Actual Evidence for Claims of Election Issues (fraud, vote switching, etc.)

a reply to: Gryphon66

What some folks are doing however, is piecing together bits and pieces that don't have any relationship to each other UNLESS you're working backward from your conclusion.

Understood, but they are not necessarily unrelated to the alleged fraud we are looking at. Nevertheless, they too must have some form of supporting evidence.

Let's talk about the audit you'd like to see, since I'm putting words into your mouth, not my intention, but I see. What kind of audit do you want in Michigan, who would administer it? How about Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin ... anywhere else?

All the states being contested should have signature and verification audits of ballots with representatives from both parties, but if the democrats were to contest any other state, they should also be audited. I was for it back in 2016. I don't know why the dems didn't follow through.

How about the several States Trump won that use Dominion systems? Are you interested in looking at those?

Absolutely. The democrats and the msm inundated the news up until last year about how insecure these machines were, and should have done something about them, especially since they had the house majority. I also blame the senate republicans for rejecting 3 bills that addressed voting security without at least looking at them and working out a compromise.

How far back do we need to go. Apparently these very same issues have been a part of every modern election since 2000. Shall we go back and invalidate 2016 as well? Why only 2020?

If need be. Going back could help identify a pattern and issues that need addressed, but it's a little late to overturn those elections.

My point is, if Trump had won this election and Biden were contesting, I would support him doing so, because if the election was an honest one, no state should have anything to hide or any problems proving it. Unfortunately, that is not the case right now. The states in question have done much to impede any investigation. That tells me they have something to hide.

I was having a conversation here yesterday with a member I have a great deal of respect for, but with whom I disagree on virtually every point. Still, I think we have great conversations, and I appreciate the level-headed approach.

One of the points they brought up were the Election laws that were ignored or broken by the Elections officials, Governors, Secretaries of State and the judiciary leading up to the election. I'd like to examine that as it is an excellent question.

The basic idea as I understand it is that some feel as though State elections should be invalidated in some cases wholesale, because some requirements of some laws were modified in the course of holding an election during a pandemic.

The usual statement is that since laws were broken the Elections are illegal.

It just so happens that just above this post another user linked to the judge's decision in Lin Wood's latest failed case, and since he makes some of the same claims as have been made in the various "Kraken" matters that he and Sidney Powell have brought, I think that's as good a way as any to get started:

Standing Under the Equal Protection Clause

Throughout much of his complaint, Wood repeats that he suffered an injury from Defendants’ purported violations of Georgia law.

However, as this Court has previously pointed out to Wood,“[c]laims premised on allegations that ‘the law . . . has not been followed. . . [are] precisely the kind of undifferentiated, generalized grievance about the conduct of government . . . [and] quite different from the sorts of injuries alleged by plaintiffs in voting rights cases where we have found standing.’” Wood , 2020 WL 6817513, at *14–15 (quoting Dillard v. Chilton Cnty. Comm’n, 495 F.3d 1324, 1332–33 (11th Cir. 2007)) (alterations in original; see also Bognet v. Sec’y of Commonwealth of Pa. , 980 F.3d 336, 355 (3d Cir. 2020) (citing Shipley v. Chi. Bd. of Election Comm’rs, 947 F.3d 1056, 1062 (7th Cir. 2020) (“Violation ofs tate election laws by state officials or other unidentified third parties is not always amenable to a federal constitutional claim.”)); Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 573–74 (1992) (“[R]aising only a generally available grievance about government— claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large — does not state an Article III case or controversy.”).

Source

Sorry for the long quote. So, read that for yourself, and see what you think. I read it to mean that the claims from Wood, et. al. that Georgia (and others) broke her own election laws by claiming vague damages under Article III of the COTUS is not a viable case. (And this court has found the same as in the other cases that Wood continues to try this same rejected argument in.)

The judge's decision is a very careful analysis of each of Wood's claims and the "evidence" he presents.

Wood is arguing that because absentee ballots could be fraudulent that therefore the court should assume that they are and that he has been per se damaged, and the court explains in detail why that isn't factual.

Another matter of supposed "judicial legislation" was regarding the Pennsylvania closing date for receiving absentee ballots. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the Elections Board could accept all ballots that came in by mail so long as they were postmarked by Election day for the three following days. Alito directed that those ballots be kept sequestered from those received through the close of the polls on Election day.

This was the case that went to the Supreme Court. The plantiffs were requesting that the Pennsylvania Supreme Courts adjudication that so long as ballots were mailed (postmarked) by Election Day they could be counted the three days following. As relief from this alleged damages done to plantiffs, they requested that all absentee ballots be rejected.

When the case went to the SCOTUS, the response was one line:

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE
20A98 KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.

Source

That makes it clear that there was no damages done by allowing absentee votes postmarked by election day to be counted. (Also, since they were sequestered, those ballots would have made no difference in the outcome.)

Feel free to bring examples of those cases you feel justify whole States votes being discarded based on changes made to requirements. Be specific.

a reply to: Klassified

Thanks for continuing the conversation in a cogent and reasonable manner. I really do appreciate your time spent on this.

However, one of my basic issues with these claims is that so many of you make these grand gesturing allusions to "all the fraud" that has been perpetrated. Yet, in every single case of which I am aware, that has been brought regarding "all the fraud" before judges both State and Federal, when pointedly asked by judges, the Trump, et. al. lawyers, including Guiliani have stated versions of "we are not claiming that any fraud happened your honor."

I can go get specifics if it's important, but I cannot see as a reasoning person how anyone could still claim that "all the fraud" has happened when the attorneys bringing the cases STATE UNDER OATH THAT THEY ARE NOT ALLEGING FRAUD!

Sorry for the caps, but this seems sooo basic and sooo obvious to me that it feels like you guys are just not dealing honestly. Anyway, got that off my chest.

Every claim must have verified evidence. I agree completely.

As far as I understand, Georgia just held public audits of the signatures on the envelopes from the absentee ballots in Fulton County (which was the site of the alleged suitcases of ballots pulled from under the table video.).

DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION AND ELECTIONS
Fulton County will conduct absentee ballot signature verification at the Georgia World Congress Center, Area B1. View the daily schedule. The public may observe this process from the designated observation area. Processing of absentee ballots is expected to begin on Monday, December 21.

fultoncountyga.gov

And again, in Georgia which I am most familiar with as a resident, when a voter requests an absentee ballot the signature on the application must match the signature on file with the State as required by Real ID (usually from a drivers license or voter ID card). The ballot when completed is sealed inside an envelope (to preserve a private vote) and then placed in another envelope with the voter identification information on it and another signature. When processed this outer envelope signature is compared again with the State's Real ID database. So the signatures are verified, twice.

As to States impeding inquiries into the elections? I can't answer that as I don't know what you've referring to. Can you give me some specific details?

originally posted by: Bluntone22

Why did the Russian collusion investigation take three years?
But this one took three weeks over a holiday season.

Who you trying to convince?

I was tempted to make a joke about how much evidence there was in each case but the truth makes your post even funnier.

Burden of proof.

The burden of proof falls on different sides.

Surely you can grasp that.

originally posted by: Firewater


Statistical evidence does exist. In fact, there's a whole lot of it.

Like I said:

"The illusion of evidence is in the YouTube videos aimed at people who cannot do the math."

Let's see the math.

a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

Just as an aside, any conspiracy theorist worth even a pinch of salt would be asking themselves ... why are these "citizen journalists" all aping the mainstream media with their sets, graphics, styles, etc.?

And the answer is simple: disinfo.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Great idea for a thread. Facts not feelz.

I haven't seen the tangible smoking gun myself, but I believe it lies in the signature verification of mail in ballots. I don't have the authority to demand a damn thing, so nobody is going to offer me proof the signatures match to the person's on record signature. But if cheating was to happen, and the paper ballots reconcile with the machine count, this would end the speculation. I can't see another avenue for cheating. Knowing that, and how slim that chance is, I still believe Trump was cheated. But you asked that not be talked about. Sorry.

a reply to: network dude

I've answered regarding the way that signature validation is conducted in Georgia for the Absentee Ballots. I'm not sure how that could be made any better without completely restructuring the elections process in every state.

For that process to be cheated, virtually every polling place in the state would have to be in on the cheating. You called it a slim chance ... to me that's just basically impossible. Opinion.

I'm not sure how to help you with the "Trump was cheated" feeling. (I know you weren't asking.)

As opposed to the systems that were used in Georgia for the last 18 years (totally electronic systems with no paper trail) the Dominion system is just ... far more reliable and verifiable. I believe in Georgia at least there will be movement on clarifying those matters in the General Assembly next year, but I fear they're going to act to restrict voting not strengthen it.

Bring anything into the discussion you wish with backup. If you want to express an opinion, just note it as such.

We're never going to get anywhere in the ATS community until we at least try to reach a common understanding based on facts.

Thanks for your post.

a reply to: Gryphon66

However, one of my basic issues with these claims is that so many of you make these grand gesturing allusions to "all the fraud" that has been perpetrated. Yet, in every single case of which I am aware, that has been brought regarding "all the fraud" before judges both State and Federal, when pointedly asked by judges, the Trump, et. al. lawyers, including Guiliani have stated versions of "we are not claiming that any fraud happened your honor."

I can go get specifics if it's important, but I cannot see as a reasoning person how anyone could still claim that "all the fraud" has happened when the attorneys bringing the cases STATE UNDER OATH THAT THEY ARE NOT ALLEGING FRAUD!

I have kept up with these cases mostly, and it is my understanding that bringing an election fraud case before the courts and working your way to the supreme court (if necessary) is a very lengthy process. The idea of taking the route the attorneys did was to expedite the cases because of the deadlines involved with elections. So instead, the fraud evidence was presented to state representatives in the several states. Although Sidney Powell and others are still working the long term fraud cases through the court system separately. That said...

I disagree with the route Trump's team took to some extent. Obviously, I am not an attorney, but in the many hours I have spent on this, it seems to me the first case that should have been brought before the courts for expediency were those cases where these states specifically violated state and federal constitutions. This for instance, should have been their first case in each of the states contested.

Sorry for the caps, but this seems sooo basic and sooo obvious to me that it feels like you guys are just not dealing honestly. Anyway, got that off my chest.

Your point is valid. It's not a matter of dishonesty or or even being disingenuous, it's a matter of understanding. I started looking into why Trump's team took this route the first time it came up on ATS. After much reading I understand better than I did, which isn't saying a lot. The best answer I can give is the same reason attorneys often bypass fighting the charges against their clients in lengthy cases if they can get their client off on a technicality instead. In the case of a presidential election, time is important. A long and drawn out fraud case for months or years is not desirable.

And again, in Georgia which I am most familiar with as a resident, when a voter requests an absentee ballot the signature on the application must match the signature on file with the State as required by Real ID (usually from a drivers license or voter ID card). The ballot when completed is sealed inside an envelope (to preserve a private vote) and then placed in another envelope with the voter identification information on it and another signature. When processed this outer envelope signature is compared again with the State's Real ID database. So the signatures are verified, twice.

And in Georgia, many of those ballots were separated from their envelopes completely. I can't find the article on that at present, but that's what I read more than once.

As to States impeding inquiries into the elections? I can't answer that as I don't know what you've referring to. Can you give me some specific details?

Georgia's SOS and governor certainly did their best to discredit anyone who questioned election integrity, including not allowing forensic examination of voting machines, and wiping clean the ones they could get to fast enough. They supposedly did 3 recounts, but never an audit. Not that I would trust either at this point.
Michigan's SOS is still fighting to keep anyone from examining any more voting machines, as well as keeping any evidence out of the public eye.
In PA, judges orders were ignored to segregate post-election day ballots, as well as an order to allow republican observers.

There are other examples, but that's off the top of my head. Not one of these states has ever said "You're more than welcome to check our election results and examine our ballot tabulators, we have nothing to hide." That to me, speaks volumes.

I'll leave this discussion there. You get the last word. I've been taking a break from all this mess, and I shouldn't have come back to it.

a reply to: Klassified

I will do some research on Foster v. Love and get back with you. I'm pressed for time at the moment.

Let me clarify the tone if not the essence of what I have said here (and for that matter in other discussions.) You seem to me to be honestly concerned about the election and you are looking for facts. I've been so burned by so many posters who are just interested in scoring points on some imaginary table in their head ... I tend to be over-generalizing at times.

I appreciate old-school ATS discusssion.

The envelopes are separated from their ballots to insure a private vote. It's Georgia regulation.

Processing Your Voted Absentee Ballot

Once the information on the oath envelope is verified, the registrar will compare your absentee ballot oath envelope to your voter registration card to verify your signature, as well as compare your signature on the ballot envelope with your signature on the absentee application. On Election Day, the ballot and the envelope are separated to ensure confidentiality of the ballot. This process, and the processing and counting of absentee ballots shall be open to the public. If the absentee ballot is challenged, and that challenge is upheld, the ballot remains in the envelope, is not counted, and the reason is indicated on the envelope.

Georgia Secretary of State

Kemp and Raffensperger followed their legal charge in their respective offices. That really cost Kemp who has been a Trump Sycophant for two years. The rules and laws in Georgia were followed as nearly as I can tell to the letter.

I can't speak to the Michigan SOS.

I'll leave the discussion here as well. Sorry if it caused you anxiety, frustration whatever. I will post separately on the SCOTUS case you linked. Thanks, honestly, for the discussion.

Just want to say that this thread has taken way too long to pop up and that Gryph and Klass’ interaction should be a model of how we discuss things around here. Even in the Mud-Pit, you can just add in your “libtard” or “Repugnican” in between the useful discussion.

Tight work, gents! I look forward to checking in on this thread!

Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67 (1997)

The case was brought contesting a Louisiana law that set an "open primary" in October of an election year which conflicts with Federal Statute that says the Election for Federal OFfice (Senate, House and President) must be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

Held: Louisiana's statute conflicts with federal law to the extent that it is applied to select a congressional candidate in October. Pp.71-74.

(a) The issue here is a narrow one turning entirely on the meaning of the state and federal statutes. There is no colorable argument that § 7 goes beyond the ample limits of the Elections Clause's grant of authority to Congress. In speaking of "the election" of a Senator or Representative, the federal statutes plainly refer to the combined actions of voters and officials meant to make the final selection of an officeholder; and by establishing "the day" on which these actions must take place, the statutes simply regulate the time of the election, a matter on which the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the final say. pp. 71-72.

(b) A contested selection of candidates for a congressional office that is concluded as a matter of law before the federal election day, with no act in law or in fact to take place on the date chosen by Congress, clearly violates § 7. Louisiana's claim that its system concerns only the manner, not the time, of an election is at odds with the State's statute, which addresses timing quite as obviously as § 7 does. A federal election takes place in Louisiana before federal election day whenever a candidate gets a majority in the open primary. pp. 72-73.

(c) This Court's judgment is buttressed by the fact that Louisiana's open primary has tended to foster both evils identified by Congress as reasons for passing the federal statute: the distortion of the voting process when the results of an early federal election in one State can influence later voting in other States, and the burden on citizens forced to turn out on two different election days to make final selections of federal officers in Presidential election years. Pp.73-74.

There's nothing here that says that all votes must be counted by midnight on Election Day. It does require that all voting be completed in one day, not that all counting and certification must be done in one day.

The matter in PA seems to adhere to this requirement because all ballots counted had to be postmarked by Election Day and any item placed in the mail is legally assumed to be delivered similar in fashion as stated here in the Internal Revenue Service code regarding returns, payments, etc.

26 U.S. Code § 7502 - Timely mailing treated as timely filing and paying

a)General rule

(1)Date of delivery
If any return, claim, statement, or other document required to be filed, or any payment required to be made, within a prescribed period or on or before a prescribed date under authority of any provision of the internal revenue laws is, after such period or such date, delivered by United States mail to the agency, officer, or office with which such return, claim, statement, or other document is required to be filed, or to which such payment is required to be made, the date of the United States postmark stamped on the cover in which such return, claim, statement, or other document, or payment, is mailed shall be deemed to be the date of delivery or the date of payment, as the case may be.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

Just as an aside, any conspiracy theorist worth even a pinch of salt would be asking themselves ... why are these "citizen journalists" all aping the mainstream media with their sets, graphics, styles, etc.?

And the answer is simple: disinfo.

Although I agree there is an element of disinformation and intentional disruption, there's also vanity, a shot at "fame" and "fortune" and a lack of imagination.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

Just as an aside, any conspiracy theorist worth even a pinch of salt would be asking themselves ... why are these "citizen journalists" all aping the mainstream media with their sets, graphics, styles, etc.?

And the answer is simple: disinfo.

Although I agree there is an element of disinformation and intentional disruption, there's also vanity, a shot at "fame" and "fortune" and a lack of imagination.

LOL. I don't mind ambition. "To reign is worth ambition though in Hell; better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven" etc.

Apologies to John Milton.

What I mind is all the normal wailing and gnashing of teeth over the corporate media (which is justified at times) from our friends on the right, who then turn around and accept as gospel some unsourced, unvetted fiction that fits their belief.

It's like a thorn in my mind.

a reply to: Gryphon66

There's nothing here that says that all votes must be counted by midnight on Election Day. It does require that all voting be completed in one day, not that all counting and certification must be done in one day.

Seems to me it's quite plain that "the day" is when all actions take place.

(a) The issue here is a narrow one turning entirely on the meaning of the state and federal statutes. There is no colorable argument that § 7 goes beyond the ample limits of the Elections Clause's grant of authority to Congress. In speaking of "the election" of a Senator or Representative, the federal statutes plainly refer to the combined actions of voters and officials meant to make the final selection of an officeholder; and by establishing "the day" on which these actions must take place, the statutes simply regulate the time of the election, a matter on which the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the final say. pp. 71-72.

Here again, I am not an attorney, but Ren Jander JD, who wrote the legal opinion in the link I posted is a Juris Doctor, and knows more than the whole of ATS's opinion combined about constitutional law. Ren is quite clear about what the Foster vs Love decision entails, including that winners are to be selected on "the day", that is, election day by midnight.

For the moment, I will take a Juris Doctor's legal opinion over my own and anyone else's until such time as it can be argued successfully otherwise.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: Bluntone22

Why did the Russian collusion investigation take three years?
But this one took three weeks over a holiday season.

Who you trying to convince?

I was tempted to make a joke about how much evidence there was in each case but the truth makes your post even funnier.

Burden of proof.

The burden of proof falls on different sides.

Surely you can grasp that.

Surely you can grasp the difference between three weeks and three years.
Will you be on board with a three year investigation this time?

So even if the votes are not counted by then? This is a crazy interpretation. The founders also believed in something called reason. a reply to: Klassified

originally posted by: ras321
So even if the votes are not counted by then? This is a crazy interpretation. The founders also believed in something called reason. a reply to: Klassified

Read the link I posted in my response to Gryphon above, you will understand the reasoning behind it.

a reply to: ras321

U.S. Code says this:

3 U.S. Code § 1 - Time of appointing electors

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.

Sounds like the electors are to be appointed on election day. Unless:

3 U.S. Code § 2. Failure to make choice on prescribed day

Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.

The election was held on the proper day, but since all the votes were not counted a choice was not made on that day. Quite reasonable. The question would seem to be, are there state laws on the books which cover this? Laws, which say in effect "count all the votes."

I'm pretty sure it's been quite a while since all of the votes had been counted by midnight in many states. Why is it suddenly an issue?


www.law.cornell.edu...
www.law.cornell.edu...

a reply to: Gryphon66

The envelopes are separated from their ballots to insure a private vote. It's Georgia regulation.

I should have been clearer on this. The accusation is that ballots were separated from the envelopes before signatures were verified, and no audit has been done on them. How true that is I do not know, and probably never will. What's done is done in this instance.