There may have been massive voter fraud in Virginia

[Dr_Meinheimer]

Like the birther conspiracy for Obama, or the allegations of fraud before the 2016 election, and the allegations of fraud now.

Or the Russian hoax, the quid pro quo hoax, the Steele Dossier, the lying about Trump’s comments on Charlottesville, etc, right?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I thought it was that he wanted to investigate the outcome based on some reports of potential fraud.

We’ve had people that suspect there were fraudulent activities. But there hasn’t been evidence to support the speculation beyond things such as “I think I heard someone say that someone else said xxxxxx.” Some of the items presented as evidence have been empty, such as a list of alleged dead people that voted that turned out to be a random list of people, dead and alive, where some of the living people voted, some of the living people did not, and none of the dead people voted.

I thought there was reports of a lot of evidence of fraud already.

There have been lots of allegations with no evidence. The lawyers have, in court, not necessarily willing to make any claims of fraud. And the judges have dismissed cases because the plaintiff’s lawyers have only conjecture and belief to present, or that they fail to even state a problem.

 

[JonNC]

This is a perfect summation of the Trump position. I don’t know yet that anything was wrong at all, but I want to change the outcome.

Source, please, that this is the Trump position.

 

[TMC]

Source, please, that this is the Trump position.

My basis is the multiple lawsuits that have been filed without any evidence. Are you saying it is not the Trump position?

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Source, please, that this is the Trump position.

My basis is the multiple lawsuits that have been filed without any evidence. Are you saying it is not the Trump position?

I’m saying I can only assume their position is what the campaign says. They say they have evidence. We shall see is they have enough to justify a court decision in their favor.
I don’t suspect they have enough to change an outcome.
Neither one of us are in their strategy meetings.
I assume you have no source.

 

[TMC]

I’m saying I can only assume their position is what the campaign says. They say they have evidence. We shall see is they have enough to justify a court decision in their favor.
I don’t suspect they have enough to change an outcome.
Neither one of us are in their strategy meetings.
I assume you have no source.

True, my principle source is my observation of their actions, along with news reports. I would point out that they have had their “day in court” in multiple cases and courts, with no evidence presented and no wins to date.

 

[JonNC]

True, my principle source is my observation of their actions, along with news reports.

I accept your observations as speculative. Mine is, too. The dishonest DNC media has proven itself entirely unreliable at this point.

I would point out that they have had their “day in court” in multiple cases and courts, with no evidence presented and no wins to date.

Again, that is up to the courts to decide. It is part of the process.

 

[TMC]

Again, that is up to the courts to decide. It is part of the process.

I agree its up to the courts. It is not ordinarily part of the process, but they can have their day in court. The thing is, the courts have decided. There are not any cases left that would change the outcome in even one state, let alone change the overall outcome.

 

[JonNC]

I agree its up to the courts. It is not ordinarily part of the process, but they can have their day in court. The thing is, the courts have decided. There are not any cases left that would change the outcome in even one state, let alone change the overall outcome.

When that’s the case, and the states certify and their electors vote, the process will be over.
My expectation is that Biden will win, making him president elect, pending inauguration in January.

 

[TMC]

When that’s the case, and the states certify and their electors vote, the process will be over.
My expectation is that Biden will win, making him president elect, pending inauguration in January.

I agree, but I am a little concerned about the Administration’s refusal to follow the Presidential Transition Act. I think they will probably come around on that in the next week or so, but if they never do that could be problematic.

 

[JonNC]

I agree, but I am a little concerned about the Administration’s refusal to follow the Presidential Transition Act. I think they will probably come around on that in the next week or so, but if they never do that could be problematic.

There is no obligation to until a president elect is determined. That said, I would side with the position of sharing information with the presumptive president elect, while still pursuing legal rights.

 

[TMC]

There is no obligation to until a president elect is determined.

That is not actually what the law says. The law requires that the existing administration begin turnover even before the election, so that there is time to do everything. If the challenger loses, there is some loss of labor and funds, but that is better than being unprepared.

After the election, more cooperation, briefings and turnover is required once there is an “apparent winner.” The winner does not need to be formally elected by the electoral college - in fact the opposite. The idea is to err on the side of preparing to transition and just drop everything if the challenger doesn’t win. That was one of the lessons learned from Bush v Gore (and cited by the 9-11 report as one of the issues with getting the Bush team up to speed).

The current administration is simply not complying with the law. That is probably not the end of the world for another week or two, but the clock is ticking.

That said, I would side with the position of sharing information with the presumptive president elect, while still pursuing legal rights.

On this we certainly agree.

 

[Nepperhan]

f there is an investigation showing no real voting errors, some here won’t believe it anyway.

So what? It leads to the belief that elections are rigged by some type of “establishment”. Then we have disgruntled folks who believe that the cards are stacked against them holed up in armed compounds having shootouts with the police. In general it leads to distrust of one of our democratic institutions and makes the US look particularly inept.

That’s what. This fertilizing of paranoia has some bad effects. It is not just ensuring accurate elections.

It needs to be done because there is enough shenanigans to show it needs to be done.

Actually, no. Voter impersonation is so infrequent to be called rare. Elections which have results which turn as a result of vote fraud are rare also. No, there are not enough shenanigans – some just don’t like the election results.

 

[MikeInVA]

The law requires that the existing administration begin turnover even before the election,

I think you’re confusing allowing members of a candidate’s team to begin the process required to conduct the transition - like applying for security clearances, receiving briefings, etc., with actually turning anything over.

 

[Nepperhan]

Trump opposed a recount in Wisconsin in 2016. When they held it anyway, he got 131 more votes.

Now, his team has paid for a recount, but only in two counties (Milwaukee and Dane) where there are numerous black folks.

In 2016: "Trump won Wisconsin by fewer than 23,000 votes that year, and opposed the recount brought by Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

“The people have spoken and the election is over,” Trump said at the time. “We must accept this result and then look to the future.”

After the recount was done and his victory was confirmed, Trump again took to Twitter.

“The final Wisconsin vote is in and guess what – we just picked up an additional 131 votes,” Trump tweeted at the time after the recount was done. “The Dems and Green Party can now rest. Scam!”

Trump pursues recount of 2 liberal Wisconsin counties

 

[TMC]

I think you’re confusing allowing members of a candidate’s team to begin the process required to conduct the transition - like applying for security clearances, receiving briefings, etc., with actually turning anything over.

When I say “turning over,” that is what I mean. Briefings, meetings, coordination. No authority is turned over, of course, but information is, and coordination is done. That is what the law requires, but it is not being done.

 

[Zake]

After the election, more cooperation, briefings and turnover is required once there is an “apparent winner.”

This is the point. Emily Murphy (of GSA) is required by law to ascertain the “apparent winner” and open up the process of transition. She refuses. Unfortunately the law does not stipulate any criminal penalty for this behavior. When the law was written, the naive people could not visualize such behavior. So she can single handedly drag out the process, and as such cause thousands more COVID deaths.

What a shame!

 

[Cathoholic]

Nepperhan . . .

It leads to the belief that elections are rigged by some type of “establishment”.

I disagree.

When you have this level of “irregularities” a close examination needs to be done.

Your argument is a self-contradiction because an examination of irregularities IS part of the election process.

A part that the media and others are attempting to stifle.

 

[TMC]

When you have this level of “irregularities” a close examination needs to be done.

There is absolutely no evidence that the level of “irregularities” in this election is higher than usual, or high by any measure. If anything, the opposite seems to be true.

 

[Cathoholic]

Nepperhan . . .

Now, his team has paid for a recount, but only in two counties (Milwaukee and Dane) where there are numerous black folks.

Why are you bringing race into a recount?

What is the issue you are attempting to express with regards to “numerous black folks” and WHY do you see that dimension in Trump’s request?

Did he SAY: “Well these areas have numerous black folks so we gotta do a recount there”?

Or something else that he said or did?