Former (and Future?) President Donald Trump and his lawyers have been indicted in Georgia on RICO charges where he is alleged to be the head of a criminal organization that sought to introduce a slate of fake electors.
This is apparently somehow related to a phone call where he said:
"So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."
Georgia did a machine recount and a hand recount. And also no court found any problems. This is apparently germane because the crime requires mens rea, a "guilty mind". I.e., it needs to be proven that Trump knew the election was really legitimate in his mind, but chose to proceed disputing it in a fraudulent manner in a quest for illicit gains. The argument would be "he had to have known" based on the above.
RICO stands for "Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization" and is the name of a Federal Act designed to tackle organized crime. The federal act requires multiple individuals be in an identifiable enterprise (eg, Mafia), and that they have a pattern of convicted crimes that they undertake as part of their criminal enterprise. That being the case you can then charge the head of the enterprise whether or not it can be proven he had any direct or indirect involvement in the crime. It was introduced because the mob bosses got too clever, and nothing could ever be directly tied to them. Georgia has a similar RICO Act which is somewhat broader than the Federal one.
Charging Trump under RICO seems to be an admission that they can't find any evidence that he ordered anything illegal to be done at all (if they could, they would have charged Conspiracy, not RICO).
How about so-called "fake electors"? The actual name is "an alternative slate of electors" and it may well be the correct and constitutional way to contest a State's election. You set up an alternate slate and then you have it out in court to see which slate is valid. It also can go to Congress. There was nothing "hidden" about this legal gambit. Here is what Trump aid Stephen Miller said at the time on Fox News:
“As we speak, today, an alternate slate of electors in the contested states is going to vote and we’re going to send those results up to Congress,” he continued. “This will ensure that all of our legal remedies remain open. That means that if we win these cases in the courts, that we can direct that the alternate state of electors be certified.”
There is an 1876 precedent for doing this, and it was being readied for Bush vs Gore as well when the Supreme Court ruling made it moot.
All the Georgia charges revolve around Trump and his legal team using this legal approach to stay in the game past Jan.6.
Now, many argue that despite the 1876 precedent, this approach ought not work. It was telling, however, that immediately after the 2020 election they added a law to make sure it no longer works, thereby implicitly indicating that it possibly did work before that?
Now how about the phone call. First of all, it's a tiny out of context sound byte from a 30 minute call. But read the sound byte again:
"I just want to find 11,780 votes"
He's not ask anybody to manufacture them out of thin air. One can literally only "find" something that already exists.
The rest of the 30 minute call was Trump and his team rattling off dozens of ways they believed the Georgia election to have been rigged. Trump repeatedly said that there were 100's of thousands potentially illegal votes, the 11,780 was in the context of asking them to do their jobs, investigate the allegations, because if only a tiny number of allegations can be shown valid it would overturn the state. He did not ask the Governor, while on a call with 30 others, to manufacture fake votes.
Here is the full transcript. You should read it to understand the context of this statement.
But the Georgia courts heard all of this and ruled on the evidence, right? No. The courts did not take any election cases and did not hear any evidence. They ruled lack of standing before any evidence was presented.
But the audits and recounts? Trump on the call was asking for the signatures to be checked, not the allegedly fraudulent ballots to be recounted. You can count allegedly fraudulent ballots a hundred times and get the same allegedly phony result. It's only with a signature check that you can audit the potential fraud. That was never done.
I have no doubt Trump and his lawyers will be convicted because of the partisan judge and the partisan jurors, and no doubt that it will be reversed at the Supreme Court.
But as far as banana republic nonsense goes, according to Dershowitz, we're up to 7/10 bananas already, rising to 8 when Trump is convicted on these bogus charges. Here is noted constitutional lawyer and scholar Alan Dershowitz on these indictments: https://rumble.com/v3e7ovx-alan-dershowitz-destroys-legal-arguments-for-trump-indictments-the-glenn-be.html
So, like Trump or not, what do you guys think? Is this one politically motivated or a legit case of "organized crime" with Don as The Don?
I don’t know how to interpret the law and agree RICO sounds like a stretch. But what he did was unworthy of the office and disrespectful of the Constitution. I’m not much of a Biden fan either, but I’d rather have him re-elected.
ReplyDeleteAs far as election fairness goes, I assume there are always illegal votes cast. But if there was a conspiracy to do massive fraud, we’d find it.
Rosco
Not if you're not looking.
DeleteWhat part about believing the election was dishonest and pursuing all legal means to remedy it is unworthy and unconstitutional? Sounds heroic to me.
The many challenges in courts across the country failed. No one has found this evidence.
DeleteCalling Georgia to demand they find votes is definitely unworthy and disrespectful of the Constitution. I don’t know whether it’s “unconstitutional”.
Trump lost, won’t admit it, and has somehow convinced people to ignore the facts. Wishing doesn’t make it so.
Rosco
Rosco, it's weird. You put forth points I already dismantled in the above without addressing my debunks. As if you're one of those pull toys that can only repeat what it's been programmed to say.
DeleteDoesn’t look like we’re going to agree on this. I disagree with your characterization that Trump really thought the votes existed. He doesn’t care. The truth means nothing to him.
DeleteI like to engage in debate and try to refrain from name calling so I don’t like being called a “pull toy”. I spend a lot of time arguing on the internet and person to person with people on both sides of our political abyss. I take pride in listening to different points of view including yours. Some of Trump’s policies have merit but the man lacks morals and integrity,
Rosco
You make the classic error of "mind reading" without proof.
DeleteYou refuse to engage in any exchange of views, else you would have directly refuted what I put forth. You only parrot the soundbytes of your party.
It’s true that I’ve voted for far more democrats than republicans, but I don’t think of myself as a party guy. I think Trump had some refreshing policy perspectives as well as some bad ones.
DeleteBut I generally agree with folks like Chris Christie and Mitt Romney who believe Trump is morally unfit to serve. And the defense of Trump’s attempts to overturn the election remind me of Ptolemy’s use of epicycles to explain the apparent retrograde motion of Mars to the Catholics who believed earth was the center of the universe.
“In order to preserve the geocentric cosmology of the time and to account for retrograde motion of Mars, Ptolemy had to make a model of planetary motion that invoked the use of epicycles. An epicycle is basically a little "wheel" that orbits on a bigger wheel.
The use of epicycles as a desperate attempt to preserve geocentric cosmology makes the orbits of planets very complicated and violates the scientific search for simplicity.”
Analogy is good for explanation, but is not any kind of argument.
DeleteWhy can't they just do a proper audit involving signature and eligibility checks to put to rest any doubts?
What, in your opinion, were his bad policy perspectives?
Apologies for the analogy. But I do love epicycles and you did call me a pull toy.
DeleteI have nothing against signature verification. And I’m all for voter ID and ways of making sure elections are fair and votes are properly counted. I don’t have a sense what level of effort signature verification takes, and if you do it one place don’t you need to do it everywhere. And I’m right now personally involved in a legal case where there’s dispute about a signature and it’s really hard to tell.
Trump’s foreign policies undermined decades old alliances and flirted with enemies. Relationships with other countries transcend presidencies - you don’t just throw folks under the bus. We should try to get along with everyone- and be tough but fair when we need to. (I did agree that NATO members ought to pay the share they agreed to, but his message delivery was rude and counterproductive.)
In spite of his rhetoric, he didn’t really get much legislation passed. But he targeted income tax changes at liberal blue states like my California by eliminating deductions of state taxes on our federal return. Significant dollars at stake, and we snowflake Californians send more money to DC than we get.
Btw, I got a wicked spanking an hour ago, albeit not for any unfounded political commentary.
Rosco
The reason you are for those things is that you realize that without them cheating is possible. My point exactly.
DeleteEven a cursory audit match would satisfy me. Is it even a remote match? Is the address valid? Is it an eligible voter?
Your Trump bad policies are vague and non-specific. What is the worst specific example of this, in your opinion?
Heavens to Betsy. How could anyone think his prosecution was politically motivated? Balderdash
ReplyDeleteIndeed 😊
DeleteThis is not the country I was born in to 75 years ago, very sad. I don't think our union of states will survive.
ReplyDeleteYup
DeleteHere you go again, off on another fake news post. The Georgia case is based on thousands of documents, emails, text messages, and phone calls. The one you quote is just one piece of evidence that your boy tried to change the election. Everyone, including his attorney general, Robert Barr, told him that he lost. The state doesn't have to prove beyond any doubt that Trump knew he lost. They only have to prove that a reasonable man would know he lost given the evidence presented. We both know that Donald Trump is anything but a reasonable man. A megalomaniac's delusions do not excuse him from prosecution.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that the phone call is the most damning evidence. There is plenty more that shows Trump and his henchmen tried to change an election's results and put in their own fake electors. Georgia has a complex case assembled after many months of evidence gathering and grand jury sessions. Oversimplifying the issue is a tactic that talk radio republicans use to stir up the ignorant masses. Don't fall into their trap. The Trump criminal prosecutions are serious cases put together by large teams of prosecutors who very carefully analyzed millions of pages of evidence. One phone call is just a little brick in a very high prison wall for the former president.
Nothing fake about my post. If you think anything I wrote is untrue, I imagine you would have pointed it out?
DeleteThere were many never-Trumpers who told him he lost, and as many pro-Trump guys who believed he won and told him so. I don't see how either are germane. Barr turned out to be the worst kind of sycophantic never-Trumper.
If you review the call transcript, you'll see he had many reasonable doubts about the election in Georgia that could have been resolved via a signature check which was never done, hence his doubts remained.
Typically prosecutors put their best cases forward in their indictments. Numerous lawyers and legal scholars, such as the hyper-Democrat Alan Greenspan have analyzed it and found it wanting..
One would think that after being so heartily embarrassed by Russiagate, Democrats would learn a lesson about these things. Alas not.
You are incorrect. Prosecutors rarely reveal their strongest evidence to the press. They generally bury it in masses of discovery to hide it from the defense. What you said in your post is only correct in terms of that single phone call.
DeleteI haven't read the indictment, so I don't know what the exact charges are. I'm also pretty sure that the RICO charge doesn't hinge on what, if anything, Trump was thinking. Bear in mind that we (the public) don't have access to the prosecution's case. I would be very surprised if it is as flimsy as you suggest.
I rely on lawyers who say that they put the best case forward in the indictment, but I guess we shall see. Yes, the crime does require mens rea.
DeleteNo political motivation -a grand jury of his peers( people like you and I ) reviewed all of the evidence and determined if the law was broken.
ReplyDeleteNo Biden or US government influence, no hidden agenda from democrats as these are Republican's in Georgia :) Just the rule of law and no one is above the law. That is objective of state and country to write the laws and govern the people.
Grand jury was selected in a massively Democrat district and are fed whatever garbage the prosecutor wants without the benefit of rebuttal. Have you not heard that you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich?
DeleteRepublicans have their fair share on uniparty never-Trumpers.
Nobody argued anybody is above the law. That's a talking point programmed into you. Good parrot.
Read all your posts on Trump and you literally believe his above the law as you have dismissed all the evidence against him as "whatever garbage the prosecutor wants"
DeleteMy argument is not that he is above the law.
DeleteMy argument is that the charges are bogus.
Is it hard for you to comprehend that distinction?
One very telling fact is that Trump has never won the popular vote and will never win the popular vote simple because most people dont want Trump as president. Not because there were ~2M fraudulent votes in the Hillary election and ~8M votes in the Biden. The 2nd figure is telling because it implied - We have seen this movie, once that was enough thanks.
ReplyDeleteWe dont elect by popular vote so the law is what it is until we can change the constitution to get rid of EC *legally* (which is a long haul).
The right way to handle concerns about voting is not the way he went about it.
PS: Did you mean really mean Alan Greenspan could you have meant Alan Derschawitz(sp). He is a lawyer well known for fringe but high profile cases
Cities are primarily Democrat hence why no popular vote.
DeleteSorry! I meant Dershowitz. He's only been labelled "fringe" when he objected to fellow Democrats abusing the legal system. Do some homework on him.
It is correct most cities are Democratic registered and likely pull the party lever vs compare each candidate. The Farm belt typically pulls the Republican lever - So what, all those people to express their opinion as we they wish.
DeleteRE: Dershowitz your comment is more reasonable. Fringe was not the right word, more like (in)famous & "everyone is entitled to a rigorous defence, even if they are charged with heinous crimes and/or not "likeable" ex Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein etc... (I imagine them being wealthy probably made it easier to take )
If you respect Dershowitz as a leading legal mind, you should listen to him and consider what he says.
DeleteNot a fan of Trump. As you've pointed out previously he's a huge narcissist, possibly pathological. While I'll agree he did nothing terribly bad for the country in his first term, a personality like that might yet do something foolish.
ReplyDeleteAll the indictments brought against him and his lawyers seem like a huge abuse of the legal system to me, but what do I know?
Ahhh... a rational position!
DeleteYes, it's a valid concern re. Trump, but I'll weigh the first term as pretty solid evidence of how he would govern in a second, though I would still prefer a younger man with the same policies such as Vivek.
It seems you have a hard time dealing with opposing views. Whenever somebody disagrees with you they are pulltoys, parrots, etc. Every article or source which does not agree with you is mainstream media, censored, bla bla bla. Republicans supporting the case are never Trumpers and only the few handselected sources supporting your views are neutral and knowledgeable. When people bring up the awkward and unpredecented behaviour of Trump it is of course totally reasonable from your view. Nothing to see, move on. It seems the whole world is a giant conspiration aimed at bringing down Trump and everybody who says something critical about him or his behaviour is in it. Your kink content is great and I admire the positivity and tolerance you show in all things kinky, but your political views are calcified and you merely seek out to confirm your views over and over, separating the world in two sides in which one is always right and the other always evil and wrong. You pretend to be interested in debate, but are clearly not and only seek to confirm your simple worldview and insult anyone who does not share it. It is useless to debate with such people.
ReplyDeleteA very long paragraph that does not attempt to refute a single word I said. I'm sorry your media did this to you.
DeleteTake your time and listen to the call where Trump asks to find the 11,780 votes and you note that the Republican governor and his deputy immediately know what Trump is asking is illegal and therefore we very cautious in what they said
ReplyDeleteWhat puzzles me is that for someone who is clearly intelligent has been so hoodwinked into thinking that Trump hasn't committed any crimes
Yet you clearly have drunk the kool aid
Evidence - it's all fabricated
Grand Jury - must be democrats
4 criminal trials - it's a weaponised DOJ
The smarter person would be saying lets see how this plays out in the court and consider the possibility that Trump may have broken the law
I very much took my time and listened to the call. I did not get that read at all. You are mind reading. Quote the words in the transcript that prove your point.
DeleteTry to put in plain language what evil thing Trump is actually charged with. You will be unable to. They are tearing the country apart and going after him for ridiculous "process crimes". Tellingly, he was not charged with "insurrection" or any such nonsense. He's charged with being the supposed head of a supposed "crime syndicate" where a supposed member "forged a document". What document? Who were they pretending to be. Who did they fool?
Use your faculties, Tim.
Over 60 suits were dismissed, many by Republican-appointed judges, Trump brought disputing the election results. There is a longstanding pattern of behavior where he and his henchmen attempted to bully state secretaries of state to unilaterally change election results. His team appointed fraudulent electors and tried to pressure the VP into having the Senate certify them and their candidate, Trump, as president. (That's illegal)
DeleteThe phone call you are trying to interpret in the wild is just one of a very large number of communications trying to change the outcome of the US election. A sitting president has never done anything so outrageous before. Your selective, talk radio interpretation of the news is sad.
I don't get it. You live in a country that has free medical care, yet you vocally oppose us getting it. You live in a constitutional monarchy. You seem to want us to live in one too. The former president asksed the military to support his remaining in office. In an address after he lost, he advocated ignoring the constitution and allowing him to remain president for life (hopefully short--just my view).
This guy is crazy. He's charismatic and pragmatic. He does whatever it takes to motivate his base. Like you, he ignores the painful reality of a divided nation. He could have used his charisma to unify the country. Some of the policies he advocates could help us. He wanted to allow Medicare and Medicaid to negotiate drug prices. The pharma lobby spends millions a year to keep congress from doing that. His immigration policy, minus that silly wall, makes sense even if it is a bit draconian. He isn't evil incarnate.
What he is scares me. He puts his personal hold on power above all. He has shown that he will do anything to hold on to power. He is insane in so many ways. His staff managed to hide a lot of it from the public eye (his tantrums...one in his limo, another throwing things in the Oval Office dining room). He has a massive ego and is delusional about his ability to lead. This is dangerous for our country. We are a republic. We don't want to be a ocnstitutional monarchy with Trump as king.
We went over that, Lion. Almost all the 60 were not taken up due to lack of standing. Of the ones that were taken up, Trump side won more than they lost.
DeleteThe division comes from people like you who delusionally believe, with no evidence whatsoever, that he will "END DEMOCRACY!" To the half of the country that thought he was a great president and want to elect him again, those are highly divisive words you use. Shame you can't see it.
The problem is he did try and most of the world can't understand why American's would re-elect him. Is the American electoral system that voted him in so corrupt and useless, that when he does not win he tries to manipulate it.
DeleteThat's your news sources talking. I'm sorry they did that to you.
DeleteWill you stop sticking your nose into US politics! It’s not your fight and you can’t make any contribution to its solution. “I just want you to find 11,780 votes” is clear enough evidence that he was trying to steal the election.
ReplyDeleteNope. Seeing I'll get just as blowed up when Biden triggers a nuclear war. And yes, I can and do contribute.
DeleteI enjoy your comments!
DeleteYay!
DeleteThanks for laying it out clearly. I had heard Trump told them to manufacture phony votes, but unlike the news and most social media, you actually included the exact quote and gave a link to the transcript. You have to be an idiot to interpret it that he was asking for phony votes to be created. What are these people on?
ReplyDeleteThanks. That was my take too.
DeleteI enjoy your political comments almost as much as I like your sexy stories. I find your commentary cogent and rational. I am a Georgia resident. At one precinct, poll watchers were told "a pipe has burst, and we need to stop counting for the night." The poll watchers were escorted out and the doors were locked behind them. Paper was put up on the inside of the windows so that none could see inside. But cameras inside showed that the poll workers pulled boxes out from hiding places and were fed into the counting machines. So far as I know, none of this resulted any official investigation. Lurker48
ReplyDeleteYes, I saw that one. Extremely fishy business.
DeleteThe election was absolutely stolen. The democrats are evil anf crooked. They brought covid to the US. I can't believe so many people still think Biden won and still following him as he brings us into ww3
ReplyDeleteI don't know their's evidence they brought COVID, but they sure did hype them fear, use it as a divisive election issue, and use it to massively increase mail-in votes knowing that favours Dems (and provides greater opportunities to cheat).
DeleteWhat would it really take to convince you that Trump is wrong about this election business, and that the charges against him are true? No matter what anyone says, and what credentials they have or reference, you denounce it as either false, wrong, or politically motivated Trump hating. I'm sorry to say this Julie, but when it comes to Trump, you sound like a cult member, who will go to any length to defend it. You argue that you try to be objective, and yet you defend everything that supports Trump's version of reality, and write off everything that goes against it. No matter who says it, what their background is, or whether they were in a room with Trump, talked to him, and heard what he said and did first hand.
ReplyDeleteI seriously doubt that even a straight up confession to wrongdoings by Trump himself, would convince you that he was in the wrong. I'm guessing that you'd write it off as him either being forced to confess, in order to avoid a longer prison sentence, or it being a deepfake computer generated video, made by some horrible Democrats :-(
As someone watching the US from the other side of the planet, the US population has for a significant part divided themselves into two groups, who each only want to get information about the world around them, from a specifically angled news source, and anything that paints a different interpretation of a given event, than the one presented on their chosen news source, gets written off as lies, slander, and politically motivated falsehood. It's like the very idea of trying to acknowledge that there can be other ways to look at and interpret something, is completely foreign to people at this point. And it's fucking tragic to look at :-(
We'll see what the courts end up saying about Trump's various actions, both in Georgia, and in the three other cases that's been raised against him. I realize that you won't believe in the outcomes, unless Trump goes free, but personally I'll retain my belief that ultimately, the law is the law, and if Trump gets convicted, it will be because there's sufficient evidence of him acting in violation of it.
And while intent matters in legal cases, being ignorant of the law, or just plain being wrong about what you have the right to do, does not always mean that you can avoid legal consequences, if you inadvertently broke the law.
Have real audits of the battleground states that include signature checks and matches with voter eligibility (not just recounting the same phony ballots over and over).
DeleteI'm sorry your news sources have not informed you this was not done anywhere.
You may want to have a look at this:
Deletehttps://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/exhaustive-fact-check-finds-little-evidence-of-voter-fraud-but-2020s-big-lie-lives-on
Quoted from the article:
"Christina Cassidy:
...But speaking with election officials, they stand by their protocols and their procedures in place. And there are numerous procedures, protocols in place, guardrails to ensure that every ballot is accounted for. Mail ballots that are sent out, they are logged. Every mail ballot that is returned is logged.
They go through various security checks in a number of states. They do — they conduct signature verification. So, when those ballots come in, they're looking at the signatures. And every time a voter has had contact with their election office, whether it's signing a petition, requesting a ballot application, submitting a ballot, those signatures are on file, and they're kept on file.
And so, when those ballots come in, they're reviewed. They look at those signatures, and if there's a discrepancy, they flag it. They contact the voters. They say, hey, there is an issue here. You need to come in and prove that this is your ballot. And if that person doesn't come in, that ballot is discarded and is not counted."
So unless I'm misreading something, there are supposed to have been signature checks of the cast votes, incl. the mail-in ballots. Granted, the article does not mention specific States here, but seem to talk about the process in a more general perspective.
These links might also be interesting to you:
https://sos.ga.gov/news/3rd-strike-against-voter-fraud-claims-means-theyre-out-after-signature-audit-finds-no-fraud
Far as I can understand this, Georgia did in fact have signature verification of the ballot.
https://web.mit.edu/healthyelections/www/sites/default/files/2021-06/Signature_Verification.pdf
This study goes in-depth on signature verification in 6 different battleground States.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-2020-election-lies-debunked-4fc26546b07962fdbf9d66e739fbb50d
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-recounts-false-idUSL2N2WJ1J9
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2103619118
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/us/arizona-election-review.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/interactive/2020/election-integrity/
Found another link you might also want to have look at Julie.
Deletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/technology/georgia-recount-signature-match.html
This one specifically talks about the process of signature verification in relation to the re-counts:
"...In Georgia, where the initial count showed that Mr. Trump lost to President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. by several thousand votes, the recount process does not include the reverification of signatures included with absentee ballots.
When absentee ballots are received by Georgia’s election officials, the signature on the envelope is matched to other signatures that are part of the voter’s record. Once that is verified, the envelope containing the signature is separated from the ballot to protect the secrecy of the voter’s choice. Voters whose signatures do not match those on record are notified and asked for clarification.
The envelopes and ballots are retained for two years. But because they have been separated to protect voters’ privacy, there is no longer a way to match ballots to envelopes. As such, rechecking signatures in a recount would be meaningless.
A similar procedure is followed in other states, and Georgia’s process of separating ballots from signature envelopes has nothing to do with any consent decree."
I agree, the election is basically unauditable because of the separation of anonymous ballots from signatures (which is a very bad thing, and guarantees that if cheating has not happened yet, it certainly will). However, if a precinct that swung 95% to Biden is shown to have many, many bad signatures and/or ineligible voters, that would be interesting information, no?
DeleteIf you could then disqualify the votes from the precinct where the signature checking was so bad it was beneath some threshold, likely the whole precinct should be discarded (or a re-vote), either of which may sway the election result.
They are supposed to have robust voter rolls and signature checks, everyone agrees on that. The allegations are that in practice they were no such thing.
Also, very interesting that they audited (ie randomly selected a few) and found a 99.99% accuracy (which is unheard of), but it was done in Cobb County, whereas all the alleged issues took place in Fulton County (90% of Atlanta in in Fulton). I certainly smell a rat.
DeleteI was wondering how you'd refute this *LOL*
DeleteI don't know enough about US voting precincts to comment on whether a 95% favoring of a particular presidential candidate would be unusual for said precinct, but assuming it stood out either in a historical context, or in context with the surrounding, or comparable precincts, sure. It would then be cause to do a double-check of the validity. But with context, such a result might be perfectly reasonable.
The big issue with signature validation is that it basically relies on a subjective evaluation of two particular signatures, which is basically on the same street as graphology. In any case, I can say from personal experience that my signature can vary quite a bit, depending on the day, the tool I'm signing with, and my state of mind (i.e. tired). There are days where I might as well have put an "X" down as a signature, for how much it resembles my typical signature. So in reality we are down to subjective evaluations of compared signatures. And even if we use computers to compare things, we are down to having to decide how closely two signatures should match, in order for the computer to verify them as identical. In any case, it makes for some very wobbly ground to use as a foundation for evaluating something as valid or not.
As for whether it's a problem or not for mail-in ballots to be separated from the signature of the voter, I'd argue that it's a necessity, in order to ensure anonymous votes. But I agree that it necessitates a solid verification program to be in place. But the same can be argued about ensuring that a person that shows up to vote in person, has to verify their identity somehow. And their vote also gets separated from their vote, once they have been verified as being who they say they are. So the problem of verification isn't unique to mail-in ballots, and it's probably also why signature verification doesn't get to stand on its own.
As for picking Cobb County at random, I can't really say if that would make any difference or not., or if there are such a substantial number of rats in the area, for them to smell ;-) It might have been more logical to pick Fulton County, but that might have something to do with the number of people within the voting area, and how many people you'd need to sample, in order to get a statistically significant result out of a sample size that could be managed with the time and resources available. I don't recall the precise wording of the accuracy you refer to, but I seem to interpret it as talking about statistical significance, rather than determined accuracy. The two things are not the same, but granted, my memory of the exact formulation is hazy right now.
The issue for Trump and Co. seems to be to prove the validity of the allegations concerning the robustness of the voter rolls and signature checks/voter verification processes.
The big issue in swing states was the closing down of voting centres, the expulsion of Republican observers, and then massive vote swings toward Biden from supposed mail in votes in the wee hours of the morning.
DeleteThe reports were lots of ballots with identical signatures or no signatures, so we're not talking about a nuance of a signature match.
Other issues involved ineligible voters, such as those too old / having no capacity (or dead), or from out of state.
Fulton county is where the complaints were. It was a travesty that they did a small sample of signature checks in Cobb and called it a day.
A lot of this evidence is being presented now in the defence to the Georgia indictment of Trump early motions. Stay tuned and pay attention to balanced news sites and independent journalists.
In what way were voting centers shut down? Because if they were shut down at the time they were supposed to shut down, despite there still being people waiting in line to vote, they were following the law. It's unfortunate, certainly, but voting centers shut down at a certain point, and if you didn't arrive in time to get through the lines by that time, it's tough luck. You should have gone earlier.
DeleteI don't recall the details pertaining to observers being thrown out, but I seem to recall hearing that there were some good explanations for what happened in various places, and that the rules as they were, were followed. Granted, I'm running on incomplete memory here, but I suspect there would have been a larger general outcry, if those accusations had been proven true. I've just tried to Google it, but I'm failing to find any details of said accusation just now, and I don't have more time to hunt for this at the moment.
Mail-in votes get tallied at different points in different States. In some places they get tallied first, in others they get tallied last. So when more Democrats than Republicans elected to mail in their vote, rather than stand in line during a pandemic, it should surprise no one, if the Democrat end up getting a boost towards the end, if the mail-in ballots are only tallied at the end. I get that it can be frustrating to see the result change from what appeared to be a sure win, to be a loss, can be frustrating, but I don't recall hearing about anyone complaining about the situations where the situation was reversed, and Democrats had a lead at the beginning, due to mail-in ballots being tallied first, where after the Republican votes caught up later in the process.
Various other charges of ineligible voters etc. were investigated in various places, and a very limited number of such votes were found. And nowhere near the numbers required to change anything. Quit pushing that bollocks.
Why was Fulton County singled out for complaints? If the problem was supposed to be as widespread as Trump claims, the fraud would have to have been spread out across all or most of the State, and in that case, it ought to be detectable in a multitude of places, not just in Fulton County. Had it been better to sample Fulton County instead of Cobb? Sure. But if they had done that, and hadn't sampled enough to get a statistically significant result, due to an insufficient sample size, caused by insufficient resources/time to carry out a sufficiently large check, then THAT would have been the complaint. Especially if the check hadn't revealed the level of fraud the Trump and Co. claimed.
Very few, if any, news sites are truly balanced, and independent journalists also have personal biases, so at the end of the day, I'd argue that people should be listening to as many different sources as possible, and then look for an "average", the overarching trends in the narratives and indisputable facts within the stories. Listening only to "independent" and "balanced" news sources from within the US will not give you a "balanced" and unbiased view.
One of the main vote counting centres in Georgia was shut down over a supposed "water main break". Everybody was sent away. But then there is video of a few election workers returning, without observers, and counting more votes.
DeleteFulton is a large and heavily Dem county whose elections are run by quite radical Dems. A very little bit of cheating there, on a % basis, can change the election result in Georgia, which is a swing state. Similar shenanigans were witnessed in other large Dem counties in other close swing states.
Please understand, Kyrel, you're getting all your news from very slanted sources. That is why you express such certainty over something that is in fact very messy.
Not knowing the details of the voter center shutdown limits what I can really comment on it. Based on your description, the situation sounds...off somehow, but given how pro-Trump your views are, I'm forced to take your POW with a grain of salt, unless I can locate some more sources to collaborate your version of this. Unfortunately I doubt I have the time to unearth news about something like that, as it would likely be local US news, which is now more than two years old.
DeleteAgain, I agree with you that it would have been better to sample Fulton county, if that's where the accusations are, but objectively speaking, however you twist and turn this, at this point, there have been no official investigations into supposed voter fraud, that have managed to come up with credible evidence that supports Trumps narrative that the election was so plagued by fraud, that it affected the election outcome.
Now, bear in mind that I say "official" investigations. Not any other type. And yes, I agree that there are a lot of elements to all of the different stories that are in circulation, but I tend to find some stories more believable than others, and some versions easier to find support for than others. And yes, I'm definitively colored by the fact that Trump seem to have such a loose relationship with "the truth", given how many objectively wrong things the man's been caught out stating, so based on that alone, I am per default more critical of the pro-Trump narrative.
You are right that there's a limit to what news sources I have access to. But I'd argue that I'm getting the gist of the overall stories. Between Danish news, BBC, CNN, Youtube clips from various sources (including Fox News, Midas Touch, MSNBC, Joe Rogan, and other random finds that show up in my feed and search result) as well as your blog and arguments, I'm getting a multitude of "datapoints" that overall point in a particular direction, and share some common elements in the stories. The conclusions and opinions vary, along with the analysis. But the baseline story is much the same across various sources. Especially if you talk clips of Trump or other relevant individuals being interviewed, making statements, or interrogated in various settings.
Is my opinions affected by the news and analysis I hear? Absolutely. But do yourself a favor and acknowledge that so is yours. You are very pro-Trump. A lot of the sources you reference are pro-Trump, or leaning towards a narrative that support Trump, and sources that disagree with that narrative tend to be labeled by you with a variety of negative loaded words that let you write them off as believable news sources.
I'll willingly admit that I'm not very fond of Trump, and thus I'm more inclined to believe the sources that suggest that the man's screwed up, and is now in serious trouble with the law, over a variety of issues (some more serious than others). But at the end of the day, our opinions are both colored by what we hear and read, and what we believe ourselves. Hell, I don't think you'll be able to find a 100% objective opinion on anything, the moment we go from simply observing natural laws, and move into interpretation of any given event, because EVERYONE'S opinions get colored by their beliefs, life experiences, and knowledge.
In my opinion, the only two truly foolish positions are "yes, there was definitely enough ballot fraud to have overturned it", and your position, "no there definitely was not". I am unsure but suspicious.
DeleteAnd I know for sure about the suppression of the Hunter laptop by a collusion of 51 former intelligence officers, the Zuckerbucks, the unconstitutional changes to laws to allow mass mail-in voting.
On top of that, I know the Russiagate scandal was a Hillary operation, and I know the media perpetuated multiple hoaxes against Trump (e.g, fine people hoax, feeding fish hoax, drinking bleach hoax, and so on).
All in all, I do not begrudge or find it unreasonable that Trump, who is in a much better position to know than either of us, believes the election was rigged against him.
You misread me Julie. I'm not saying "There definitively wasn't any fraud", I'm saying "So far, the serious official investigations I'm aware of, have not been able to produce evidence of levels of fraud, which would be able to affect the election outcome". That's not the same thing. But I'll give you that I have serious doubts that the election outcome was rigged.
DeleteI don't think anyone says that Trump didn't have the right to contest the outcome of the election. But it's also indisputable that Trump was surrounded by a number of capable individuals, including some of his lawyers and other governmental officials etc., who outright told him that he lost the election. The man himself has confirmed that. We also know, from a recent interview he participated in, that he chose to listen to his instincts, and the people that agreed with those instincts, and then made the "informed" decision to pursue the narrative that the election was rigged. He has persisted with this narrative, in spite of how many other people and sources have failed to find evidence to support it.
If sufficient levels of fraud took place to allow for the election result to be affected, the evidence of it has been hidden well enough that the various investigations into the claims, haven't been able to find it.
So far, the investigations into the Hunter Biden laptop, have failed to produce evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden, and it has nothing to do with Trump's actions after the election.
Zuckerbucks was a thing, but in concept it's nothing new.
You can disagree on the allowance of mail-in ballots, but the various States involved concluded that the changes were legal, and that the used verification procedures were sufficient to insure a valid election.
Granted, the media have made a number of stories out of Trump statements taken out of context. That's an unfortunate consequence of being driven to sell news, and catering to the beliefs of an increasingly divided audience, rather than focusing on presenting relevant news and accurately presented stories. Fox News is at least as bad at that as CNN.
I say the laptop suppression (which polling says would have swayed the outcome), the Zuckerbucks, and the activist courts who changed election procedures without legislative approval is sufficient "rigging". Not to mention the spate of hoaxes Trump was subjected to by dishonest leftist media.
DeleteMany advised him to take a different course than he did and fold early, I don't see what that has to do with anything. All these "advisors" have failed to convince over 50% of the voting population (including me) as well.
To say the laptop has not produced evidence against Joe is a ridiculous statement. The laptop shows Joe was getting kickbacks from Hunter's corrupt payments.
Trump holds a not unreasonable view, shared by many, that the election was rigged against him. He took only legal and constitutional actions based on that belief. When his legal efforts were exhausted, he stepped down.
He's now being subjected to even more "rigging" by miring him in ridiculous charges when he is the front runner.
If there was any evidence of Joe Biden engaging in illegal acts, he would have been formally charged with something by now. He hasn't. The Republican investigations into the laptop has, to my knowledge, not yielded any actual evidence of the "kickback" you talk about. We've talked about the morality of letting monetary donations provide access to meeting politicians, but if you want to bring that up as something particularly immoral, then we are likely going to be shooting at a LOT of politicians currently serving.
DeleteAs for Hunter receiving "corrupt" payments, Hunter isn't running for public office. And if you want to shoot at that form of action, don't look too closely at Trump's family and their Middle Eastern relations.
Yea. Some people supported Trump's desire to believe that he legitimately won. Several of those people are at this point charged with trying to overthrow the election through illegal means. But we already talked about that. You believe those charges are bogus, I believe the charges wouldn't have been brought, if the prosecution didn't believe that they had a case they would win. And in any case, time will show what the various jury and judges in the four cases against Trump will say.
Unfortunately you are right that a lot of people have come to buy into Trump's claims that the election was stolen, despite the lack of confirmed evidence of it. The initial number of people who thought the election had been rigged, was not 50% however. It has grown to become that number of people since the election, however.
As for the "advisors" you talk about, who's told Trump he lost, and/or that his claims of widespread fraud were false, includes:
"The indictment cites instances where Trump was informed that his claims were false by then-Vice President Mike Pence, the director of national intelligence, senior members of the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, his own staffers, state lawmakers as well as state and federal courts. "
Maybe it's just me, but I'd consider those "advisors" to include some fairly serious individuals and organizations that a President ought to be listening to.
He's currently under investigation for impeachment which is the only thing you can do with a current president.
DeleteYour knowledge is weak. The laptop contains 2 documents. One where Hunter admits to giving 50% of his income to his father. The other is where he reserves 10% of the proceeds for the "Big Guy" Who an eye witness says is Joe. Then there is eye witness testimony from to people that Joe lied and was in fact involved in direct meetings.
None of those "advisors" were in a position to know one way or another. How could they be sure?
The investigation for impeachment the Republicans launched recently is going to amount to nothing. You even have Republican senators saying that there is no basis for the investigation at this point, because there is no evidence of wrongdoing. But we'll see where it goes.
DeleteAgain, with regards to the laptop, I have to say that I find this particular case tasteless. Hunter Biden has been subjected to a Republican witch hunt, in an attempt to find some form of dirt on his dad, and at this point, the attempt has amounted to nothing solid. As I understand it, Hunter's charged with not paying the right amount of taxes, and lying on a form saying that he was not doing drugs, when he purchased a gun at some point. He made a plea deal on that, but apparently it got rejected by a judge. As for the "Big guy" e-mail, I found this reference in an article from Time Magazine (https://time.com/6254861/hunter-biden-laptop-investigations-charges/):
"Data purportedly from a laptop that allegedly belonged to Hunter Biden included a May 2017 email from one of his business partners laying out how percentages of equity from a proposed venture with a Chinese energy company could be divided. One line of that email asks the question, “10 held by H for the big guy?” Hunter Biden’s former business partner Tony Bobulinski, who was one of Donald Trump’s guests for a presidential debate in 2020, told Fox News that he believed “H” stood for Hunter and “the big guy” was Joe Biden. Beyond that, Fox News also reported that there was no evidence that any part of the business deals with the Chinese entities went to Joe Biden. It is also worth pointing out that in 2017, Joe Biden was no longer Vice President and was nearly two years away from announcing his candidacy for President."
As for the eye witness you refer to, I assume you are thinking of Devon Archer? The same article has this reference to his statements:
"Devon Archer, a former long-time business associate of Hunter Biden, testified to the House Oversight Committee in July that Hunter Biden had traded on the “illusion” of influence and his famous father’s brand name, but had not been able to influence him. Archer and Hunter Biden had worked closely together from the time when they were partners together in the investment firm Rosemont Seneca. They also both served on the Burisma board. Archer testified that Joe Biden spoke to his son Hunter nearly every day, particularly in the months after Hunter’s brother Beau died in May 2015, and he had seen Hunter Biden put Joe Biden on speaker phone during business meetings. But Archer told House investigators that nothing of substance was ever discussed in those calls."
So that's IMO a VERY flimsy basis for the accusations you keep bringing up.
So far I haven't been able to find references to Hunter supposedly giving 50% of his income to his father. I did find an article referring to Hunter needing money for his family though. But according to that article, that particular phrase was more likely to be referring to his (ex-)wife and his children, seeing as Hunter had amassed a variety of debts, likely caused by him blowing his money on crack cocaine, strippers etc., rather than making sure that his family's bills got paid. I find that explanation for that statement rather more credible than the idea that he should have signed over half his income to his dad, juicy as that story would otherwise have been for a tabloid or Joe Biden's political opponents.
DeleteThe "advisors" were in at least as good a position to tell the president that the election was legitimately lost, as Trump was in deciding, based on his gut instinct, that it was lost due to fraud. And after actively investigating the matter, several of them were in a LOT better position to tell the president that he legitimately lost the election. On top of which, you even have a testimony of someone that worked directly for Trump, during the election night, which supposedly cited Trump for having said something to the effect of "Can you believe I lost to that guy". I'd argue that is an indication that even Trump himself knew/know that the election was legit.
Kyrel, you're wonderfully naive. Biden family members, utterly unqualified, collecting in excess of $20M through a shady network of shell companies from shady foreign interests for no discernable business reason? Come on.
DeleteThe "half my income" was written in a text message to his daughter Naomi:
"I hope you all can do what I did and pay for everything for this entire family Fro 30 years. It's really hard. But don't worry unlike Pop I won't make you give me half your salary,"
It came up right away, top entry in my duck duck go search. Your news sources are not trustworthy.
That's a very heavily media-spun takeaway of the Devon Archer testimony and interview with Tucker Carlson. Go watch the interview yourself:
https://x.com/tuckercarlson/status/1686799149109256192?s=61&t=5Qm3tkUtJbbYPe_bsKiwHQ
https://x.com/tuckercarlson/status/1687436522625159168?s=61&t=5Qm3tkUtJbbYPe_bsKiwHQI
He gives a very different impression than your spun narrative.
I've already given you multiple 100% proven ways in which the election was rigged, which you studiously ignore each time (laptop suppression, Zuckerbucks, unconstitutional changes to election procedures). The only remaining open question is whether there was enough ballot fraud to have overturned swing states. Trump had legit reasons.
Hunter's qualifications are probably outside of both you and my realm of actual knowledge, as are the particular reasons for why particular businesses have been set up as they have. But sure, we are all free to speculate. We can engage in a similar exercise with the Trump family.
DeleteI'll willingly grant you that from the outside, it certainly sounds like one of Hunter Biden's main selling points has been his name and familiar relation to his father. But that isn't an automatic translation into Hunter having the ability to affect governmental policy, or providing customers with access to Joe Biden, or Joe Biden getting directly involved with Hunter's business. And sure, I agree with Devon Archer that it can probably have a powerful effect to be able to call up a guy like Joe Biden during a dinner with a possible customer. But I also note that he commented that we are talking having seen that happen something like 20 times over the span of 10 years, and he is not saying that Joe Biden ever discussed business in those instances. And the letter that was in the clip you linked to, is devoid of anything remotely business like. But sure, someone could use to demonstrate a given level of relation to Joe Biden. But again, while it might be great as a marketing and sales pitch tool, it's not the same as being able to exert influence.
Your comment on your Duck Duck Go search results demonstrate the effects of how our search engines end up tailoring the results we get. As for the message you cite, it's frankly worthless without further knowledge of the context surrounding it. Sure, you can use the interpretation you advocate, but you can come up with several other interpretations too. So without additional contextual knowledge about it, it's not worth much as "evidence" that Hunter transferred 50% of his adult income to his dad, and it's even less evident what such a transfer of funds got spend on, let alone why such transfers might have happened.
As for your 100% proven ways the election was rigged, I think I'll let this one rest with saying that our definition of "rigged" seem to differ somewhat. I'll give you that Trump initially could have thought that attempts at fraud could have happened. Even if testimony from one of his aids seem to indicate otherwise. But once investigation results began coming in, and an increasing amount of people began telling him that he didn't have any evidence of sufficient amounts of fraud happening, to affect the outcome of the election, he should have let the notion go, and accepted the fact that he lost. Instead he kept perpetuating the narrative that the election got "stolen", and in that process helped sow increased doubt about the American election process, as well as aid in digging the ditches in the American society deeper than they already were.
There's no business reason for such a network of companies given no identified legitimate business underlies it.
DeleteJoe and family has been doing this for years. They are not going to leave smoking gun evidence. One needs to rely upon a preponderance of circumstantial evidence, such as the fact that Joe Biden caused the prosecutor going after Burisma to be fired (and bragged about it). As well, we see Joe Biden living well above his means as paid for by his son.
Again, you narrowly define "rigged" as ballot fraud. Trump himself references these other things first in interviews.
There is plenty of evidence of ballot fraud, it's just the courts refused to hear it, the relevant authorities stonewalled it, and the media refuses to air it. One example is referenced in senate testimony: https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/imo/media/doc/Testimony-Binnall-2020-12-16.pdf
Sorry to have taken a while to get back around to you on this, but life got in the way.
DeleteI assume "rigged" to mean something actually illegal. And honestly, if you (read: anyone) are going to claim that something is illegal and fraudulent, then you need to be able to back it up, and present evidence in support of your claim, which will live up to qualified cross examination. You also need to be able to present it in a way that makes it relevant as evidence, within the eyes of the law. If someone can't do that, I'd expect them to shut up, if told by qualified people, that their claims were wrong.
As for the link you chose for an example, it would have been preferable, if you'd found something to link to, that wasn't a statement made by someone working for Donald Trump. It makes it very hard to consider it as anything but (heavily) biased, and (as you indicated) the link itself contains no actual evidence of anything. Just a lawyer claiming his company did some research that support their client's statements.
Anyway, we are not going to get any further with this argument. I respect your right to believe what you do, but you are going to have to respect my right to disagree with you, and to not see the same evidence of foul play, that you see in various sources.
I use the broader definition of "rigged" as does Trump.
DeleteIt would be grand to be able to subpoena people and get them under oath and present evidence, but the courts did not take up the cases, and one wonders why.
Thus, particularly in this case, the lack of court presented evidence is not evidence that everything was on the up and up. If you claim that, you are making a logical fallacy. All you can claim is we don't know for sure, which is my position.
Even my liberal friends know these court cases are a political witch hunt. Lauren isn’t a Trump supporter like me but she told me she’d probably vote for him cause she’s looked it up and he’s not committed a crime and furthermore she appreciates low gas and more jobs.
ReplyDeleteYou're right. I think it's really backfiring politically. Americans don't like seeing the govt abuse its power like this and will get vindictive about it (ie stick a thumb in the system's eye by voting Trump).
DeleteIt seems extremely obvious these indictments are all politically motivated. I think you have to have you head in the sand to not see that.
ReplyDeleteYeah, it seems very obvious. The weak cases. The "novel" legal arguments. The timing to maximally interfere with the campaigning. The bias of the prosecutors and judges who have made previous public statements about getting Trump. And so on. 75% of Democrats are incapable of seeing it, though.
DeleteSo what's new, America must have one of the most corrupt democracies in the world. It's all based on $$$
DeleteYep. Pretty corrupt, but I don't know of any other country that is not (except possibly Singapore?)
DeleteYou have to understand, Julie the spanker is extremely intelligent. She doesn't read mainstream media, so she's totally objective and she knows, she knows everything about everything. She understood everything. To justice, to the world, to politics. You cannot fault her because she owns the Truth. She is the Truth. And she knows that everything is corrupted, that the system is biased, you just need to look. You can never win against Julie. It's like with Trump: if he wins an election, that means the vote was honest. If he loses, it's rigged. Simple.
ReplyDelete"Extremely intelligent" - Thank you!
Delete😂
DeleteI spend more time facing the wall when I bring up this man. My wife will not tolerate how worked up I get. To make her point clear, she waited a couple of days, she needed to calm down. My worse spankings and I don't know why is when my mother-in-law is present.
ReplyDeleteI stood there as my bottom was bared, scolded, told keep hands at side, no talking back. The bathbrush was in her lap, and so in front of my mother-in-law, not the first time, given a very sound spanking, faced the wall for a longer time than normal. My wife just had heard enough and her spankings really get the point across. Jack
Were you speaking for or against Trump?
DeleteI was speaking the positive and the negative, Jack
DeleteAh so someone is now judged in the court of public opinion. Good for you Julie for holding firm in your beliefs.
DeleteThe trolling continues. Good luck with your rationalizations when Trump goes to prison
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I'm predicting that he will be indicted, then overturned in the upper courts. I doubt the Dems have the balls to put him in jail, but we'll see. All bets are off if that happens. Hoo boy.
DeleteMy money is on prison. Good luck getting out of 2 of these. He is clearly guilty
DeleteIf only you could articulate what bad thing he is guilty of that would justify your deranged venom, I might be more convinced by you and yours.
Deleteno venom. just logic and facts.
Deletewhere did you read "venom" in the above comment? maybe that's something in you?
I stand by my prediction: prison. Guilty. No question. Don to prison, where he belongs for the rest of his limited days.
No "venom" in this prediction: that's just where criminals belong.
And... you still can't articulate the bad thing he is guilty of that deserves life in jail. You're a joke.
Deleteyou seem to be the one who is angry. no venom from me, but plenty from you.
DeleteI was simply making a prediction. Sorry if you don't like it.
It seems to be pretty venomous to wish an aged man die in jail when it would be absolutely unprecedented, and where you are utterly unable to say the bad thing you believe he has done that he is being indicted for.
DeleteYou saying "it's just a prediction" yet you the phrase "Don to prison, where he belongs for the rest of his limited days."
We can let other commenters weight in on who the angry / venomous one is.
I'll weigh in.
DeleteAnonymous has pre-determined Trump's guilt before the trial. Moreover, he has pre-determined the sentence (dying in jail). Anonymous continues to not be willing to answer Julie's question about what 'bad thing" Trump has done (which I take it to mean immoral thing as opposed to some technical process crime).
Julie made a prediction without "venom" as she predicted that Trump will be indicted, an outcome she does not favour.
I judge anonymous to be venomous, and most likely a troll.
Ha ha! That's the way I see it, bob, but as a "fanboy" you might not be the most objective witness :-).
DeleteThe irony of bbob or Julie calling other people trolls.
DeleteJulie is the trolliest troll of them all. That's her game.
Nope. I've got a consistent record of stating my opinions coherently. You have zero track record, don't present any actual cogent argument, and refuse to answer the most basic question on this issue. BEGONE TROLL!
DeleteI absolutely love your blog and always read it with Enthusiasm. I am 10 years younger than you and from Europe. I would have loved to have done an exchange year under your roof. So that under your firm hand I would have learned about Trump and the Republican party. That you would have trashed the liberal out of me. Ow well, a boy can only dream
ReplyDeleteI'd have spanked the nonsense out of you! 😉
DeleteAnd I would have deserved every swat :D. Would there have been other punishments if I misbehaved Miss Delmar? And would you have strictly supervised me to settle down with a like minded conservative lady ?
DeleteLucky me, I guess I come off a lot more light hearted when I thought when I typed this a couple of days ago :D Sounds like a pretty chill exchange year :D
DeleteVery chill!
DeleteI'll pack my bags!
DeleteOdd the intolerance your blog has generated on other blogs which I will no longer read. Funny how the second you post something contrary to another e political beliefs that they go off on a tangent.
ReplyDeleteNone the less I do appreciate your blog and thank you
Yeah, a lot of Dems seem very deranged nowadays, unable to participate in an unemotional argument.
DeleteOh, Julie. You need to find better sources of news than Alan Dershowitz (and perhaps whatever other source your relying on for this post). I personally recommend Serious Trouble on Substack, which I (as a lay person) find detailed and balanced (it's also hilarious).
ReplyDelete1) It is true that a very small number of court case were dismissed based on standing. The Texas lawsuit comes to mind. However, the overwhelming majority were dismissed based either on lack of evidence (the Pennsylvania throw-out-all-mail-in-ballots case, rejected by a Trump appointee) or that what was alleged was so minor and did not--contrary to all the grandstanding on the courthouse steps--actually involve any claims of fraud.
The evidence of fraud that was presented was so lacking or provably false (in the Maricopa county case, various affidavits provided to the court from a website were later shown to be fraudulent) that at least a dozen of the lawyers were fined by the court of failing in their professional standards and wasting the courts time. Also let's not forget that Bill Barr's justice department did investigate and found no evidence of any sort of significant fraud.
2) You really shouldn't hang your hat on the precedent of the 1876 election. First of all, that predates the Electoral Count Act, which was passed a decade later in response to that election, so it's not particularly relevant. Second, perhaps not being an American you are not aware of why there were competing slates in 1876. The short version is that white southerners didn't like the fact the former slaves could vote and ran their own elections that excluded them (as well as sending in the KKK to discourage / prevent voting by blacks and other less savory tactics). I really do hope we agree that that isn't the sort of thing we wanted repeated in the 21st century.
I also don't think 2000 is particularly relevant. Several slates of potential electors were promised their votes would only be submitted if Trump one his court case (I'm pretty sure this was New Mexico and Pennsylvania, I don't remember if this was the case in Georgia). I think if that's all that had been done, there wouldn't be any prosecutions. But they were submitted to congress even after Trump lost his cases.
3) There are valid criticisms of the Georgia case. For example, unlike the federal election case, it does take care to distinguish protected activities (like lying to the public, or asking the legislature the throw out the results and replace them with their own preferences) from criminal ones (pressuring the SoS to change vote counts which at that point had been counted three times, including a manual count). But saying it is all made up just doesn't hold water.
While one can criticize the fact that Georgia's RICO statute applies to this case, the fact is that the law is incredibly expansive and applied even more expansively. There was literally a case where three court reports used too large a font on their transcripts (so the got paid more based on the page counts), and they were charged and convicted of RICO (you can look this up). So while Trump is really not being singled out by being charged with RICO in Georgia.
Here is the full list of election related cases and their outcomes: https://election-integrity.info/2020_Election_Cases.htm - the facts paint a very different picture from your unsupported narrative.
DeleteThe fact that GA prosecutors have at other times abused the RICO law is not the win you think it is.
Thanks for the website, Julie. I've read SOME of those reports and critiques but not all and I've never seen the cases summarized anywhere with that level of detail as in their spreadsheet.
DeleteYes. It's a resource that every journalist has access to yet they repeat the lie over and over again.
DeleteIn fact, as this document shows, of the 92 cases 62 were not decided based on merit. Of the 30 that were, Trump side won on 22 of them.
It's inside the 62 not heard on merit where most of the abuse is hidden.
Actually, Julie, I think your link supports my contentions pretty well. I said only a handful were dismissed on standing grounds. According to your link, 16/91, or under 17.5% were. I thought it was more like 10%, but less than 1/5 is still a small fraction.
DeleteNow your source defines "decided on the merits" as "proceeded to discovery". That's not an unreasonable definition, but it's not an unassailable one, either. (If there was discovery but then a summary judgment was issued without trial, why is that decided on the merits?) And it gives the false impression that Trump was given the chance to present evidence in an unusual manner, whereas it is a regular occurrence for civil complaints to be dismissed prior to discovery.
So let's, as an example, consider the Pennsylvania case I mentioned (#17 on the list). You can read the full decision of the appeals court at https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-the-third-circuit-court-of-appeals-ruling-in-pennsylvania-election/e2bfd645-efb5-4862-8680-ce92c9ccf6e2/
As I mentioned, this decision was written by a Trump appointee, for a unanimous 3-judge panel. Here are some salient quotes from the decision:
===========================
Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.
The Trump Presidential Campaign asserts that Pennsylvania’s 2020 election was unfair.
But as lawyer Rudolph Giuliani stressed, the Campaign “doesn’t plead fraud. . . . [T]his is
not a fraud case.” Mot. to Dismiss Hr’g Tr.
118:19–20, 137:18. Instead, it objects that
Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State and some co
unties restricted poll watchers and let voters
fix technical defects in their mail-in ballots. It offers nothing more.
...
The number of ballots it specifically challenges is far smaller than the roughly 81,000-vote margin of victory. And it never claims fraud or that any votes were cast by illegal voters.
===========================
In other words, the campaign didn't actually allege fraud in the court case, and even if all of its allegations were true, it still wouldn't have changed the outcome of the election. That latter point is the essence of the standard "motion to dismiss". Even if everything that complaint says its true, the claims don't rise to the relevant legal standard (in this case, that there was enough fraud to change the result) that there is something for the court to bother investigate.
As for whether the use of RICO in the Georgia case is an abuse, one must make a distinction between what we want to the law to be and what it actually is. Again, the federal RICO statue is very specific and wouldn't apply here, but Georgia's version is written differently and more expansively. I don't think many people will defend the using it against the poor three copyists (certainly the lawyer's I've heard discuss it don't). Using it against an effort to overturn the results of election is an entirely different matter.
If you listen to the episode "Unfortunately, this episode is RICO" of Serious Trouble, a Georgia law expert explains that Fanni Willis could have brought all the same charges without RICO--as just a normal conspiracy--but there would have be additional administrative steps to make it happen. That suggests to me that it is not an abuse but just a decision to make the prosecutor's life easier. One can argue that's giving prosecutors too much power (which would be a good argument for changing the law), but it is not an abuse of the law as it is currently written.
Anyway, while I think most of your arguments are just plain wrong (obviously), I thank you for responding civilly to my arguments, just I have done my best to respond civilly to yours.
That's a good example of the state not following the law in such a way that cheating is facilitated.
DeleteCharging RICO is an admission they have no direct evidence against Trump. The whole case is ludicrous, though. Nothing about the alternate electors was done fraudulently. It was all above board and well publicized that the internet was to have an alternate spate in reserve should their legal cases win. You're being gaslit into thinking some big crime was committed.
The fact that even on the evening of January 6th--well after all court cases had been lost--they were still trying to submit those fake electors to the national archive and Congress pretty much contradicts the claim that they would only be used if any court cases succeeded.
DeleteAlso, given that we have yet to see the promised 4 months of testimony by the prosecution, I think it is too early to say what evidence they do or do not have. I think RICO is actually least fair to the people facing the fewest charges, folks who might not have been charged if the case were presented as 3 or 4 separate conspiracies instead of one big RICO case.
And frankly, I think the "perfect phone call"--coming after no less than 3 separate counts, including a hand count--is all that's needed to prove the crime of inducing a public official to violate their oath (one of the specific charges in the indictment).
The idea was to have the alternate electors in place so they could continue fighting until inauguration day. That was the whole point.
DeleteThe "3 sea parade counts" were all counting the wrong things. Needed a signature audit in Fulton County which was never done.
I am a late comer to these comments but want to say that I love your blog and strongly support your right to write on any topic of your choosing. Keep up the great work!
ReplyDeleteThank you! 🙏
DeleteJulie - your blog and many have enjoyed your posts. You like everyone are entitled to your opinion in all areas .And you may share what you wish. No angst, no issues and anyone can view, support . dissent or ignore. Keep being you - and thank you for all that you are to many readers.
ReplyDeleteThank you. A great example of a free speech fan!
DeleteBeing from Canada, what is it about U.S. politics and Trump in particular that you need to blog about it. Jack
ReplyDeleteThe US under Biden looks to be on the brink of crashing the world's economy and instigating WW3 and a nuclear exchange. I'm pretty sure that will impact us all, no matter where you live. Trump's policy are sound and sane by comparison. I definitely have a stake in this and have a platform.
DeleteDont argue with pigs they end up dirty but they like it etc
ReplyDeleteArguing trumo isnt crook isnt a trap im into
2 bil$ to son from saudis? Cuz son is genius money man?😏declassify docs eith mind👌
Anyyyway my julie goddess..
Role play:
Im bernie, the old jew as a 36 yo man..
You are pence
You must peg me to get to uncertify true election!
I suck trump(alpha) coerced..
My hippie sporty fit fiance cucks me with you etc….
Was not his son, it was Jared Kushner who was already a very successful real estate developer.
DeleteThe difference is Hunter had zero previous success and was getting massive payments for doing apparently nothing, the payments were hidden through shell companies, he evaded tax on them, and half of the proceeds went to fund Joe's lifestyle. All in evidence. People who can't distinguish one thing from the other are silly.
Not a role play I'd be into!
massive payments = at most $7 million
DeleteKushner: $ 2 BILLION
the Kushner scam is 500 times larger (ok 350 times larger)
I don't condone Hunter Biden, but it's obvz small change
You're comparing apples and oranges. The $2B was an investment for which they expect a return. Check out how much the Chinese energy company wanted to "invest" with Hunter.
DeleteAnd total identified to-date is over $20M in direct payments to Joe's family (not amounts invested) versus $0 in direct payments to Jared.
wait a second: Are you Lauren Boebert??
ReplyDeleteI am!
DeleteHey Julie: What do you think of Clarence Thomas? No issue there, right? He's legit, for SURE!!
ReplyDeleteYes, I like Justice Thomas. Seems to have his head screwed on right.
Deleteexactly. there is never an issue on the right. They always support their own no matter how corrupt.
DeleteKeep it up!!
He went on trips with an old friend who is rich. What is corrupt about this? Did he skew a Supreme Court judgment to favour the man? I'm aware of no such allegation.
DeleteI dont understand how you feel that that transcript makes him look any better. I am skipping over criminality and just using the term "better" (not sore loser etc...). Not that I think there was any material fraud in GA, even if he won Georgia, he would have lost the election. Biden's electoral college margin was wide.
ReplyDeleteThere were many swing states that were razor close and had suspicious stuff going on that were never allowed to be adjudicated in a court of law.
DeleteAre you referring to the call with Raffensberger? He's presenting various theories of fraud. It's not good or better, it just is. It's nonsense that he asked for Raffensberger to cheat for him. He asked him to do his job and investigate (which being anti-Trump he failed to do in any adequate way).
Clearly politically motivated. Many similar disgruntled candidates have griped... zero prosecutions. "Find" me votes, does not imply a request to fabricate votes. Pretty clear.
ReplyDelete100%
Delete