What to do with actual election fraud?

[Seriati]

So it looks like part of the evidence collected to date and shown to the Georgia Legislature involves what appears to be election fraud of a scale that could in fact have changed the result of election.  Specifically, poll workers caught on camera removing election observers from the counting room and then taking out suitcases of ballots to be counted while those observers were not present.  Based on the length of time involved and the number of ballots that could have been processed in that time, it would be more than enough to overturn the margin of victory.  Even counting ballots in that circumstance is election fraud, let alone counting ballots from such a dubious source.

So I'm curious, what remedies are actual possible and conceivable in such a situation.  Do you "flip" the state?  Do you conduct a full analysis - knowing full well that there is a deadline on this that will then most likely be missed and we'll either elect Biden President (when he may have only won by fraud) or elect to hold off creating the very circumstance the media has been selling us for months (i.e., Trump refuses to leave office)?

It's interesting that the media predicted a result that almost certainly would only happen if significant but not decisive evidence of voter fraud was found, almost like they knew that voter fraud was going to happen and be found but wanted to put a marker in the fight declaring it "not enough" pre-emptively.

And it's not enough, to me, to claim that flipping GA won't overturn the election as a whole.  Finding something this blatant calls into question every irregularity everywhere.  The targeted swing states were known for at least year, plenty of time to have set plans in motion virtually everywhere. 

And even if you reject that election fraud occurred, I'd still like to know what remedies you think are actually possible and acceptable if you did believe fraud occurred.  We had a judge order a new election earlier this year in one NJ race, but I can't imagine anyone would accept that for a national election.

[Fenring]

I couldn't comment on what the actual law says should be done in a situation such as you describe. But it seems to me that if it was clear that there was voter fraud and the result of the election was doubtful I would personally want the result to be delayed rather than kept on time. However it creates a conflict of interest for whoever would be in charge during the transition period; for instance if Trump remained president past his term it would be in his interest to delay as long as possible. Likewise for whoever else might be a temporary president, like speaker of the house. So if it is required that at all times there is a president, maybe it would be good to have some special clause for this exact situation so that someone from outside became acting president just on a provisional basis until the new president could be announced, perhaps an ex-president.

Would it be within the realm of possibility to actually have an entire state re-vote and conduct the process from scratch if the 'real result' was irretrievable?

[msquared]

Just because it happened in one state does not mean all of the other states can be questioned.  So even if this state goes Trump, he still looses.

Investigate this video and what they say happened.  If illegal actions were taken, prosecute those responsible.  I do not see any court being able to order a new election with the same people running.

Not sure what you meant by "the media predicted a result that almost certainly would only happen if significant but not decisive evidence of voter fraud was found".  The media was predicted a much larger win by Biden than what happened.  It's almost like Trump's team submitted fraudulent votes that narrowed the margin of victory, especially in swing states.  I mean Ohio and Florida were suppose to be toss ups and Trump won them handily.  Has anyone checked there to see if Trump's team committed any fraud?

[Fenring]

Investigate this video and what they say happened.  If illegal actions were taken, prosecute those responsible.  I do not see any court being able to order a new election with the same people running.

Do you mean that there is no possible way for any court to do this, i.e. that there is simply no mechanism in the system to make it happen? Or do you mean that you simply predict that no one would have the will to do it?

[msquared]

You might be able to have a court make one state redo their election, but the whole country?  That would take the SC I would think. And I would think some sort of action by Congress.

[wmLambert]

Yes, the video shows Ruby Freeman, in the purple outfit, leading the vote scam. We are forensically, beginning to identify the wrong-doers, and the cloak of invisibility is being lifted. The question that Democrats avoid is to simply ask for a forensic audit to prove the vote was honest or scammed.

We already have proved there was massive fraud - going only one way - for Biden and against Trump. You think that if the Dems were innocent, they would want such an audit to prove it. None will.

[msquared]

You have not proved anything, at least legally.  You have given some evidence, that is mostly disputed.  Your rush to judgement on this is telling.

[TheDrake]

I watched the video, it is very disturbing. I'm waiting to see how this plays out when they start interrogating the people involved. If they were doing what it looks like, they might crumble for immunity and then everything could fall apart if the Trumpers were right all along. God only knows what happens then. Full recounts in all the marginal states? Demands for signature checks where one side looks for any excuse, like a squashed O or a missing middle initial? International observers? A do-over?

Maybe we should just become an autonomous collective.

[msquared]

Or an autonomous collect commune.

[msquared]

Damn this is one of those time where you are sure you have the quote right, and you don't. TheDrake is correct in his quote.

[Fenring]

Maybe we should just become an autonomous collective.

Trump is king of the who?

[yossarian22c]

I watched the video, it is very disturbing. I'm waiting to see how this plays out when they start interrogating the people involved. If they were doing what it looks like, they might crumble for immunity and then everything could fall apart if the Trumpers were right all along. God only knows what happens then. Full recounts in all the marginal states? Demands for signature checks where one side looks for any excuse, like a squashed O or a missing middle initial? International observers? A do-over?

Maybe we should just become an autonomous collective.

Has anyone been able to do a data analysis on the tabulation machine for the time in question? Seems like there should be a log of the votes recorded during the time. I could see a judge potentially throwing out the votes recorded during the time in question. Particularly if the votes are unexpectedly correlated with one of the candidates. Fulton county suggests fraud for Biden, but I'm really curious to see how the tallies changed during those hours of voting.

Why did it take 1 month for Trump's dream team of lawyers to get around to checking up on what to date is the best evidence we've seen so far?

[LetterRip]

If fingerprint analysis on the ballots is done - any fraudulent ballots should show a lack of fingerprints other than the ballot  counters.

[Wayward Son]

Quick question, Seriati, as I look up this video: who told you about it?  What's your source?

It's is already smelling like another tempest in a teapot/fake new story.

[yossarian22c]

If fingerprint analysis on the ballots is done - any fraudulent ballots should show a lack of fingerprints other than the ballot  counters.

More people wearing gloves during the pandemic and after a hand recount of 5 million ballots I think any results from lack of finger prints would be inconclusive. The tabulation machine should have a clear log of ballots scanned and time. As such its really just a matter of a judge ordering analysis of the machine in question to see what happened between 10:30 and 1:30 on the date in question.

[yossarian22c]

To be clear. I think a judge should order the logs of the tabulation machine in question to be examined and made public.

At this point I don't care how great of an explanation can be found, evidence from the machine logs would be useful. If they show 24,000 votes in a row for Biden/Dems then scrap all those votes without question. Same if they show 24,000 votes in a row for Trump/Republicans.

[TheDrake]

If fingerprint analysis on the ballots is done - any fraudulent ballots should show a lack of fingerprints other than the ballot  counters.

Not really. Simple case, Fraudster 1 prepared them, Fraudster 2 counted them.

[Aris Katsaris]

Which video is this? Are we talking about https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moddNvyr3To ?

Yes, people counting without observers and bringing in votes from an unknown source should be enough to invalidate that whole count in that whole... city district, city, county? -- how are votes grouped, is "county" really the smallest grouping of votes you guys have? Seriously, tens of thousands of votes all counted in the same place?

If there's no way to check the machines about the votes that were counted in that particular timeframe, invalidate and redo the elections in the city district/city/county/whatever.

How are the vote counters appointed anyway?

Investigate and question all the people in that room, and go from there.

[TheDrake]

Why did it take 1 month for Trump's dream team of lawyers to get around to checking up on what to date is the best evidence we've seen so far?

I could imagine it isn't easy to get hold of video like that. Who knows how long it took to acquire that evidence?

[yossarian22c]

Why did it take 1 month for Trump's dream team of lawyers to get around to checking up on what to date is the best evidence we've seen so far?

I could imagine it isn't easy to get hold of video like that. Who knows how long it took to acquire that evidence?

I think it was live streamed. It was in a lot of places, not 100% sure about Georgia.

[LetterRip]

If fingerprint analysis on the ballots is done - any fraudulent ballots should show a lack of fingerprints other than the ballot  counters.

Not really. Simple case, Fraudster 1 prepared them, Fraudster 2 counted them.

I meant those involved with the counting and/or fraud.  All legitimate ballots will likely have the fingerprints of the person who filled out and mailed the ballot.

If the envelopes were kept (I'd expect that to be standard practice) - there should be a 1 to 1 correspondence if the ballots are legit.

[msquared]

In Ohio, and I think most states, votes are counted by county (probably parish in LA).  It might be different in counties with large populations, but that would surprise me.  That is why counting in large population counties happen in large arenas  and convention centers, I think.

[Wayward Son]

Not that it has anything to do with this theoretical topic, but Georgia Republican officials have already disputed the narrative to the video.

Georgia's voting system implementation manager, Gabriel Sterling, said afterwards that the surveillance video provided no evidence that was suspicious, and that there was no wrongdoing.

Speaking to Lead Stories on Thursday, Mr Sterling was one of two Republican election officials in Georgia who denied the Trump campaign’s claims.

Mr Sterling said the suitcases were moved across a room as “normal procedure”, and that there was nothing “odd” about the process, because poll workers were tasked with scanning the ballots once observers and vote counters had left the State Farm Arena.

“If you look at the videotape, the work you see is the work you would expect, which is you take the sealed suitcase, you place the ballots on the scanner in manageable batches and you scan them,” Mr Sterling said.

Frances Watson, the chief investigator for Georgia’s secretary of state, told Lead Stories that Republican and Trump campaign observers were not told to leave, and that the ballots scanned in the surveillance video had already been counted, in contrast to Mr Giuliani and Ms Pick’s assertions.

“Nobody told them to stay. Nobody told them to leave. Nobody gave them any advice on what they should do,” she said. “And it was still open for them or the public to come back in to view at whatever time they wanted to, as long as they were still working.”

Ms Watson added that the ballots put through the scanners amounted to around 10,000, which was less than Joe Biden’s 12,670 vote margin over Mr Trump in the state.

Really, the only thing that makes the video look suspicious is the narrative.  Take that away, and you just have people moving and counting ballots.  I'm sure the Trump team has sworn affidavits, but didn't they also have a sworn affidavit that a truck full of ballots were being illegally moved into a counting area, with Joe Biden himself supervising? 

It's worth investigating to make sure nothing untoward was happening, but I don't see much smoke, and certainly no gun.

[Lloyd Perna]

Quick question, Seriati, as I look up this video: who told you about it?  What's your source?

It's is already smelling like another tempest in a teapot/fake new story.

The video analysis was presented as evidence in a Georgian Senate Hearing.  This is the best video I could find.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keANzinHWUA

[LetterRip]

yosarrian,

I agree on getting the tabulation logs.  As to people wearing gloves - seriously?  I'm good friends with many people who make extreme efforts to avoid Covid and none wear gloves.  I haven't seen anyone wear gloves since extremely early on the pandemic.  Anywho the lack of unique fingerprints would be additional evidence.

[LetterRip]

Wayward,

thanks for the information - if accurate that sounds like another slam dunk defamation case.

[Aris Katsaris]

Really, the only thing that makes the video look suspicious is the narrative.  Take that away, and you just have people moving and counting ballots.

"Nobody told them to stay, nobody told them to leave" is *censored*ing stupid logic. And how will they prove that "nobody told them to leave"? Why weren't they told to stay? These guys thought an observer's participation is bloody *optional*?

If the counting process isn't observed, then it's worse than useless. When the vote counters noticed nobody was there to observe them, why didn't they *censored*ing stop counting and call for observers to come in before they continued?

I don't know if it's legally valid or invalid, I don't know if it's part of the normal process or not, but yes, counting without observers is certainly *censored*ing suspicious.

If that's the normal process, then change your bloody process. This is inexcusable.

The Caesar's wife must not only be actually honest, she must be above suspicion.

[yossarian22c]

Wayward,

thanks for the information - if accurate that sounds like another slam dunk defamation case.

Let's hope the message gets out as people have claimed to identify one of the women in the video. Hope she has somewhere safe to bunker down until this is resolved.

[LetterRip]

"Nobody told them to stay, nobody told them to leave" is *censored*ing stupid logic. And how will they prove that "nobody told them to leave"? Why weren't they told to stay? These guys thought an observer's participation is bloody *optional*?

The laws are generally written that observers have rights but not obligations nor are the counters obligated to wait for observers if they choose to leave or not show up.
  Otherwise the obsevors could force a delay in counting by choosing to leave.

[LetterRip]

Let's hope the message gets out as people have claimed to identify one of the women in the video. Hope she has somewhere safe to bunker down until this is resolved.

Both have been identified.

[Seriati]

Yes, people counting without observers and bringing in votes from an unknown source should be enough to invalidate that whole count in that whole... city district, city, county? -- how are votes grouped, is "county" really the smallest grouping of votes you guys have? Seriously, tens of thousands of votes all counted in the same place?

Something like that does occur yes, and in this case, it's my understanding that this was one of the largest concentrations of voters.

How are the vote counters appointed anyway?

That's the rub, they're appointed locally, so in districts that are heavily DNC, they may all have been appointed under the supervision of the DNC and vice versa for the RNC.  The big fraud "advantage" between the parties favors the DNC because their voters tend to be highly concentrated in the largest districts in the US.  In some cases, historically, there haven't even been enough Republicans in a district to actually even provide poll watchers.

[msquared]

Serati

Clarify between vote counters (usually civil servants I think) and poll watchers/count watchers, who are supplied by the parties, I think.

Does it count as fraud if a party does not send watchers?

[yossarian22c]

Let's hope the message gets out as people have claimed to identify one of the women in the video. Hope she has somewhere safe to bunker down until this is resolved.

Both have been identified.

The question is if they've been correctly identified. I watched the video on YouTube. Most of the comments were calling for them to be arrested and many advocated capital punishment. If I were them I would be scared, really scared and not of any potential legal consequences. Which based on Wayword's update seems unlikely.

[Seriati]

Your question needs context to even make sense, msquared.  Why don't clarify what you are asking.

As to Wayward, the county board recertified the results on a straight party line vote 3-2.  The person testifying that the video didn't show anything untoward hadn't actually watched the video but was relying on his staff.  Can anyone say plausible deniability?

The video doesn't look suspicious because of a narrative.  The video looks criminal without a narrative.  The fact that so many are willing to jump on any narrative is actually interesting.  Can you cite to the law or published policy that demonstrates any of this was "ordinary course"?  Of course not.

[msquared]

Serati

You were asked how vote counters were appointed. You said that they were appointed locally, usually by the DNC in large population areas.  I think vote counters work for the county board of election and are civil servant jobs, not appointed jobs.

Now poll and vote watchers are appointed by the respective parties. I believe those are normally volunteer positions.

I could be wrong for how things are done in GA.

However, as was pointed out, unless they can show that their poll watchers were told/forced to leave, there may not be anything to this. And again there might be.

[Aris Katsaris]

The laws are generally written that observers have rights but not obligations nor are the counters obligated to wait for observers if they choose to leave or not show up. Otherwise the obsevors could force a delay in counting by choosing to leave.

Oh, no, 'force a delay', that's way worse than throwing an entire election into suspicion. /s

Change your laws. This is stupid.

Any counting location that, for some reason or other, doesn't have observers show up (or has them leave prematurely) should be required to put out an official communication to all interested parties, so that the political parties will send observers within 30 minutes, or at the very least the political parties be forced to acknowledge that they *were* asked to provide observers and they had none available to do so.

You can afford to delay counting votes for 30 minutes or so. What you can't afford to do is provide people with reason to suspect election fraud.

[NobleHunter]

Your question needs context to even make sense, msquared.  Why don't clarify what you are asking.

As to Wayward, the county board recertified the results on a straight party line vote 3-2.  The person testifying that the video didn't show anything untoward hadn't actually watched the video but was relying on his staff.  Can anyone say plausible deniability?

The video doesn't look suspicious because of a narrative.  The video looks criminal without a narrative.  The fact that so many are willing to jump on any narrative is actually interesting.  Can you cite to the law or published policy that demonstrates any of this was "ordinary course"?  Of course not.

Can you cite the law or published policy that demonstrates it isn't "ordinary course?"

[DonaldD]

"What to do with actual vote fraud?"

Funny, I posted this yesterday, yet not a single person concerned with actual vote fraud responded...

Success!  Evidence of vote fraud, or at least an organized attempt, facilitated by a political operative, even!

Florida attorney under investigation for registering to vote in Georgia, encouraging others to do the same

Oh wait, those are Republicans publicly discussing how to illegally register to vote in the Georgia runoff... sorry, carry on.

[msquared]

I think they are implying massive vote fraud. This guy was caught and should be prosecuted. There is enough evidence to bring a case, I would think.

[Wayward Son]

The person testifying that the video didn't show anything untoward hadn't actually watched the video but was relying on his staff.  Can anyone say plausible deniability?

Could you please cite your source for this.

The video doesn't look suspicious because of a narrative.  The video looks criminal without a narrative.

Could you please provide your own narrative without reference to Trump's team's narrative, just based on what is shown in the video?

What I see are people walking around, one moving a container with wheels from under a desk, and counting ballots.  I see no reason to be suspicious about that container from under the desk.  I see no reason to be suspicious because observers weren't standing around.  What would cause you to be suspicious about the events without further information?

[DonaldD]

Is it the contention that the container with wheels under the desk was actually invisible prior to it having been moved from under the desk?

[DonaldD]

What would cause you to be suspicious about the events without further information?

Hello??  Unsolicited mail-in ballots in Nevada and Dominion voting machines, duh.

[TheDrake]

My biggest question is, why present this to the legislature and not immediately take it to seek an injunction? Is it because this would also be dismissed, when rules of evidence are applied and an argument has to be made? Also, if this really was being live streamed, is it plausible that people would be committing massive fraud live on camera? That would be pretty brazen.

There seems to be a lot about these containers being under tables. It seems like a pretty logical place to put containers.

I'm starting to think I fell for their trick.

Aris, as far as requiring watchers, I don't know how that would work. They could all walk out and basically filibuster the election indefinitely. They probably left because they already saw those containers come in and didn't want to watch the boring process of feeding the scanner.

[Aris Katsaris]

Aris, as far as requiring watchers, I don't know how that would work. They could all walk out and basically filibuster the election indefinitely.

I don't have much tolerance for this level of excuse-making.

I suggest you spend like literally 10 seconds to think of a solution, and you would probably come up with several. "They could all walk out"? Who, are we talking about the entire nation here all together deciding at the same time to 'filibuster' the election?

Even if watchers are not technically "required", why are they not *requested*, loudly, publicly, so that they show up if available?

Can juries filibuster court cases indefinitely if they "walk out"? Are there no solutions that have been figured out for what to do when a juryist doesn't appear for court duty, no replacements or punishments for the missing juryist?

That's with a minute's worth of thought. Perhaps to ensure an election is above suspicion, you should even use *gasp* two minutes of thought for it before dismissing it as an unsolvable problem.

[Seriati]

Serati

You were asked how vote counters were appointed. You said that they were appointed locally, usually by the DNC in large population areas.  I think vote counters work for the county board of election and are civil servant jobs, not appointed jobs.

I can't speak to every single place as the process is controlled locally, without national standards, and may or may not be directly controlled by the state.  In most circumstances, poll workers are temporary workers, sometimes mostly volunteers.  So, here's one place - Philadelphia - that I picked mostly because it's synomous with election irregularities, if not down right cheating.  Here's what's required:

What are the requirements to be a poll worker?

To become a poll worker, you must:

    Be a citizen of the United States.
    Be a registered voter in Philadelphia. (Anyone who is not currently registered can register online at www.philadelphiavotes.com by clicking “Register to Vote.”)
    Be 18 years of age (unless you are 17 years old and actively enrolled in high school or secondary school).
    Not be a PA elected public official or a candidate.

If a person has been convicted of election related crimes under the election code, then they are unable to serve as a poll worker for 4 years (or for whatever length of time imposed by the courts).

https://www.phila.gov/2020-09-02-become-a-poll-worker/

Got to love that if you've been previously convicted of election related crimes, Philly takes the the extreme precaution of telling you that you're not eligible to be a poll worker for a whole four years (well unless the court set a lesser or greater time)!

You absolutely have to be registered in Philly, and in one of the two congressional districts in Philly Republicans are outnumbered by more than 10 to 1.  There were some 700 plus polling locations in Philly, and even more drop boxes for votes (that were themselves not monitored), over 8500 poll workers hired.  In PA you work in the precinct in which you are registered to vote.  It came out during the Romney-Obama election that 1 in 4 precincts in Philly contained less than 20 registered Republicans.  Those people would generally be the entire eligible pool of Republicans that were even eligible to be a poll worker in that precinct, and they'd still have to have applied and been selected. 

Now poll and vote watchers are appointed by the respective parties. I believe those are normally volunteer positions.

Watchers are, which is exactly why excluding them in districts where there isn't a balance of parties means effectively that excluding them turns it into a one party counting system.

However, as was pointed out, unless they can show that their poll watchers were told/forced to leave, there may not be anything to this. And again there might be.

It was pretty clear that the poll watchers reported they were told to leave because counting was done for the night.

[Seriati]

Can you cite the law or published policy that demonstrates it isn't "ordinary course?"

I hope you aren't seriously putting this question to me, this blatantly a stupid request.  The official Wayward cited claimed that what occurred on that recording was ordinary course, that is a factual claim that has to have evidence to be true.

[Wayward Son]

If I got an official from the election board in question to assert that what occurred is ordinary course of business for counting, would that be sufficient?

Why would you need more than expert testimony?

[msquared]

No they are all part of the fraud anyway.

[Seriati]

If I got an official from the election board in question to assert that what occurred is ordinary course of business for counting, would that be sufficient?

Why would you need more than expert testimony?

Maybe because the official in question would be directly responsible for the fraud in question?  Massive self interest.

I would expect if you make a claim that you demonstrate it.  We both know you have no idea at all if this complied with any relevant requirements or if it was in fact in the ordinary course in a provable way.  You're accepting it as such purely based on the team you think it benefits.

[msquared]

Just as you are.