Connecticut judge overturns election results after video showed brazen ballot box stuffing

On Wednesday, Superior Court Judge William Clark threw out the results of the September 12 primary that was won by Democrat incumbent Joe Ganim by 251 votes with the margin of victory coming as a result of absentee ballots.

But there was a big problem with Ganin’s victory which doesn’t appear to have been on the up-and-up with surveillance video showing one of his supporters stuffing stacks of paper into a ballot depository box, footage that went viral on social media after being obtained and shared with the public by opponent John Gomes

“The volume of ballots so mishandled is such that it calls the result of the primary election into serious doubt and leaves the court unable to determine the legitimate result of the primary,” Judge Clark said...

Video and article at the sourc e.

Absentee ballots being used to pad the votes for a candidate and swing the election in their favor. What a novel idea. No one has ever thought of that before, I'm sure. It's (D)ifferent.

I sure am glad this could never be done on a national level, or in swing states. The right amount of ballot stuffing in the right places at the right time could throw a presidential election. Silly me, that could never happen.

"I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how." - Joseph Stalin

a reply to: Klassified

I think it's important that we find out who complained about this and cancel them fast. We can't have election deniers running around denying elections and junk. It's unamerican and just mean.

It's important that we at least give one side the benefit of the (D)oubt. The other side, not so much.

a reply to: Klassified

Always consider the source. After doing a Google seardch on the website in question, this is what came up:

mediabiasfactcheck.com...

They are very biased toward the right. They also failed three fact checks. I do not believe the source you listed is credible or trustworthy. If you're going to list a source, try NPR or BBC.

a reply to: ChiefD

Well known dodge is to attack the messenger not the message.

Wonder if the facts are accurate here?

If so, then who cares about the source except the opinion parts. Are you telling me you cant tell spin from facts?

originally posted by: MoreCoyoteAngels
a reply to: ChiefD

Well known dodge is to attack the messenger not the message.

Wonder if the facts are accurate here?

If so, then who cares about the source except the opinion parts. Are you telling me you cant tell spin from facts?

Uh yeah, I can tell spin from facts. Unlike some though, I do my homework. There have been so many far right biased sources for these threads. The vast majority are garbage. I am not attacking any messenger. I am simply stating that the source of the thread is from a far right website. It's not rocket sciense.

The motto of the story is before posting these kinds of things, do your homework.

a reply to: ChiefD

Does NBC work for you?

NBC Connecticut

Associated Press writers Dave Collins in Hartford, Connecticut, and Pat Eaton-Robb in Columbia, Connecticut, contributed to this report.

a reply to: ChiefD

You have to be kidding right?

Every single "fact check" site is run by Marxists.

BBC and npr have no credibility.

originally posted by: ChiefD
a reply to: Klassified

Always consider the source. After doing a Google seardch on the website in question, this is what came up:

mediabiasfactcheck.com...

They are very biased toward the right. They also failed three fact checks. I do not believe the source you listed is credible or trustworthy. If you're going to list a source, try NPR or BBC.

The left wing media fact checkers lost their credibility during the pandemic, but since you like far left sources, here you go...
Connecticut judge orders new mayoral primary after surveillance videos show possible ballot stuffing

a reply to: ChiefD

It may be a little bias in its wording, but the article is telling the truth... something fishy went on and the judge made a decision based on the evidence they were presented with.

originally posted by: ChiefD

originally posted by: MoreCoyoteAngels
a reply to: ChiefD

Well known dodge is to attack the messenger not the message.

Wonder if the facts are accurate here?

If so, then who cares about the source except the opinion parts. Are you telling me you cant tell spin from facts?

Uh yeah, I can tell spin from facts. Unlike some though, I do my homework. There have been so many far right biased sources for these threads. The vast majority are garbage. I am not attacking any messenger. I am simply stating that the source of the thread is from a far right website. It's not rocket sciense.

The motto of the story is before posting these kinds of things, do your homework.

Physician, heal thyself.

.

a reply to: ChiefD

So far, all you HAVE done is attack the messenger.

Where did the messenger lie?

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: ChiefD

It may be a little bias in its wording, but the article is telling the truth... something fishy went on and the judge made a decision based on the evidence they were presented with.

Always look behind the scenes. The person who was cheated out of being mayor could have been a friend or a relative of this judge.

The judge could have rendered the right decision for the wrong reason.

a reply to: WeMustCare

This is a possibility. I think that level of investigation is beyond any of us here tho. I might be wrong tho.

But, in this case the video clearly shows something went down.

originally posted by: ChiefD
If you're going to list a source, try NPR or BBC.

Hells yea, at least those sources are dead set in the middle. No bias there at all. Especially NPR. LOL!

a reply to: watchitburn

Using a fact checking website doesn't really seem like "doing your homework",does it?

It seems kind of like asking the teacher a question and then taking credit for doing your homework by using that answer.

originally posted by: ChiefD
a reply to: Klassified

Always consider the source. After doing a Google seardch on the website in question, this is what came up:

mediabiasfactcheck.com...

They are very biased toward the right. They also failed three fact checks. I do not believe the source you listed is credible or trustworthy. If you're going to list a source, try NPR or BBC.

The so-called fact-checking sites have been hijacked by the left, and are used to disseminate misinformation.
And that's a fact!

originally posted by: ColeYounger2

originally posted by: ChiefD
a reply to: Klassified

Always consider the source. After doing a Google seardch on the website in question, this is what came up:

mediabiasfactcheck.com...

They are very biased toward the right. They also failed three fact checks. I do not believe the source you listed is credible or trustworthy. If you're going to list a source, try NPR or BBC.

The so-called fact-checking sites have been hijacked by the left, and are used to disseminate misinformation.
And that's a fact!

Do you feel the same way about The Gateway Pundit or Conservative Treehouse?

a reply to: ChiefD

was there a dial setting on the signature verification sensors?

originally posted by: ChiefD
a reply to: Klassified

Always consider the source. After doing a Google seardch on the website in question, this is what came up:

mediabiasfactcheck.com...

They are very biased toward the right. They also failed three fact checks. I do not believe the source you listed is credible or trustworthy. If you're going to list a source, try NPR or BBC.

Satire at its finest.
Well done