Here's a lengthy, detailed fact check of the Georgia suitcase fraud claim. I'm sure Trumpists will learn nothing from it, and will be onto another equally dubious, ridiculous, fact-free conspiracy claim by tomorrow, if they're not already, doxxing and destroying innocent lives with merry abandon.
17 comments:
This detailed article disputes several aspects of the Fact Check.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/07/no-the-georgia-vote-counting-video-was-not-debunked-not-even-close/
In my mind, what really happened is an open question. The link also presents claims of a bunch of other fraudulent claims.
I haven't yet seen definitive evidence that the election was stolen. However, I want all these allegations to be fully investigated.
Cheers
Who cares what election workers were sent home and when? How does that prove massive election fraud?
I've read the story twice now. It's just more speculation and innuendo. It accepts the speculation it needs and dismisses what it doesn't, even automatically dismissing what two govt officials said because they're from the govt.
And still I don't see where the fraud is supposed to be. So some people got their signals crossed, and the night counters are assumed to be criminals instead of assumed to be innocent and having to prove to be guilty. Where's that proof?
It repeats all kinds of numbers from Trump without mentioning that he has been laughed out of every court in the land.
Again one of the Georgia officials will come out (if anyone even bothers are this sordid point) and explain how everyone is wrong and jumping to all kinds of unwarranted conclusions because they don't understand the process, and again none of the people making the claims will admit they're wrong or apologize but go on looking for some other so-called problem they can manufacture. This is shameful.
And again, consider the source.
"During the COVID-19 pandemic, The Federalist published numerous pieces that contained false information or pseudoscience that was contrary to the recommendations of public health experts and authorities.[5] While ballots were being counted in the 2020 election, The Federalist made false claims of large-scale fraud.[6][7]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_(website)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_(website)#Coronavirus_pandemic_misinformation
David, you say you read a variety of media, but the only ones you ever quote are extreme right wing sites that have little credibility.
Notice this "journalist" didn't call up anyone and ask any questions. That's what journalists are supposed to do -- report. No doubt she and her editors expect they'll get more hits if they just lay out conspiracy theories instead of facts, because with conspiracy theories they can do the same tomorrow, and the next day, without end, never settling anything.
David - you make some good points. Still, the only statements made under oath so far are the original accusations. I don't know nearly enough to wade through the various points of view being presented. All I can wish for is a complete investigation.
A point to bear in mind is that people committing fraud are trying to avoid detection. For that reason, I don't expect fraud to be proved with sufficient certainty and with sufficient magnitude so that the election would be overturned.
Cheers
“ I don't expect fraud to be proved with sufficient certainty and with sufficient magnitude so that the election would be overturned.”
Never mind about sufficient certainty to overthrow an election. The courts are finding that Trumpist conspiracies don’t meet “any standard of proof”: https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/a-judge-just-shot-down-25-of-the-trump-campaigns-conspiracy-theories-in-nevada/amp/
That’s a pretty low bar. They’re not looking for “beyond a reasonable doubt” or “preponderance of evidence”.
Trump didn’t even meet the standard of “some evidence” or prima facile.
It’s about quantity though. Not quality. Trump knows his followers don’t care to wade through the various points of view. They know that if they throw enough mud their followers will presume there is something behind it (beyond the obvious grift)
Layzej - The fact that many of the charges have not stood up in court doesn't mean that none of the charges will be proved to valid. What you accurately describe is simply normal legal procedure.
When a tort lawyer files suit, he begins by suing every conceivable defendant for every conceivable type of wrong-doing. At this point, he doesn't know which accusations will stand up, because he hasn't had time to do a complete investigation. Much of the investigation will consist of testimony taken under oath in the form of depositions. Depositions can only be taken after the suit is filed. Many of the charges will be thrown out, but the tort lawyer expects that the charges for which good evidence can be found will stand up in court.
Cheers
A point to bear in mind is that people committing fraud are trying to avoid detection.
That can't be right because going by the affadavits of Trump supporters they seen it happening pretty well everywhere. It can't have been well hidden. Then when election officials debunk them, often Republican officials at that, they decide that they must be in on it.
If on the other hand its so easy to commit election fraud without detection then how do we know Republicans weren't at it? I mean Trump always had a very poor approval rating and yet got more votes this election than last time. Somethings not right there.
I haven't yet seen definitive evidence that the election was stolen. However, I want all these allegations to be fully investigated.
It's now five weeks after the election. The governments top election security official said there was no widespread fraud, Bill Barr agreed, state Republicans have said there was none and begged Trump to stop lying before someone gets hurt. It's time to give it up. Biden won and it wasn't even close.
J.D. - You have been misled by inaccurate headlines. Barr did not say there was no widespread fraud. He actually said
"To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election,"
Here's how the headline is exaggerated:
1. Barr didn't say "widespread". He said not enough to change the election. His statement seems to imply that there was some fraud and it may have been widespread.
2. He didn't deny the existence of enough fraud to change the election. He said he hadn't yet seen evidence of such. The possibility that enough evidence will show up later is left open.
BTW many people misquote Barr even worse, by claiming that he said there was no fraud.
Given that there apparently was some fraud, I want it all fully investigated, so that we can put a stop to it in the future. That's why I support the Trump lawsuits, even though I expect them to not succeed in changing the election.
Cheers
DiC, I used the word widespread to differentiate between fraud large enough to effect the result and individual cases that happen every election. If I had meant it to be taken as an exact quote I would have put quotation marks around his quote.
IIRC he said that about a week after the election. Can you quote where he changed his mind?
As for the lawsuits being because there was fraud and your hope that it will improve the system, that might work if there were genuinely credible evidence of fraud. There isn't.
Let's see what local Republican politicians and election officials have to say about this,
“Continuing to make debunked claims of a stolen election is hurting our state,” said Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger — one of Trump’s frequent targets of abuse in recent weeks — during a news conference on Monday, the day state election officials plan to recertify Biden’s win following a second recount.
Those comments came a day after Gabriel Sterling, voting systems implementation manager for Georgia, went on Meet the Press and said Trump claiming the election was rigged “undermines democracy.”
“We have got to get to a point where responsible people act responsibly,” continued Sterling, who also detailed how Trump’s rhetoric is inspiring death threats against state officials and even against a worker at Dominion Voting Systems, whose voting machines and software Georgia uses.
And of course your support of Trump is all the more surprising when Trump fires officials who don't lie for him, uses his bully pulpit (twitter) to bully and insult Republicans who won't support his lies and pressures them to break election laws to undermine Bidon victories. Perhaps you can explain how the President acting like a mob boss is going to improve election security?
Quotes in my last post taken from here,
https://www.vox.com/2020/12/7/22159017/trump-attacks-georgia-republicans-kemp-raffensperger
J.D. - from "Alice in Wonderland"
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
Cheers
J.D.: “I mean Trump always had a very poor approval rating and yet got more votes this election than last time. Somethings not right there.“
That is as damning an indictment of Trump as we’ve seen of Biden.
DiC: “Given that there apparently was some fraud, I want it all fully investigated, so that we can put a stop to it in the future.“
How is that a given?
Trump claimed there was widespread fraud last election as well. He even put a task force together to investigate. They came up with nothing. They proposed no changes to improve security or accountability, and they even nixed proposals by the democrats that would have improved election security.
Why did he fail so badly?
David wrote:
“Given that there apparently was some fraud
Again, what was the fraud?
I've been asking since election day, and I haven't seen any evidence yet.
Another thing sparked by JD's reply -- Trump had been claiming for months before this election that Democrats were going to rig the election. What did he do about it? What did it do to prevent it? To increase election security, to assist state election official to increase election security? If he "knew" it was going to be rigged, how did he know? What evidence did he possess? Did he pass that along to the FBI and DOJ and the org the now-fired Chris Krebs ran on election security? If not he was extremely derelict in his job. Why didn't his supporters demand he do something? They apparently didn't care either. Did they assume it was just another one of his lies? Probably.
Something doesn't smell right here. What did the president know and when did he know it?
Post a Comment