White House Backs Away From Promised Voter Fraud Investigation

a reply to: theantediluvian

The fact that he's backing off it now suggests that despite all the rhetoric from Trump and his staff, when push came to shove, they knew it was all bull.

"The fact"? I think you mean "The speculation".

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Whether or not you accepted his numbers concerning voter fraud, there's nothing wrong with admitting the need for an audit into voter rolls and processes. I think that this should be done at least every other presidential election, if not every six years or so.

Ask your average voter if they have high confidence in the voting system and process in America these days, and I'm betting that the yesses will not be an overwhelming majority. At least auditing the rolls and systems would help--not cure, but help--many of us feel more confident when we walk into the polls that our votes will be recorded accurately, and that everyone voting really should be doing so.

Even the Daily Caller is now backing off the delusion of voter fraud.

Here's the Proof That Millions Didn't Vote Illegally

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Krazysh0t

One senior administration official told CNN

And here we go again , CNN afraid to put names to a source . Who is their source ? Where do they get them, ? My guess , the restroom in the step and fetch it on the corner.

Protecting sources is part of reporting.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

If it's not broke, don't fix it. Until Trump made a big deal out of it, people didn't consider it broke. In fact, they still don't.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How sad is it you guys can only attack his ego and character and nothing else?

Why don't you tell me how has he effected you or anyone you know negatively other than emotionally?

"How sad is it that you guys" are giving him credit for things he hasn't done and excusing his ridiculous character, undignified behavior, unhinged rhetoric and flat out lies and deception? Don't get me wrong, I get the argument that results speak louder than words but so far the "results" are basically all words except killing the TPP which Sanders all along and later Clinton had promised to do.

My point here is that your standards for praise vs criticism are absurdly skewed.

So in other words our optimistic nature is worse than your pessimistic one?

Our blind praise is worse than the blind hate?

While I don't even agree with your assessment, I'll say that his commitment alone gives me more reason to be optimistic than judging his character flaws and pointing fingers when he hasn't done anything to effect me negatively yet..

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How sad is it you guys can only attack his ego and character and nothing else?

Why don't you tell me how has he effected you or anyone you know negatively other than emotionally?

My co-worker is a Chinese guy who has been trying to get a green card for the last decade or so and now is speaking to an immigration lawyer because he isn't sure that this is a viable strategy anymore. I think he is talking about getting Canadian citizenship then coming back down here.

So your personal vendetta against Trump is based on your one co worker? Be real brother.. I'm no fool.. I understand the need to criticize but I'm having a hard time understanding the criticism

originally posted by: damwel
Maybe he called it off because someone nudged him and told him it was his side that perpetrated the fraud.

Maybe he called it off because someone pointed out the hypocrisy of using his lawyers to halt the fraud investigation before the electoral college met, and now using his executive powers to instigate one after he's already president.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Krazysh0t

One senior administration official told CNN

And here we go again , CNN afraid to put names to a source . Who is their source ? Where do they get them, ? My guess , the restroom in the step and fetch it on the corner.

Protecting sources is part of reporting.

Actually, revealing sources is a part of reporting, unless the source is at risk, in which case explanations of why anonymity was given is best practices for ethical reporting. The public has a right to know as much information as possible about the motives and allegiances of the source.

Anyways, the CNN article also mentions that someone said it will be signed at a later date, once Jeff Sessions is in, and if that happens I wonder what that reality vs HuffPo score will be.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

FAR more important issues to focus on than "voter fraud" at this point. But before 2018 elections, put measures in place to keep the process as clean as possible.

IMO this will be something for the attorney general to decide. If the attorney general believes such an investigation is necessary, then the FBI would be the one to carry it out.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I didn't say that it's broken, but any intelligent person understands that maintenance is what keeps things running smoothly; we shouldn't just let the machine run until it becomes unreliable.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'd say a fear of reprisal from the Trump admin is a rather obvious reason to protect anonymity.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Krazysh0t

FAR more important issues to focus on than "voter fraud" at this point. But before 2018 elections, put measures in place to keep the process as clean as possible.

Of course there are more important issues to work on than voter fraud. That's because voter fraud is a non-issue and EVERY issue is more important than it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Protecting sources is part of reporting.

No, it's becoming a big ingredient into what is wrong with journalism these days, because they use the generic "anonymous source" crediting of information more often than not, and it often turns out to be incorrect (but the narrative is already unleashed into the wild).

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How can you say with every rational bone in your body that voter fraud is a non issue? I give you more credit than that..

You are essentially saying the integrity of the voting process doesn't matter...

another promise kept: check

Looks like another successful trigger point.

In the meantime ........

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How can you say with every rational bone in your body that voter fraud is a non issue? I give you more credit than that..

You are essentially saying the integrity of the voting process doesn't matter...

Easy. Like so: Voter fraud is a non-issue. See?

Regardless of what you think about Trumps claims, this article is an example of poor, biased journalism.

Lets look at the first sentence.

The White House is backing away from President Donald Trump’s promise to launch an investigation into the voter fraud claims he made up.

They have to throw the "he made up" part in there didn't they. And the whole article is riddled with these types of jabs. Thats fine if its an editorial, but this is supposed to be a serious news piece.

Then there is the fact there source is the notorious "anonymous official".

And lastly, the article doesn't even say what the title claims. The "anonymous" official says that the investigation may happen in the future, not that it won't happen. It just says its not a priority right now. Trump never said he was doing this in the short term. In fact, he has been pretty straightforward with what he would be focusing on.