A fictional election for the sake of illustration

[BobRyan]

Remember how paranoid the media seemed to be about "Russia, Russia, Russia" for 4 years (in terms of supposing that Russia had rigged an election, or merely damaged/influenced one)?

Suppose in some future election it is found that 100's of thousands of votes "appear" on behalf of the Republican candidate by the pallet loads after the election. Suppose that the voting software is shifting 1000's of votes from the Democratic candidate to the Republican candidate. Suppose that ballots are suspect as having been generated by Russian operatives in the U.S. but then republican workers at the voting stations are "curing" those ballots to cover up all gaps and make them appear "legal". Suppose Federal courts are overruling the time, manner and place - requirements set by legislators and opening a wide gap for the Russian interference to progress unhindered. Suppose that republican states stop counting votes to allow for the Russian network to compile the votes needed to over turn results in counties where the democratic candidate appears to be ahead.

Now as hard as that would be to imagine -- imagine further that the News , the press, the media begin holding the Republican candidate's feet to the fire with questions like this -

1. Sir it is reported that 10's of thousands of votes from dead people came in on your behalf - will you for the sake of clarity - once and for all denounce that illegal practice, condemn those who are doing it and state that it is your police that election tampering is a criminal offense and should result in jail time? Can you once and for all make yourself clear on that?

2. Sir it is reported some of your fellow republicans working and vote counting stations denied the democratic observers access and even taunted and harassed them -
will you for the sake of clarity - once and for all denounce that illegal practice, condemn those who are doing it and state that it is your police that election tampering is a criminal offense and should result in jail time? Can you once and for all make yourself clear on that?

3. Sir it is reported software that may be connected with foreign Russian interests and funding sponsorship that may be connected to your fellow republicans - is responsible for switching unknown thousands of votes , possibly millions of them - away from your democratic opponent and into your favor. Many suspect Russian interference in this case - will you for the sake of clarity - once and for all denounce that illegal practice, condemn those who are doing it and state that it is your police that election tampering is a criminal offense and should result in jail time? Can you once and for all make yourself clear on that?

4. Sir it is reported that some republican supporting federal judges have overturned and even legislated new laws contrary to the state legislators that have put strict controls on the election process to avoid fraud - even though the constitution is very clear about legislators "not judges" have sole responsibility for setting those boundaries. will you for the sake of clarity - once and for all denounce that illegal practice, condemn those who are doing it and state that it is your police that election tampering is a criminal offense and should result in jail time? Can you once and for all make yourself clear on that?

5. Sir it is reported that some in areas where the vote is close or election fraud evidence is mounting - that republicans are trying to block the re-canvasing/recount that would ensure integrity and would allow both sides to confirm that no Russian interference in mail in voting had taken place. Will you for the sake of clarity - once and for all denounce that illegal practice, condemn those who are doing it and state that it is your police that election tampering is a criminal offense and should result in jail time? Can you once and for all make yourself clear on that?

Question - can you imagine that sort of media reaction/inquiry/clarification?

or would you rather in that fictional case - have the media all on the side of "nothing to see here... move along... don't look this way"??

===========================

Interesting "inconvenient" fact.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...th-mail-in-ballots-they-might-not-be-counted/

"According to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, of the more than 140 million votes cast in the 2016 general election, 23.7 percent were via mail. Of the roughly 33.2 million mail ballots that election administrators received and tabulated, approximately 1 percent weren’t counted. Reasons for rejection include “the signature on the ballot not matching the signature on the state’s records,” “the ballot not having a signature,” a “problem with return envelope,” or “missing the deadline.” By contrast, a third fewer ballots cast in person were rejected in 2016."

More facts ... Today at 7:52 AM #24

 

[Speedwell]

Suppose in some future election it is found that 100's of thousands of votes "appear" on behalf of the Republican candidate by the pallet loads after the election. Suppose that the voting software is shifting 1000's of votes from the Democratic candidate to the Republican candidate. Suppose that ballots are suspect as having been generated by Russian operatives in the U.S. but then republican workers at the voting stations are "curing" those ballots to cover up all gaps and make them appear "legal". Suppose Federal courts are overruling the time, manner and place - requirements set by legislators and opening a wide gap for the Russian interference to progress unhindered. Suppose that republican states stop counting votes to allow for the Russian network to compile the votes needed to over turn results in counties where the democratic candidate appears to be ahead.

Now as hard as that would be to imagine -- imagine further that the News , the press, the media begin holding the Republican candidate's feet to the fire with questions like this -

Yes, that is hard to imagine--I would be leery of anybody who thought it might actually happen.

 

[BobRyan]

Now as hard as that would be to imagine -- imagine further that the News , the press, the media begin holding the Republican candidate's feet to the fire with questions like this -
...
Question - can you imagine that sort of media reaction/inquiry/clarification?

Yes, that is hard to imagine--I would be leery of anybody who thought it might actually happen.

hmm - interesting response.

or would you rather in that fictional case - have the media all on the side of "nothing to see here... move along... don't look this way"??

=======================

The Affidavit -- interesting development

Tuesday News Roundup: Sidney Powell Drops Bombshells on Lou Dobbs, But She Needs More

POWELL: I’ve just got some stunning evidence from a witness, a high-ranking military officer who was present when Smart-Matic was designed. And I’m gonna just read you some of these statements, if you don’t mind, so I get them exactly right:

From the Affidavit: Designed in a way that the system could change the vote of each voter without being detected. He wanted the software itself to function in such a manner that if the voter were to place their thumbprint or fingerprint on a scanner, then the thumbprint would be tied to a record of the voter’s name and identity as having voted, but that voter would not be tracked to the changed vote.

He made it clear that the system would have to be set up but not leave any evidence of the changed vote for the specific voter, and that there would be no evidence to show, and nothing to contradict that the name and the fingerprint or thumbprint was going with a changed vote. SmartMatic agreed to create such a system and produced the software and the hardware that accomplished the result for President [Hugo] Chavez.
...

No doubt the news media will all be in full agreement if it is true and will all be in full rejection of it if it is flawed.

A few democratic senators already complained about Dominion in 2019.

from; Democratic senators warned of potential 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines prior to 2020 election

Four congressional Democrats sent a letter to the owners of Dominion Voting Systems and cited several problems that “threaten the integrity of our elections,” including “vote switching.”

In a December 2019 letter to Dominion Voting Systems, which has been mired in controversy after a human error involving its machines in Antrim County, Michigan, resulted in incorrect counts, Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Ron Wyden, and Amy Klobuchar and congressman Mark Pocan warned about reports of machines “switching votes,” “undisclosed vulnerabilities,” and “improbable” results that “threaten the integrity of our elections.”

Dominion.️

"These problems threaten the integrity of our elections."

Senators Elizabeth Warren (D), Amy Klobuchar (D) & Ron Wyden (D) issue a formal complaint in 2019 to Dominion Voting Systems.

Among the complaints? Allegations of 'vote-switching.'https://t.co/4MYMNnMUyl pic.twitter.com/og9EwkI4dV

 

[Speedwell]

hmm - interesting response.

Yeah, people who believe things like that creep me out. Same as with those who seriously believe that the moon landings were fake or that the universe is only 6000 years old.

or would you rather in that fictional case - have the media all on the side of "nothing to see here... move along... don't look this way"??

Having looked and seen nothing but a sad, paranoid fantasy, what else would you want the media to say?

 

[BobRyan]

Yeah, people who believe things like that creep me out. Same as with those who seriously believe that the moon landings were fake or that the universe is only 6000 years old.Having looked and seen nothing but a sad, paranoid fantasy, what else would you want the media to say?

And then the Supreme court steps in an says "yes it was unconstitutional - so those votes are out" - once the case for PA gets there -- just like they already said to "set those votes aside" -- in real life.

Real life is funny that way.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Suppose that ballots are suspect as having been generated by Russian operatives in the U.S. but then republican workers at the voting stations are "curing" those ballots to cover up all gaps and make them appear "legal".

"Curing" is a process for fixing absentee ballots that are not transmitted correctly (missing signatures, witnesses, etc.) or for fixing similar problems with provisional ballots.

No ballot so flagged (for possible curing) will be counted *until* the voter shows up in person to the appropriate office and "cures" the problem. Dumping ballots into the system and "curing" them later would be a horribly inefficient way to inject false votes from non-voters. (The ballots requiring curing would have had to either been in the system as requested absentee ballots that were returned or in person ballots that were deficient cast on election day.)

 

[Kentonio]

And then the Supreme court steps in an says "yes it was unconstitutional - so those votes are out" - once the case for PA gets there -- just like they already said to "set those votes aside" -- in real life.

Real life is funny that way.

Actually the Supreme Court did no such thing, what you mean is Samuel Alito alone ordered the votes be separated, but also ordered that they be counted. The number of votes involved also isn't enough to actually change the result anyway.

Sorry, but you're going to have to move past stage one: denial, and find a way to deal with having lost this election.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And then the Supreme court steps in an says "yes it was unconstitutional - so those votes are out" - once the case for PA gets there -- just like they already said to "set those votes aside" -- in real life.

Real life is funny that way.

I agree with you in part, specifically that who ever changed the deadline from "by Tues. close of polls" to "by Friday, close of business with postmark by Tues." with out authorization by the state legislature did so in a way that should be invalidated. (In Penn. I believe it was a elected admin official, but a similar thing happened in Wis. by a federal judge.) Both of these should be ultimately struck down. (The Wisc. case was struck down a couple weeks before the election, the Penn. case was let stand because the Penn. SC ruled it was acceptable under Penn. law, but then a very late second suit was made in federal court against the Penn SC ruling. This is the case where Alito required the already segregated ballots to be segregated.)

In the Penn. case (if it ever goes forward as there are not enough ballots to change the election) the segregation orders were issued less than a week before the election at a time when voters might have reasonable followed the instructions to "postmark by Tues, receive by Fri" and due to slow mail service would have expected their ballots to arrive some time that week, but not necessarily by Tuesday. There is a principle in the law about these kind of things (don't remember the name as IANAL) where an invalid rule is used because the people (in this case voters) have a reasonable expectations that the rules set out will be followed, so last minute changes against their favor (in this case a tightening of the ballot receipt date) that the reasonable could expect to apply (it was in the official ballot instructions sent with their absentee ballots) do apply. In the Wisc. case, the revocation of the extended return deadline (with Tues postmark) was revoked several weeks before election day, so voters could be reasonably informed by the media (and the political parties and campaigns) that they would need to get their ballots in a little earlier or use a drop box.

 

[SimplyMe]

I agree with you in part, specifically that who ever changed the deadline from "by Tues. close of polls" to "by Friday, close of business with postmark by Tues." with out authorization by the state legislature did so in a way that should be invalidated. (In Penn. I believe it was a elected admin official, but a similar thing happened in Wis. by a federal judge.) Both of these should be ultimately struck down. (The Wisc. case was struck down a couple weeks before the election, the Penn. case was let stand because the Penn. SC ruled it was acceptable under Penn. law, but then a very late second suit was made in federal court against the Penn SC ruling. This is the case where Alito required the already segregated ballots to be segregated.)

In the Penn. case (if it ever goes forward as there are not enough ballots to change the election) the segregation orders were issued less than a week before the election at a time when voters might have reasonable followed the instructions to "postmark by Tues, receive by Fri" and due to slow mail service would have expected their ballots to arrive some time that week, but not necessarily by Tuesday. There is a principle in the law about these kind of things (don't remember the name as IANAL) where an invalid rule is used because the people (in this case voters) have a reasonable expectations that the rules set out will be followed, so last minute changes against their favor (in this case a tightening of the ballot receipt date) that the reasonable could expect to apply (it was in the official ballot instructions sent with their absentee ballots) do apply. In the Wisc. case, the revocation of the extended return deadline (with Tues postmark) was revoked several weeks before election day, so voters could be reasonably informed by the media (and the political parties and campaigns) that they would need to get their ballots in a little earlier or use a drop box.

The difference is, in the Pennsylvania case, the rule allows for changes to be made to the rules set up by the legislature for an election, in case of an "emergency." As such, the argument in Pennsylvania is that the Coronavirus, combined with Post Office issues (where mail is delayed in Pennsylvania) was an "emergency," providing cause for changing the rules.

 

[Tiberius Lee]

Remember how paranoid the media seemed to be about "Russia, Russia, Russia" for 4 years (in terms of supposing that Russia had rigged an election)?

Every single American intelligent agency under Obama administration and Trump administration said Russia interfered in 2016 US election.

Media didn’t do any thing other then reporting the facts. I am sorry that Trump and Trump supporter don’t agree with 17 inelegant agencies of United States of America which concluded Russia interfered in US election in 2016.

 

[Hans Blaster]

don’t agree with 17 inelegant agencies of United States of America

A reminder that all spies aren't a suave as James Bond.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The difference is, in the Pennsylvania case, the rule allows for changes to be made to the rules set up by the legislature for an election, in case of an "emergency." As such, the argument in Pennsylvania is that the Coronavirus, combined with Post Office issues (where mail is delayed in Pennsylvania) was an "emergency," providing cause for changing the rules.

This is a good point. I think there is also some consideration potentially due to implicit powers in emergencies (or rather waivings of certain restrictions). The short term, rapid changes in the various spring elections in March/April made without time for legislative action come to mind.

 

[DaisyDay]

Remember how paranoid the media seemed to be about "Russia, Russia, Russia" for 4 years (in terms of supposing that Russia had rigged an election)?

That's not what happened. Russia was accused of election interference and of trying to help Donald win. This has been proven. What was not proven was that although the Trump campaign sought help from Russia, they had the requisite knowledge that it was illegal - so criminal intent was lacking.


The media have been reporting on the accusations and their resolutions and pending resolutions.

 

[Sparagmos]

Remember how paranoid the media seemed to be about "Russia, Russia, Russia" for 4 years (in terms of supposing that Russia had rigged an election)?

Suppose in some future election it is found that 100's of thousands of votes "appear" on behalf of the Republican candidate by the pallet loads after the election. Suppose that the voting software is shifting 1000's of votes from the Democratic candidate to the Republican candidate. Suppose that ballots are suspect as having been generated by Russian operatives in the U.S. but then republican workers at the voting stations are "curing" those ballots to cover up all gaps and make them appear "legal". Suppose Federal courts are overruling the time, manner and place - requirements set by legislators and opening a wide gap for the Russian interference to progress unhindered. Suppose that republican states stop counting votes to allow for the Russian network to compile the votes needed to over turn results in counties where the democratic candidate appears to be ahead.

Now as hard as that would be to imagine -- imagine further that the News , the press, the media begin holding the Republican candidate's feet to the fire with questions like this -

1. Sir it is reported that 10's of thousands of votes from dead people came in on your behalf - will you for the sake of clarity - once and for all denounce that illegal practice, condemn those who are doing it and state that it is your police that election tampering is a criminal offense and should result in jail time? Can you once and for all make yourself clear on that?

2. Sir it is reported some of your fellow republicans working and vote counting stations denied the democratic observers access and even taunted and harassed them -
will you for the sake of clarity - once and for all denounce that illegal practice, condemn those who are doing it and state that it is your police that election tampering is a criminal offense and should result in jail time? Can you once and for all make yourself clear on that?

3. Sir it is reported software that may be connected with foreign Russian interests and funding sponsorship that may be connected to your fellow republicans - is responsible for switching unknown thousands of votes , possibly millions of them - away from your democratic opponent and into your favor. Many suspect Russian interference in this case - will you for the sake of clarity - once and for all denounce that illegal practice, condemn those who are doing it and state that it is your police that election tampering is a criminal offense and should result in jail time? Can you once and for all make yourself clear on that?

4. Sir it is reported that some republican supporting federal judges have overturned and even legislated new laws contrary to the state legislators that have put strict controls on the election process to avoid fraud - even though the constitution is very clear about legislators "not judges" have sole responsibility for setting those boundaries. will you for the sake of clarity - once and for all denounce that illegal practice, condemn those who are doing it and state that it is your police that election tampering is a criminal offense and should result in jail time? Can you once and for all make yourself clear on that?

5. Sir it is reported that some in areas where the vote is close or election fraud evidence is mounting - that republicans are trying to block the re-canvasing/recount that would ensure integrity and would allow both sides to confirm that no Russian interference in mail in voting had taken place. Will you for the sake of clarity - once and for all denounce that illegal practice, condemn those who are doing it and state that it is your police that election tampering is a criminal offense and should result in jail time? Can you once and for all make yourself clear on that?

Question - can you imagine that sort of media reaction/inquiry/clarification?

or would you rather in that fictional case - have the media all on the side of "nothing to see here... move along... don't look this way"??

Huge straw man here.

 

[Sparagmos]

Suppose that ballots are suspect as having been generated by Russian operatives in the U.S. but then republican workers at the voting stations are "curing" those ballots to cover up all gaps and make them appear "legal".

Only the voter can cure a ballot. The voter must produce whatever is needed to prove the ballot is valid. This mostly involves signatures that don’t match. I helped voters cure ballots in this election. If you want to know more, ask me.

or would you rather in that fictional case - have the media all on the side of "nothing to see here... move along... don't look this way"??

But that’s not at all what the media is doing. The media is reporting in detail on every case and allegation brought by the Trump administration. That’s how I’ve been able to follow it all. The media has also sought out interviews with people alleging fraud and asked for evidence!

 

[KCfromNC]

Remember how paranoid the media seemed to be about "Russia, Russia, Russia" for 4 years (in terms of supposing that Russia had rigged an election)?

Not really. I do remember the GOP-led Senate having a few things to say about Russian interference, though : G.O.P.-Led Senate Panel Details Ties Between 2016 Trump Campaign and Russia

A sprawling report released Tuesday by a Republican-controlled Senate panel that spent three years investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election laid out an extensive web of contacts between Trump campaign advisers and Kremlin officials and other Russians, including at least one intelligence officer and others tied to the country’s spy services.

​

 

[KCfromNC]

That's not what happened. Russia was accused of election interference and of trying to help Donald win. This has been proven. What was not proven was that although the Trump campaign sought help from Russia, they had the requisite knowledge that it was illegal - so criminal intent was lacking.

Wasn't the GOP-led investigation's conclusion that Donald's team was too inept to do so?

 

[Tanj]

What are you illustrating? Grimm's Fairytales?

 

[DaisyDay]

Wasn't the GOP-led investigation's conclusion that Donald's team was too inept to do so?

Pretty much.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Remember how paranoid the media seemed to be about "Russia, Russia, Russia" for 4 years (in terms of supposing that Russia had rigged an election)?

Not really.

well we saw a lot of that and posted on the fact that it was "noticed" even on the CF politics areas of the boards.