantial evidence, from which the defendant’s guilt may be inferred, should be enough in this uproar, since this is, not a criminal trial requiring “beyond reasonable doubt” proof of guilt, but rather a bid to judge whether the Preponderance of the evidence shows, that a set of common processes (vote-counting, etc.) were conducted according to time-honored rules.
There is enough evidence that a crime was committed, just not enough to show who in particular did it or what the reach of the crime was.
And despite the issue of fraud, there is the outright illegality of the governors and secretaries of state changing election law, on the fly, during an election, without the constitutional authority to do so.
The problem is getting a venue to try that issue in when the courts refuse (corruptly) to entertain the suit.
There was no evidence of OJ killing Nicole or Bin Laden ordering 9/11 based on the standards democrats use to judge evidence. you have Biden confessed on tape, what more evidence can you get than the suspect confessing on tape? Show them Biden tape and watches them try to explain what Biden was trying to say
Dave:
Direct eyewitness evidence in a murder is rare, I believe, unless it’s one confederate ratting on another in a plea bargain.
Fingerprints, DNA, etc., are all circumstantial evidence. But that’s often enough to convict someone. Circumstantial evidence isn’t bad evidence, it’s just not conclusive.
In the election fraud cases, I don’t think the circumstantial evidence has ever actually been heard in a court of law, because the cases have been thrown out on technical procedural grounds.
“this split will continue between the portion of the populace that believes such a fraud was perpetrated and the portion that thinks the first group to be delusional.” neo
They don’t think us delusional, at least not the ones who have a clue. They think us helpless. They think us unwilling to fully accept that the inauguration of Joe Biden will have essentially made the Constitution into a dead letter.
They think enough of us will continue to engage in willful blindness, pretending that the Constitution still matters and that continuing to act within constitutional limits will somehow, someway… bring a different result.
They think that by the time acceptance of the necessity for rebellion arrives… it will be too late.
Only if at issue is the criminal culpability of particular persons, would
should we be requiring “beyond reasonable doubt” proof of guilt.
aNanyMouse:
I never suggested that the standard of proof would be the criminal one. And to clarify, indirect circumstantial evidence can definitely be enough to prove a case. But in these election fraud cases, I think that when people state there is “no evidence” they usually mean no direct evidence, just as the quote said. In addition, as far as I know, so far no court has actually given the circumstantial evidence a hearing, nor is any court likely to do so in time for it to matter. They have avoided it on procedural grounds.
Geoffrey Britain:
The leaders on the left think us helpless rather than delusional. But that’s not who I was discussing in that sentence about the divide in opinion. I speak to enough Democrats to have a strong sense that the vast majority of regular Democratic voters think that those who are alleging fraud are mostly delusional, but that their leaders on the right are evil.
Neo, most cases have been thrown out on technical procedural grounds, but, in Donohue v. Board of Election of NY State (about 1976), the case was dismissed, but only on grounds that the plaintiffs **failed to prove** fraud had occurred.
Judge Mishler wrote,
“[F]ederal courts in the past have not hesitated to take jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the validity of local elections and, where necessary, *order* new elections.
The fact that a national election might require judicial intervention … if anything, militates in favor of interpreting the equity jurisdiction of the federal courts to *include* challenges to Presidential elections.”
Please note, our federal court of last resort last year penciled in provisions to ‘civil rights law’ that were never there and which Congress had in just the previous year specifically declined to enact. When the courts want to do something, they have their shallow, smart-assed clerks dream up an excuse. They do not wish to, so they took every avenue to avoid intervening ex ante or afterward. This should wreck the legitimacy of our appellate courts pretty thoroughly. And when you serve no purpose, your appropriations are properly cut off and your offices closed down.
I downloaded the Pennsylvania election time series from the NYT Edison feed and plotted the vote totals versus time for Biden and Trump. At the beginning, the totals were jumping up and down by hundreds of thousands of votes until they settled down to reasonable values. Weird but t’s there. Later in the night they were steadily subtracting votes from Trump’s totals, though in small enough increments so as to be very difficult to see.
This shows to me that there was a single operator who was manipulating the votes, how else to get the large swings, and a deliberate intent to steal the election by removing Trump’s actual votes. FRAUD. FRAUD. FRAUD and the Demo voters are delusional idiots.
Moreover, “there’s a federal statute – 3 U.S.C. § 1 – which requires all elections for Presidential Electors to be **completed on Election Day**. Then tell his {Trump’s} lawyers – and the lawyers for Texas who failed to cite it properly – that 3 U.S.C. § 2 only applies, when 3 U.S.C. § 1 is violated. Texas failed to mention 3 U.S.C. § 1 in their brief, so how could Texas rely on 3 U.S.C. § 2.”
This, from Leo Donofrio, at
https://www.thepostemail.com/2020/12/31/new-election-emergency-application-to-justice-alito-can-a-clerk-overrule-the-supreme-court/ .
This shows to me that there was a single operator who was manipulating the votes, how else to get the large swings, and a deliberate intent to steal the election by removing Trump’s actual votes. FRAUD. FRAUD. FRAUD and the Demo voters are delusional idiots.
It’s more that there sense of how the world works is derived from their self-understanding. And that self-understanding is false.
In 2018 circumstantial and statistical evidence of fraud was enough to enable the North Carolina Board of Elections to delay certification of the Republican Congressional candidate’s victory until a full investigation could be mounted.
But that was different because shut up.
The REASON that the “press” has seen no evidence of election fraud is because they have their eyes closed, wearing a sleep mask, with their fingers in their ears and humming REALLY LOUDLY.
See? No evidence.
aNanyMouse:
I was referring to the cases in this election cycle, not all cases ever.
I think part of the problem is that many criminal cases have rather binary decision making. Is person X responsible for the death of person Y? Whereas elections have the curious circumstance of always having fraud. The threshold question about the continuum of fraud is, did the fraud throw the election?
As Brian Lovely and I (previously) pointed out, demanding a sufficient level of fraud is often only a requirement for Republicans.
Another thought is this: Once serious elections irregularities become commonplace, (removing observers from the polling place, discovering boxes of ballots without a chain of custody, etc.), then the whole argument of demanding election integrity becomes less weighty. We can’t suspend or dissect every election can we!
Kenneth Mitchell
“The REASON that the “press” has seen no evidence of election fraud is because they have their eyes closed, wearing a sleep mask, with their fingers in their ears and humming REALLY LOUDLY.
See? No evidence.”
I have a much different take. The “press” is all over the any evidence of fraud and prepared to dispute the evidence. They aren’t passively ignoring the fraud. They are actively countering any evidence of fraud. The press is “directly” complicit in the fraud!
Also could a good lawyer use these cases being dismissed … citing no “DIRECT” evidence?
Massive vote fraud is alleged. The Democratic defense is to simply deny it.
But this is not small potatoes. It is the viability of the American Republic that is at issue.
The legal system and the judges are the problem. Neo seems to join with them, with her “direct evidence” reasoning.
The statistical anomalies are obvious and unacceptable to anyone with half a brain. We have votes taken away from Trump after they were recorded, and transferred to Biden?
The State of Texas had “no standing” before the Supreme Court. Multiple judges at lower levels have similarly rejected the opportunity for a hearing. It is patently obvious that some states violated their own election statutes aka LAWS, is it not?
So the search for truth, for facts, is blocked by Mickey Mouse reasons.
It is a damn good thing lawyers do not practice medicine. Their mortality rates would be high, but that’s not direct evidence!
We’re talking about the integrity and viability of America and Oh No, all we get is that no one has any “standing”, and that the desired direct evidence cannot be timely obtained.
You think there will be less vote fraud in 2022? It’s just two years in which to refine techniques so that the USA will become and remain a one-party state, a neo-USSR.
Helplessness is an apt description for those who think the election was corrupt. Cynicism also applies.
Folks can argue the ins and outs of law as they wish. If the law rightly leads us to the situation the country finds itself in, then I agree with the idiom, “the law is an ass.”. In my opinion, individuals, and institutions collectively, have reneged on their oaths to protect the constitution. They have used inane reasoning such as, “petitioners do not have status to challenge” with respect to actions that potentially affect every individual in the country. Or they have made premature judgments that there is “insufficient evidence to prove that fraudulent actions were decisive” (without actually giving a hearing to the evidence). Their actions have undermined the very cornerstone of a representative political system, and we seemingly have no recourse in the near term.
I have no idea how much damage has been done over the long term because of the systemic failures by the people we have entrusted with protecting our rights. I doubt that anyone can predict that.
With respect to Neo’s observations; there is no question that a percentage are well aware of what transpired, since they orchestrated it. I doubt that the preponderance of those on the winning side care; and really don’t want to know. They will write suspicions off to conspiracy theories, and tell us to just move on.
neo,
“the vast majority of regular Democratic voters think that those who are alleging fraud are mostly delusional”
Yes, I was referring to that segment of the public when I stated, “They don’t think us delusional, at least not the ones who have a clue. Conversely, those who think us delusional haven’t a clue.
However, this too is evidence of irrational thinking. As to claim another to be ‘delusional’ one must have logically examined the evidence the ‘delusional’ offer in support of the assertion that massive fraud has occured.
Nor does that evidence need to be direct evidence. When there’s a massive amount of smoke, it’s a certainty that something is burning. They’re pissing on our heads and insisting that it’s rain.
Once the evidence is examined, as Cicero states, “The statistical anomalies [alone] are obvious and unacceptable to anyone with half a brain.” Not to mention the affadavits of hundreds of eyewitnesses who risk purgery charges. A not inconsiderable risk, as ‘progressive’ prosecutors have a long record of prosecuting we on the right. And the fraud took place in progressive jurisdictions where progressive prosecutors hold sway.
To refuse to examine overwhelming evidence of fraud and label it delusional is to exhibit willful blindness and that denial renders collusion in that fraud, which makes them complicit in that crime.
If eviscerating the Constitution doesn’t qualify as treason, then nothing qualifies as treason.
Willful blindness which enables treason carries the consequence of complicity in that treason.
The appropriate consequence for that degree of complicity in treason is forfeiture of citizenship.
They, the willfully blind must reap what they sown. If not, it will be we who will reap what they’ve sown.
Neo, thanx for clarifying what you referred to.
Here is 3 U.S.C. § 1:
“The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on **the Tuesday** next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.”
I’m aghast, that the GOP didn’t go to the Fed’l Courts, to argue that PA’s allowing votes to be cast after “the Tuesday next”, clearly violated this 3 U.S.C. § 1.
Of course, one reason for the paucity of evidence is that the Democrats scored a purely strategic win: The courts have uniformly declined to become involved, even though violations of the law have been documented. By shunting cases away from the courts, using ‘lack of standing’ or ‘laches’ or ‘suit filed before there was harm’ or ‘suit filed too late, mustn’t disenfranchise voters’ as the excuses ready for any occasion, there has been no opportunity to present evidence in a court setting – or to seek discovery, which is fundamental to proving harm in a suit against the institutional perpetrators, who then successfully maintain the comfort and security of their intact position. The US Supreme Court has set the tone, and other lower courts have followed their lead. And away from the courts, the elected officials who administer the elections have been steadfast in their control of procedures, and access, and information. Loose lips sink ships.
One of the things I have noticed much more over the last 10 years is this. If the court does not want to rule on a case. It always claims that their is a lack of “Standing”. Usually without explanation. And in the rare cases they offer it. It is usually such a tortured set of rules it is nigh impossible to find someone who would have it.
In most of the election cases so far. The common theme is the people being investigated, are the ones with the standing to bring the cases. Which means game over. I am amazed by the sheer cowardice of it all
Oldflyer: “In my opinion, individuals, and institutions collectively, have reneged on their oaths to protect the constitution.”
That’s my opinion as well. I believe it was John Adams who said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” What we are seeing is the break down of morality in the search for power. And, as you point out, many who should be standing up for the Constitution are quivering in their boots, afraid to rock the boat. It is possible that, if the SCOTUS stood up for a close examination of the six swing states, the riots and arson of the summer would return. IMO, that is the fear. But, what fools these judges are. The violence will be released whenever it’s convenient for cowing the opposition. The time to quell the violent progressive “brown shirts”: (ANTIFA?BLM/OFA) is now – while there is a POTUS who will stand up to them. When the left has all the levers of power, do the judges think the Constitution will still matter? In their dreams.
If a citizen has been paying attention to news from other than the MSM, he/she is well aware of the copious circumstantial evidence of election fraud. Evidence strong enough to warrant discovery in a civil trial. That is not “baseless.” That the judges don’t want to get involved in messy politics is understandable. However, it is indisputable that the election laws in PA, GA, MI, and WI were unconstitutionally changed (By AGs, SOSs, and judges, not the legislatures.) prior to the election. If that isn’t a matter for SCOTUS to inquire into, what, pray tell, is?
Thank God for the Republicans willing to contest the electoral votes. At least some of the circumstantial evidence will be provided during the debate. Which, of course, will not be reported by the MSM. But maybe some citizens who weren’t aware of it will watch C-SPAN or get an e-mail, or see a FB post, or learn of it from a neighbor. I, for one, will be glued to C-SPAN for that joint session. And I will tout it to all my e-mail correspondents and family.
It is enough that one party is willing to rely on fraud, rather than clean elections. I don’t know how this is corrected short of a revolution or a PInochet.
You don’t fight treason with verbal and written protests.
The Courts, the Legislatures and soon the Presidency are in collusion to commit treason.
The Federal agencies and many Governors and Secretaries of State are supporting the coup. Expecting these agencies and officials to acquiesce to anything less than force is the wishful thinking of fools. If the American people are not prepared to die if necessary to preserve their liberties then they will not deserve their former liberties and they will lose their freedoms.
Here’s a hint of what Biden’s puppet masters intend;
The recently passed California Assembly Bill 685
https://6b8e213852.nxcli.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/ca-covid-rules-2-.jpg
CAL/OSHA can at their sole discretion shut down any business or part of a business if they declare it to be an immediate threat to the public health. No advance notice or waiting period is required.
But that pales when compared to the legislation that the NY State legislature is considering;
“New York will vote on a Bill to IMPRISON people or groups of people with communicable diseases.”
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/january-6-while-we-are-distracted-new-york-will-vote-on-a-bill-to-imprison-people-or-groups-of-people-with-communicable-diseases/
Another article states that under this law if you are simply suspected of being a carrier you can be arrested and imprisoned.
And here’s the tool they’re planning to use to effect the “fundamental transformation of America.
“Selective Enforcement – Who Gets Crushed by Joe Biden’s Pending COVID-19 Regulations”
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2021/01/01/selective-enforcement-who-gets-crushed-by-joe-bidens-pending-covid-19-regulations/
Until the proven facts can be systematically gathered, sorted, collated, and the arguments marshalled , Republicans have and will have nothing but red faces.
Neo has usefully pointed to one of the problems with the evidence so far. Insofar as vote or election fraud of the fake electronic ballot or manipulated counts go, there is little direct evidence.
There is however a great deal of testimonial evidence as to election malpractice as well as outright procedural illegality.
But at the moment it is all jumbled together in one big bag of fuming outrage that does nothing to establish a public moral highground or the historical record. A record by the way, which could serve to invalidate and spike, if not actually end a Biden presidency.
But I am amazed at the sputtering ineffectuality and intellectual disorganization of so many blustering conservatives who just cannot seem to think straight. What surprises me less, but disappoints me more, is the spinelessness of those Republican office holders who had law and procedure on their side but folded nonetheless.
The former do not know – in any provable, direct evidence sense – what they buffoonishly claim to know. The latter, were too cowardly to act on the the legal rights and procedures that were open and available to them on the basis of what they did know.
Instead it becomes a clown posse circus of Internet rumor mongers chasing their tails and shamelessy promising that any day now that supposed CIA source which some friend of a friend claims to have, will come forward and drop the hammer.
Yeah … any moment now.
I am not a big admirer of Rudy Giuliani. But he is one man who has certainly undertaken the kind of labors necessary to actually build a case.
For that he deserves enormous credit. As do, by the way, several here who were out in the trenches on election day and witnessed first hand the more usual, if more extreme than usual, Democrat subversion and malpractice.
The record of provable, mundane, run of the mill, corruption and fraud must be incontrovertably established … not for the sake of this inauguration outcome, but in order to delegitimize Biden, and for the sake of strategizing the political warfare and social conflict which will follow.
But, now that I think about it, I’m not sure that between the short horizon professional conservative hysterics on the one hand, and the ” back to normal” and “we are one people” Republican cucks on the other hand, the GOP mainstream is up for such a project.
The MSM/DNC/ChinaBloc have successfully muddied the waters for what’s likely a majority of Americans. There may be little “direct evidence” in category 2 below, but there is a huge amount of compelling circumstantial evidence. There is also compelling direct evidence the election was fraudulent in category 1 & 3.
1) The Nov 2020 elections were illegally, unconstitutionally conducted in at least all 6 battleground states. Exec branch officials and judges unilaterally, illegally violated state election law enacted by the state legislatures. State legislatures have plenary power to set state election law. State SOS changed election dates/ deadlines/ procedures without the Constitutional authority to do so – as did state judges. Lots of published direct evidence of these crimes.
2) In addition to the violations of state election law promulgated by state Exec and Judicial branches, there is evidence of massive election fraud conducted via multiple illegal schemes by local election officials largely in 6 large Blue cities involving the counting of votes. Investigators have collected a vast trove of evidence supporting these charges of election fraud (affadavits, statistical analyses, physical evidence of fraudulent ballots being counted, etc.)
3) Potentially the largest source of election fraud and illegitimacy is the electronic process for collecting/validating/counting votes. The software + networks with access to vote data were compromised in violation of state and federal election law. Its highly likely direct electronic evidence of fraud – changing potentially millions of votes from one candidate to another at the direction of political operatives has been captured. It has not been made public at this time. If this direct evidence exists and is credible, it compels Congress to reject the wrongly certified vote of those states.
Have you watched Mayor Giuliani’s videos? The videotapes of suitcases of fake ballots are direct evidence. So is the fact that more people voted than had been registered to vote. So are votes from dead people. So are double votes. Please check the existing record as presented by Giuliani—it is indeed direct evidence of voter fraud.
Also see Scott Adams—subtracting Trump votes is direct evidence: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/01/proof_of_fraud_may_lie_in_vanishing_trump_votes.html
— I think when people state there is “no evidence” they usually mean no direct evidence—
No, they are just blowing smoke. They know damn well there is plenty of evidence. But they also know that the Big Lie technique works.
LAURENCE JARVIK:
What the videos show are suitcases of ballots from under the table – they don’t show that it was extra/fake Biden ballots that were in those suitcases. That’s an inference from the fact that they were under the table, but the poll workers said that putting ballots in those cases (which were not regular suitcases) was just standard operating procedure and that they were just regular ballots in them.
As for dead people on the rolls: (1) not enough of them to give the election to Trump, and (2) we don’t know how those “dead people” voted, so we can only infer that they voted for Biden. So it’s also circumstantial evidence. I’m not sure what you mean by “double votes,” but if you mean scanning a ballot twice, the defense they’ve mounted is that it is a proper procedure for when the machines jam (which apparently happens regularly).
The computer evidence of vote totals going down for Trump is the closest thing to direct evidence, but I’ve read that unfortunately we don’t have the intermediate steps that show the process by which the change happened. If not direct evidence, it certainly is strong circumstantial evidence if it is verified.
Pingback:Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove
156 million votes were counted. This is over 95% of registered voters. The previous highest % of registered voters was in 2008 and was 62%. Are we really that gullible?
The Saturday Night Joke, from ace.mu.nu
When I was a young kid, I used to go to David’s barber shop on Brighton 9th. David used to whisper to his customer, “This is the dumbest kid in the world. Watch while I prove it to you.”
So David put a dollar bill in one hand and two quarters in the other, then called me over and asked, “Which do you want, son?”
I would always take the quarters and leave.
“What did I tell you?” said David. “That kid never learns!”
Later, when the customer left, he saw me coming out of the ice cream store. “Hey, son! May I ask you a question? Why did you take the quarters instead of the dollar bill?”
I licked my cone and replied, “Because the day I take the dollar, the game’s over!”
This linked video is worth your time if you are interested in how unusual the outcome in the bellwether states was when compared to the past. It’s a real eye opener.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXMW9VNMPT4&feature=youtu.be
I don’t believe you’ve looked at the evidence yourself, since you stated in an earlier reply: “I’ve read that unfortunately we don’t have the intermediate steps…” There’s plenty of direct evidence. For example: Mayor Giuliani tweeted: “@RudyGiuliani Dec 31, 2020 In a country with a free press, you would know: 1. The Georgia Senate Judiciary Committee issued a report demonstrating the vote was stolen from @realDonaldTrump 2. The vote was unanimous and BIPARTISAN to audit Fulton County’s Absentee ballots. 3. And to de-certify Biden.” For example you referred to dead voters, which I cited as an example of direct evidence of voter fraud, but made a pro-Biden argument while excluding other direct evidence of over-votes. For example, there were more votes for Biden than registered voters in Pennsylvania, as documented by PA legislators, see: http://www.repdiamond.com/News/18754/Latest-News/PA-Lawmakers-Numbers-Don’t-Add-Up,-Certification-of-Presidential-Results-Premature-and-In-Error. That one piece of direct evidence alone gives PA to President Trump. Adding up all the voter fraud in GA gives it to Trump. Likewise in other states currently disputed. Also, it is permitted to draw an adverse inference from the coverup, censorship, threats to President Trump’s legal team and supporters, etc. that election fraud took place. Bottom line: both indirect and direct evidence supports President Trump’s charges of election fraud.
neo,
Re:
“LAURENCE JARVIK:
What the videos show are suitcases of ballots from under the table – they don’t show that it was extra/fake Biden ballots that were in those suitcases. That’s an inference from the fact that they were under the table, but the poll workers said that putting ballots in those cases (which were not regular suitcases) was just standard operating procedure and that they were just regular ballots in them.”
That “dog doesn’t hunt” for two reasons: bringing out the suitcases only happened after the republican poll watchers had been forced away and nearly all of the votes counted from that point were for Biden and just enough to give Biden the ‘victory’. Had the poll workers just been stuffing unopened ballots into suitcases (odd in and of itself as open but labeled bins make far more sense) those suitcases would have had a mixture of Trump and Biden ballots.
Also see: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/01/an_insiders_view_of_pennsylvania_and_the_battle_for_our_republic.html
https://www.scribd.com/document/489557145/SSRN-id3756988#fullscreen&from_embed
John Lott’s report
Heard many talk show callers claim every court has thrown out fraud charges for no evidence but didn’t pay attention the judges have fingers in ears and screaming out
Lalalala
Also see: https://hereistheevidence.com (hard to navigate but lots of evidence links)
Here’s the thing. When it came time for Republican office holders to exercise their legal prerogatives, they made a half-hearted stab at doing so, then quailed when social pressure in the form of mere social media outrage was directed at them.
The law and their legal rights, not to mention election integrity, meant virtually nothing to many of them when it appeared that they might have to face being villified. I have many in mind here; but the infamous examples of Monica Palmer and William Hartmann, the flip flopping Republican canvasser duo in Wayne County, Michigan are notable.
It becomes obvious that for many Republicans, their loyalty is to “the system” and to preserving a “community” and their place in it, above all else. Their committment to the rule of law and honest government is a preference, rather than an unshakeable loyalty. Their principles cannot withstand hostile pressure or the threat of estrangement.
These then, represent all too often the kinds of people who seek and acheive positions of trust and responsibility; only to turn out to be squishes when push comes to shove. They could not even stand on their rights with the law on their side.
During the hearings in Detroit, when Giuliani so effectively presented two Republican poll watchers who detailed the organized violations of law and other irregularities which they had witnessed, he also shared the table with Monica Palmer, the canvasser who first said “no” to certifying the count, then “yes” when she started being yelled at, then ” I wanna take back my ‘yes’ “, when she found that the face-saving deal she thought she had struck with tbe Secretary of State for agreeing to conditionally certify the uncertifiable election, was not going to be honored.
So, she agreed to certify as valid an uncertifiable result, on the basis of a supposed promise which was shrugged off moments after it was made and the certificaion subsequently issued.
And we trust these people to guarantee the integrity of the process? Let`s get real. They are not so much committed to the integrity of the process, as having a place inside the process no matter how twisted it may become.
This chastened woman’s pathetic and useless “testimony” exemplified that. Her testimony, which followed the devastating revelations of the Republican poll watchers whose observations proved the soundness of she and Hartmann’s initial refusal to certify, turned out to be a tepid litany of recommendations on how we might do better.
Thanks Monica. Very helpful.
I fear, this is more typical than not. Normally ego first, and duty second. But in the final reduction, grovelling for acceptance and inclusion above all.
Our ancestors would have stood on the law first and then armed themselves to resist attack if necessary. Modern Republicans cannot even muster the courage to exercise their legal rights if social media consequences are threatened. In that case, you can just go ahead and cheat.
Good thoughts, DNW.
So much evidence, so little “direct”, so easy for Dems who want to believe the election was OK to disbelieve the evidence.
Neo says:
the vast majority of regular Democratic voters think that those who are alleging fraud are mostly delusional, but that their leaders on the right are evil.
The bigger, real problem is that most Dems believe that Trump and GOP leaders are evil. First. Therefore, any and all who believe these evil Reps are either delusional, which is most Reps, or they are themselves also evil.
To believe that Dems committed fraud almost requires them to believe Reps are NOT evil — but Dems FEEEEEL that Reps are evil. They’re sure of it. (Reason doesn’t change feelings much.) And the MSM tells them so, too (Neo so correct about propaganda).
And they like feeling superior to those hateful evil Reps.
Morally superior to the evil Reps.
Intellectually superior.
Better than them.
When their political identity is based on Reps being evil.
And everything personal in their lives is, of course, political.
To even ask the question about election fraud is a challenge to their identity.
It’s like, literary violence. Literally.
Clearly there is neither the time nor the will nor the transparency for a serious attempt to challenge national election fraud after the fact, especially with massive mail-in votes.
The only way forward I can see is to see make election fraud a top Republican priority and get on top of the process. Flood the elections with volunteers. Constantly challenge voting machines, mail-in votes and lax procedures. Educate the public.
God knows, it’s tedious, thankless stuff, but it must be done.
There is no evidence. But there is evidence of a desperate helpless crooked Trump trying to find votes in GA.
Try spinning this.
“So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have.”
Or more accurately I know many of you will spin this since the love of Trump trumps common sense. I’ll await to see the spin. Fun times.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/d45acb92-4dc4-11eb-bda4-615aaefd0555_story.html
Montage cites the Washington Post, astounding, Snopes next? He loves his lockdown and living in a one-party state, saves him from having to think. He just has to react and grovel.
Om
WaPo released the full audio. It’s over an hour long. Give it a listen. Judge for yourself.
This is a big news story.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/audio-trumps-full-jan-2-call-with-ga-secretary-of-state/2021/01/03/3f9426f4-7937-4718-8a8e-9d6052001991_video.html
No evidence of trump doing anything wrong stop lying montage
All I heard was Biden saying he put together the biggest voter fraud operation in the history of the country, I will treat audio evidence as seriously as democrats fuckers like montage
Hi Montage,
I’d rather listen, again, to the BeeGees than an hour of Trump or any politician. Where is the transcript?
There’s huge amounts of evidence – circumstantial and with legal procedures being violated. Excluding Rep observers itself is evidence — and the court should have heard that evidence and voided the election from that counting station. Possibly requiring a new election.
No matter what Trump says, now – the fraud that happened in the counting is already past. I did spend a few minutes seeing the video of GA workers taking out ballots from under the table. Counting in an otherwise observer-less counting station.
Wasn’t that illegal? To send the observers away, lying to them about an end to counting, and then continuing counting? It should be, but it actually might not be – I really don’t know the law, or who actually did what.
Rep observers should be recording everything “officials” say – and it should be illegal to lie about such stuff.
If Reps ever want honest elections again, they need to make a big scene about this.
We all know how to have fair honest elections: in person voting, with ID, and prior valid voting list. Paper ballots. Counted at the polling place with observers of both parties.
The reason Dems don’t want honest elections is because they want to cheat. And they did. And they’re showing how little normal honest folk can do about it.
Trump supporters, including #StopTheSteal, are still not very well organized. And the Navarro report should have been better organized, by state, with fraud details (rather than by fraud, for various states).
https://bannonswarroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/The-Immaculate-Deception-12.15.20-1.pdf
Failure Theatre. But I think with the idea of giving Trump support now, knowing it’s too little and too late, but trying to keep Trump voters.
And doing the right thing too late is, in this case, far better than never doing the right thing at all.
But I wouldn’t have known (this soon?) about Trump’s hour talking without you, so that’s another contribution you’ve made here. Thx.
And I have little doubt the WaPo will take what Trump actually says, then “summarize” it in re-phrasing it, according to what they claim “he means”, and putting out Fake Quotes. Like with Charlottesville. I’m sure sick of that Dem media trick. I wish Trump would sue for defamation, and win. More Reps should try.
Why didn’t Washington Post publish the transcript? Because few will listen to the hour long call. I bet it’s another “perfect call.” They have a track record of lying and defamation settlement, see Nick Sandmann case. Consider the source.
Montage,
I listened to it. Another site I frequent published the link earlier today. I’d like to know what it was you found particularly damning?
I saw a video showing 2 black workers and one black supervisor who were all fully in on running the same stack of votes through the machine over and over again. Plus one white guy sitting at a table doing nothing, with no tray full of votes before him, when all around him had such trays and were working. He was so close to the black woman running that stack of votes through over and over again there is no way he didn’t know.
When the camera moved, the 2nd black woman eyed the supervisor, who warned the woman being recorded, and then moved to stand in front of her and block the camera’s view. They all knew what they were doing.
People have to be shot or hanged for this. Hundreds, if not thousands of people must pay with their lives for treason. Not just the bosses, but these front line worker types too.
It has gone on too long, and gone too far. Now nothing less will do. Nothing less has any chance of stopping them from doing it again.
And in the future, ANY poll worker must pass a polygraph/voice stress analysis test afterward. Those who fail, guilty of treason and execution. Slaps on the wrist never stop the truly corrupt and traitorous. And without honest elections, we don’t have a republic.
This wasn’t just the Dems who need such punishment. There were more than a few GOPers in on this too.
Frankly, we haven’t had a republic for probably generations. And nothing less ruthless than what I’ve said will ever be enough to restore it.
Fractal Rabbit
“We need only 11,000 votes. We have are far more than that as it stands now. We’ll have more and more… So what are we going to do here, folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break. You know, we have that in spades already.” And “The people of Georgia are angry. The people in the country are angry,” Trump said in the call. “And there’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated.”
Yes, just say you’ve recalculated! Lol. Yikes.
He pushed a lot of conspiracy theories and debunked opinions in the call. Don’t take everything he says literally. Some conservatives do and it’s bizarre. Perception is everything in politics and the perception here is that he wants to ‘find’ enough votes that he believes were suppressed or destroyed or denied so that he can win. It’s particularly odd because he wants votes found so he can win GA and yet if he wins GA with found votes then what? He still won’t win the election.
IT was nice while it lasted…
Montage,
The fact that you think that small segment of a near 60 minute phone call is damning is quite telling. Also quite telling that your comment back to me is nearly vibrating with barely contained ecstasy.
And yet, when I listened to the whole recording, I heard Trump giving them a chance to do the right thing or possibly face legal consequences. It seemed to me Trump wants to be as civil as possible given the way he was treated (He’s much kinder than I am). I think a reasonable person who listens to the entire recording, without the Washington Post’s headline, curation and careful selection of quote will get a better picture, a different picture.
But then, that’s why they present it the way they do. The same way his Charlottesville comments were presented.
There are people here, better people than myself, who continue to give you the benefit of the doubt and engage with you honestly while you can’t seem to give them the same honest attempt in return. They ask you honest questions and you dodge them or disappear. But you sure couldn’t wait to get back with your ‘Gotcha’ quote.
You are a loathsome, pitiable soul.
An aside, to all Neo’s honest commenters: this Washington Post offensive stinks of desperation and last minute coordination. It’s obvious the emails and the scripts went out to the troops in the MSM. It’s eerie to see the trolls on numerous sites come out of the woodwork all gleefully spitting out variations on “But what about the phone call to Georgia?!? Trump may have committed a crime!”
Always the same play.
The most important principle in elections is to prevent the candidate who is most likely to commit fraud from knowing how far he is behind. Practically this means all candidates must not know before the deadline–when the counting ceases–how they are doing. If they know how they are doing, then they will devise and scheme among the dozens of ways to generate the votes they need.
It is not good to allow counting too early. All human and machine counters can leak this information and this allows Mr. Crook to know he needs, e.g., 7-9000 votes. Count the ways to achieve these votes. Altering mail-in ballots seems obvious. These might be stored in an accessible warehouse somewhere.
It is not good to allow counting too late. Ditto. Mr. Crook sees his opponents votes and how many he needs to catch up.
How one is doing in an election must be a surprise to both (or all) parties until the very end of the counting.
I hope some court takes up one of these fraud allegations so that we do not have political parties learning how to routinely alter elections. We need some stare decisis on this.
Fractal Rabbit
Clearly Trump is the desperate one. The Post just reported what he said in context. I notice someone in the comments actually criticized the Post for including the entire audio rather than transcribe it all.
What?! The Post puts up the entire audio for everyone to hear in context and it’s not good enough. That tells me the hatred of the Post at least equals that of the Democrats [or half of America’s] hatred of Trump.
Anyway, I said in an early comment judge for yourself. You have. I said it was big news. It is big news. I think your opinion is wrong and you think mine is wrong but I don’t know what you mean by giving me the ‘benefit of doubt’ unless you expect me to agree with you all the time. Sorry to disappoint you. We can’t all agree. Isn’t that a good thing in America?
But forget for a moment that Trump is a Republican you like and defend. Just think of him as a President of the US asking a Secretary of State in a state – he lost in one count and two recounts – to find votes or recalculate. It’s odd to say the least.
“I just want to find 11,780 votes.”
“There’s nothing wrong with saying um, that you’ve recalculated.”
Even in context this is breathtaking. Yes, that’s my opinion.
Cheers.
Montage:
The Washington Post has no credibility after 4 years of TDS and 8 years of BHO fellatio. You can’t understand that? Sad.
Montage:
Some of the context of what Trump said is almost certainly this sort of thing, news of which just came out a few days ago. Excerpt:
They testified on Dec 30 but their data was available online about a week earlier.
Over and over for the past four years, the Democrats (and Trump’s Republican enemies, as well as their allies in the various governmental agencies) have released phone call transcript or recording after phone call transcript or recording that supposedly catches Trump in some heinous wrongdoing. None of them have panned out so far. This one is being released right before the Georgia runoffs, for obvious reasons, with the attendant brouhaha. Trump’s Republican enemies at this point include Raffensperger, who has his own CYA reasons to not want to get too deeply into the Georgia results, since he was instrumental in setting up the rules there.
From the excerpts I see here, I agree with lawyer “shipwreckedcrew” that Trump believes such legal votes exist and is not trying to ask Raffensperger to do anything illegal. Nor was this a private call; there were at least two other people, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and Cleta Mitchell, a Republican lawyer. If Trump were suggesting some sort of fraud, he would be unlikely to be doing this so openly. It makes no sense, nor does it make sense that he would think for a single moment that Raffensperger would acquiesce and commit fraud for him.
I have not listened to the long conversation, because I’ve been busy all day. I haven’t seen anyone offer a complete transcript, which is what I’m waiting for. However, I certainly have read long excerpts like the one shipwreckedcrew quotes. Also, in a comment on that thread, a commenter writes this:
Then someone replies: “That is total B S. Trump was absolutely trying to get the SoS of Ga. To make up votes.”
And the first person replies: “Sure. That’s why he went into such detail about the different categories of fraud and estimates for invalid votes in each. And that’s why he and his people asked to meet and go over the fraud allegations. Because he wanted him to make up votes. [last sentence is obviously sarcasm]”
Neo to Montage – just as Trump is Putin’s puppet made no sense, given his enthusiasm for fracking oil and gas (Russia’s bête noir), and just as Trump called neo Nazis “good people” at the August 2017 protest in Charlottesville made no sense (because his daughter and their family are Jewish), so does this claim (Montage) make no sense. Provided one grasps the context properly. And all one needs to do is fact check the lying media to know they are (we’re and remain habitual) liars about Trump. QED. Case closed — stop wasting your finger strength.
TJ:
I’m not really writing any of this for Montage, who won’t change his mind. I’m just basically doing preliminary research for the post I assume I’ll be needing to write tomorrow, because this will almost certainly be the topic du jour.
I found a transcript and am now reading it, because I much prefer the speed of that to listening to an audio.
“The only way forward I can see is to see make election fraud a top Republican priority and get on top of the process.” huxley
I’m sure that McConnel, Romney, Sasse and the other 36 RINO Senators will make that “a top Republican priority” from now on. (sarc/off)
I base those numbers on the fact that 11 Republican Senators have announced that they’ll protest the electors, which means they may (or may not) care about fraud. As five are a bit late to the ‘party’, political calculation may be their motivation.
And that Georgia will ‘elect’ the two democrat candidates. As, given the dems willingness to engage in massive fraud in a Presidential election, what basis is there for thinking they won’t do the same in Georgia, especially when control of the Senate is on the line?
We’re facing both the democRats and a decisive majority of congressional republicans colluding in treasonous fraud… with Federal agencies and a judicial system fully complicit as well.
When will you accept that its now a blatantly rigged game? Where from this point forward, to pretend to ourselves that it’s still an honest system is to ensure that the ‘house’ never loses.
Given all of the above, there’s virtually no chance whatsoever that steps will be taken at any point in the future to address the fraud. In fact, it’s a virtual certainty that the fraud will metasticize across the nation and down to the most local of levels. In deep red states, look for more RINOs to win with maybe a token conservative or two allowed for plausible deniability. As maintaining a facade of honest elections is most likely to keep the rubes down on the plantation.
PS: creating a 3rd party won’t stop the democrats from stealing elections either. That’s how rigged and corrupt systems work.
An interesting piece which covers a stolen election prediction from July and a plea to conservative pundits now.
Via Sarah Hoyt
https://remodernreview.wordpress.com/2021/01/03/a-crisis-of-perspective-pundits-in-denial-are-cratering-their-creditability/
NewsMax has published phone call excerpts favoring President Trump: https://www.newsmax.com/politics/trump-georgia-raffensperger/2021/01/03/id/1004057/
Also The National Pulse has complete transcription and analysis: https://thenationalpulse.com/analysis/trump-call-actually-reveals-detail/
Nice, unqualified, and categorical remark. “There is no evidence”.
But, ” Evidence of what exactly?’, one wonders.
Perhaps Montage will take a moment to let us know what there is no evidence of? No evidence of ballott harvesting? No violations of election law perpetrated by officials charged with ensuring the law was followed?
Perhaps Montage means he sees nothing but good old fashioned ” normal” urban Democrat voter roll fraud, vote tallying manipulations, illegality, and malfeasance.
Because there is plenty of testimonial and documentary evidence of that.
We have at the heart of our election system a by-now institutionalized corruption of the democratic process.
This corruption shelters behind veils of racial grievance, and a social animus continually stimulated by Democrat party operatives and hucksters.
Elected Democrat officials are seen by many as more or less entitled to be incompetent to do their duties, absolved of participating cleanly in the system, free to commit fraud as a matter of routine; and, to have it all shrugged off by others in the name of national unity, ” a greater good”, or some shit like that.
One natirally asks: at what point will ” social justice” be satisfied enough that we may have honest and transparent govenment and our rights and freedoms back again? The answer of course, is “Never”, because to allow that would leave vast swaths of the population – currently nested within the Democrat Party- without a productive host to prey upon. The entire Biden family is an example of that.
Thus, instead, we continue to exist as psychologically hobbled victims; living a daily lie as we go about pretending we have not been cheated out of honest governance and out of our basic political rights: all because as a so-called people, we cannot collectively muster the will to correct the problem.
We cannot as recent events in some battleground states with Republican legislatures or officials in offices of trust have shown, even muster the will to avail ourselves of the political remedies handed to us on a platter by generations of political men better and more serious about their own lives and liberties than ours apparently are.
Such a dysfunctional web of relationships is not worth preserving.
This needs urgently to be read.
https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2021/01/04/the-presidents-call-with-the-georgia-sec-of-state-a-case-study-in-media-duplicity-and-what-pres-trump-has-had-to-battle-from-day-one-n303854
Raffensberger, according to SWC, is stonewalling in addition to gaslighting, which is an enchanting picture on a greeting card but bad optics for a government official trying to convince people that he is being objective and transparent.
“Mitchell asked why the State is insisting that the Campaign simply take their word for it rather than share the results of the investigation that supposedly proves nothing happened.”
That is the refrain to every verse.
“Many have noted that changing Georgia doesn’t change the election. That’s true, but if there is any outcome in the future other than the one the media and Dems have assured us is preordained, it has to start with one state.”
I’ve left out all the best parts.
Read the transcript, then review Crew’s post.
And stock up on popcorn for Wednesday.
Compare AP’s reaction on HotAir to Shipwrecked Crew’s on RedState.
We don’t just have Scott Adams two movie screens; we have multiplex.
https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2021/01/04/10-former-defense-secretaries-sign-op-ed-warning-military-interference-election/
I’ve now read through the transcript of the Georgia call at National Pulse.
Kassam’s analysis agrees substantially with Shipwrecked Crew’s.
Anyone pontificating on the subject who has NOT read the transcript or at least listened to the full audio should be ignored (looking at most of the pundits on the Right; we know the Left doesn’t care what was actually said).
I admit that it’s hard to make a lawyer’s case with the client doing most of the talking, but Mitchell, Meadows, and Hilbert do a great job getting to the bottom line: the Georgia officials are stating they did many investigations and found nothing, but refuse to release the data and reports on which they base their claims.
AesopSpouse informs me that we agree on our assessment of the phone call contents, although Trump’s participation as a principal (and Raffensberger’s as well, I suppose) does make attorneys cringe.
In The Donald’s defense, I pointed out that his experience the last four years is a far cry from that of a businessman, who expects his subordinates to at least attempt to carry out his wishes.
After the long list of back-stabbings by his inherited bureaucracy (nonpartisan to the core, of course), his appointed officials, his personal confidants, and at least some of his former attorneys, I don’t blame him for wanting to be on-hand during the lawyers’ negotiations, at least in the beginning.
I strongly suspect that, with regard to the most recent funding bills which he tried to stop, he was surprised to learn that “his” administration had “agreed” to the entire 5000+ pages, when so many of his signature issues were mauled and his express wishes ignored.
I wonder if “his” negotiating team ever actually told him what they were looking at (certainly no one seems to have told Congress in general), or worse, told him they were doing something other than what they did.
AesopSpouse informs me that we agree on our assessment of the phone call contents, although Trump’s participation as a principal (and Raffensberger’s as well, I suppose) does make attorneys cringe.
In The Donald’s defense, I pointed out that his experience the last four years is a far cry from that of a businessman, who reasonably expects his subordinates to at least attempt to carry out his wishes, and can fire those who don’t.
After the long list of back-stabbings by his inherited bureaucracy (nonpartisan to the core, of course), his appointed officials, his personal confidants, and at least some of his former attorneys, I don’t blame him for wanting to be on-hand during the lawyers’ negotiations, at least in the beginning.
I strongly suspect that, with regard to the most recent funding bills which he tried to stop, he was surprised to learn that “his” administration had “agreed” to the entire 5000+ pages, when so many of his signature issues were mauled and his express wishes ignored.
I wonder if “his” negotiating team ever actually told him what they were looking at (certainly no one seems to have told Congress in general), or worse, told him they were doing something other than what they did.
I would have added “his judges” but, correctly, those should not belong to any President (the Executive Apparat explicitly does). However, I think conservatives in general have been back-stabbed by those who should be on the correct side of Constitutional questions.
I’m waffling on “his generals” because he is the official Constitutional Commander-in-Chief, but our tradition is for higher-ranking officers to have some leeway in expressing their independent judgment on the political ramifications of using military forces.
However, some (not all of them retired) have gone past advising and into shivving.
And none of that leeway applies to desk-sitting Lt. Colonels.