Question: Should the Election issues rise to the Supreme Court

[A_Thinker]

Nothing... without the rock solid evidence a forensic audit will provide one way or the other for them to make a decision. Are people of either side afraid their delusions may be shattered?

In the US, you can't justify an investigation to find a crime, ... you do an investigation to prove a crime.

The police cannot bust into my home ... on the pretext that I may have committed a crime. There must be some indication that I have committed a crime.

The justice system has yet to see any indication that the elections were held unjustly ...

 

[A_Thinker]

I hear also Georgia wants to wipe the machines for the next election when the law states all previous info must remain for 22 months.

There is no federal law with requires that election machines hold their info for 22 months.

That's primarily because elections fall only under STATE jurisdiction.

An individual state may require that their election machines hold their info for a suitable period ... or not, though some kind of paper trail is usually employed.

The federal/national government is ONLY interested in the legitimacy of each's state's election (i.e. that they have achieved a viable result). How each state achieves that result is up to each state.

 

[WolfGate]

Certainly I would, regardless of their decision.

Trump, and the Republicans in general, have consistently worked to put non-activist judges on the bench (FWIW, a good friend of ours who is one of those won a state wide judge election last month. Hooray!). One outcome of that, and we've seen it in lower court rulings related to the elections so far, is that even Trump appointees have been deciding cases against him because those cases did not have evidence or legal basis. I have no reason to think the Supreme Court would do otherwise - if something rises to them and they decide in Trump's favor I will believe that is because there was evidence to show either fraud or a violation of the laws the legislature had passed.

I will also be surprised if that happens, because everything brought forth so far shows the only attempted steal is coming from Trump. But yes, there could be something not shown yet.

 

[miamited]

That is not a forensic audit which examines each vote not only for what is on it but how it was composed and what of. Not as simple as having some temp rerun the numbers into a machine then into another by way of an insecure thumb drive most of us would be afraid to put in our own computers without checking it for malware or the like, first. How trusting people become when their only concern it winning or losing. I hear also Georgia wants to wipe the machines for the next election when the law states all previous info must remain for 22 months. Who knows what their reasoning is to break federal law. It seems the only ones there on the defensive is not the legislative assembly but the secretary of state's people.

Hi tim,

I would contend that your comments above are pretty baseless, as far as being able to support some claim of fraud. Georgia wants to wipe their machines clean so fast because they need them again in 3 weeks. Do you have some evidence of your 22 month claim and does it specifically say that such evidence has to remain 'in' the machine? I mean, the data can be downloaded and stored for eternity on a storage device. Thereby allowing that the machines themselves can be used for the soon upcoming election.

Again, this is likely a claim that doesn't understand the process and what it means to retain 'previous info' for 22 months.

God bless,
ted

 

[Hank77]

Nah. I'm just curious how forensic results compare against all the bs of either side

Former Republican Secretary of State of Colorado, Wayne Williams...

We know that no one in Beijing or Moscow or anywhere else changed the programming or tampered with the machines, because we compare the actual paper ballots to how the machine is counting that particular ballot,” says former Colorado secretary of state Wayne Williams, referring to the risk-limiting audit introduced in the state in 2017, under his watch. “You’ve got to have a way of ensuring that you actually have accurate counts. In Colorado, we can prove that.”

“Some folks have asked me about Colorado's voting systems,” the post begins. “After an exhaustive administrative, legislative, and legal review, many Colorado counties began using the federally certified Dominion Voting System in 2016. Since its adoption, Dominion machines have been tested in 62 Colorado counties at least 807 times. They have passed every test …. So, while I can't speak for the practices of every state (some of whom don't have the procedural protections and audits we do in Colorado), I can state that in Colorado the voting systems we use accurately record the votes of Coloradans — and we've proved it 807 times.”

The post goes into detail about those 807 tests, breaking them down into the logic and accuracy tests conducted before state elections and the audits conducted after. The data came from the Secretary of State’s Office, Williams says.
...
In a statement from Dominion...
"...Dominion doesn't even operate in some of the contested districts, including Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Dane, WI.”
Wayne Williams Stands by Dominion Voting Systems Results...in Colorado

 

[timothyu]

There must be some indication that I have committed a crime.

Hence the forensic audit going on in Michigan I think it is.

 

[timothyu]

I mean, the data can be downloaded and stored for eternity on a storage device.

The concept is that external drives are corruptible and can be compromised while the original. source remains secure until wiped.

 

[timothyu]

One big flaw in how Americans run elections

"Destroyed data. Election officials are legally required to retain federal election records 22 months after polls close. But Georgia election officials wiped a server clean in mid-2017, even though it was less than a year after the 2016 election and the data was central to a lawsuit filed by an election integrity group.

“If you don’t get to the court to get a protective order to stop the destruction of something before they’ve done it, it’s typically a pretty lost cause,” said Lowell Finley, chief counsel for California’s secretary of state until 2014 and a consultant on the Stein litigation. He said election officials violate the record preservation law because there’s little to stop them.

part of a lawsuit filed by losing Democratic candidate and law professor Tim Canova. County attorneys insisted that Snipes did nothing wrong because she retained digital copies of the ballots, but a judge later declared the destruction unlawful. Snipes kept her job despite the infraction, but later resigned amid criticism of her handling of the problem-plagued 2018 election."

 

[miamited]

Hi tim,

Thanks for your reply:

"Destroyed data. Election officials are legally required to retain federal election records 22 months after polls close.

Now, can you point to where the law says 'how' that federal election's record must be stored for those 22 months. I mean, I don't have a problem storing the paper ballots, much like tax returns, for years. But digital data, unless the law specifically says so, wouldn't necessarily have to be retained on the very device that it was initially entered on. So, a more thorough reading of the law would be required to know if there are any specific instructions as to 'how' the record is maintained. Secondly, if you really want to know that you know that you got the data as received, then it's the paper ballot that was received that you'd want to retain. I mean, surely someone in a hurry could have made a wrong keystroke in transcribing the voter's information from the paper ballot to the digital media.

That is one of the efforts that Chris Krebbs is trying to get every election district to adopt. That all balloting, even that made in person, needs to be printed onto a paper ballot. So, if one walks into a precinct and votes in person, two paper ballots should be produced after the voter's choices are made on the computer. One for the voter to look over and confirm that the votes did tabulate as he wanted them to, and another for the elections office to keep on file for however long it is deemed necessary to keep such semi-permanent records.

That is how you secure records to confirm, after the fact, that correct votes were recorded. You're right! Digital data can be corrupted. However, in the case of any kind of fraud claim, then there needs to be some proof that the actual digital data in question was corrupted or changed.

God bless,
ted

 

[hislegacy]

If we want to secure the elections we should enforce voter if laws whether in person or mailed.

The false information that voter ID is racist etc is ridiculous. I refuse to believe there are minorities who do not rent cars, apartments, apply for social Security, apply for state or federal assistance, purchase tobacco or alcohol. Drive a car, obtain insurance, open a bank account, fly on a plane, rent a hotel room. To name a few

all of which require phot I’d

 

[timothyu]

However, in the case of any kind of fraud claim, then there needs to be some proof that the actual digital data in question was corrupted or changed.

Hence forensic audits.

 

[Tom 1]

Should the Election issues rise to the Supreme Court, would you accept their ruling and accept the person as a legitimate President?

The question is posed to see if the Supreme Court is considered the final authority if this matter comes before it. Please do not use the opportunity to insult either candidate or political party. Civil discourse will get a reply.

Who cares? It’s a waste of time and money, but maybe it will convince 1% of Trumpers there was no fraud.

 

[hislegacy]

Who cares? It’s a waste of time and money, but maybe it will convince 1% of Trumpers there was no fraud.

Curiosity can we used the term Bidenesta’s ?

 

[hislegacy]

Alito moves up deadline for Pennsylvania officials to respond to lawsuit seeking to block Biden victory

Note this has not made Main Street news. Wonder why?

 

[Archivist]

Who cares? It’s a waste of time and money, but maybe it will convince 1% of Trumpers there was no fraud.

1% at most. The majority of these Trump supporters will never admit that their man lost.

 

[Tom 1]

Curiosity can we used the term Bidenesta’s ?

If you like. Like baristas? Good at serving up something useful?

 

[Archivist]

Alito moves up deadline for Pennsylvania officials to respond to lawsuit seeking to block Biden victory

Note this has not made Main Street news. Wonder why?

It was in the Trib. I don’t know about other papers.

 

[hislegacy]

It was in the Trib. I don’t know about other papers.

is it on CNN? MSNBC? And television political casters?

 

[Archivist]

is it on CNN? MSNBC? And television political casters?

I haven’t watched either today. But it was in the Trib.

 

[hislegacy]

From the link:

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito changed a key deadline for Pennsylvania officials to respond to a lawsuit from Republicans seeking to flip the state election's result from Joe Biden to President Trump.

On Sunday, Alito moved the deadline for Pennsylvania officials to respondfrom Wednesday, Dec. 9 at 4 p.m. to Tuesday, Dec. 8 at 9 a.m., the day of the state's safe harbor deadline
​

The Supreme Court is already involved in the election.

​