Voting mechanisms

[DonaldD]

Call it what you will: a scam, a strategy, a happy coincidence; legislatures have the ability to exercise this authority.  Does anybody really doubt that Trump would push for such a solution should he lose the electoral college due to vote fraud (in the same way as he fraudulently lost the popular vote in 2016) or if, as votes continue to be counted after election day, his lead over Biden in swings states starts to narrow dangerously due to all the fraudulent votes swamping the system? And does anybody doubt Republican legislatures would be open to such a solution, if Trump demanded it after riling up his base and mobilizing his army?

[TheDeamon]

No - Electors are not necessarily chosen by vote counts.  Legislators in each of the states could take back that power, choose to set aside the vote counts and select their own electors directly.

This was affirmed in Bush v Gore: "When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (" '[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated''')"

Which brings us back to the scenario where two sets of electors cast votes, and as such the United States Congress then decides which set of ballots they're honor. And rest assured the Democrat's will side with the one that reflects the most recent vote tally rather than the vote tally as it stood on December 14th. Which is where they may be inclined to wait until January 19th, or even later, depending on what the situation is with counting disputed ballots at that point in time.

Remember, their "Red Mirage" scenario is that Trump wins during the in-person voting, and it is the mail-in/absentee voting where Biden comes back from behind to win. So for them, the plan is to delay the final decision for as long as possible.

They may very well game the system and create "disputed electors" on December 14th as a contingency for exactly this scenario, we won't know until the 14th of December. But at that point we'll have a pretty good idea of just how bad the mess might be in January. If only one set of electors votes for a state, it should be crises averted, but if one or more (important) state sends two even if (Trump) is winning on the 14th, watch out.

[DonaldD]

Uh, no - the Democrats will side with the electoral votes that most benefit themselves, and the Republicans will do the same.

That being said - if the state legislature is in the hands of the Republicans, and the the vote tallies have Trump in the lead in that state in mid-December, then there will only be a single set of electors, since even if the Governor overrules the legislature and certifies the original count, then that would still support a Trump slate of electors.  It's only in states where the legislature is held by the Democrats would that even matter.  But in all 6 of the most closely contested states - Arizona, Florida , Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin - the legislatures are held by Republicans. So if Biden didn't already have the plurality of votes in a state by mid-December, there would only be a single slate of electors to choose from - Republican. And if Biden's plurality increased in a particular state, that wouldn't make the Democrats choose the Democratic electors doubly-strongly.

[noel c.]

Donald,

“Call it what you will: a scam, a strategy, a happy coincidence; legislatures have the ability to exercise this authority.”

Call it what you will, if Democrats have so little confidence in their candidate that they would nullify a vote to install him, leftist politics reek of third world corruption. I do not expect to see another serious post from progressives complaining of voter suppression.

“Does anybody really doubt that Trump would push for such a solution should he lose the electoral college due to vote fraud (in the same way as he fraudulently lost the popular vote in 2016)... “

Just for clarity; you are assuming critical mass “voter fraud“ by your political clones, and rationalize the tactic by countering that Trump would resort to autonomous state legislative authority? If the left is that committed widespread fraud, then Trump would not limit his constitutional remedies to that.

“... or if, as votes continue to be counted after election day, his lead over Biden in swings states starts to narrow dangerously due to all the fraudulent votes swamping the system?”

Same answer as before; if the left suppresses legitimate votes through constructive nullification, then it is a good thing that RGB assumed room temperature last week. As I recall, she got a particularly twisted knot in her panties over Bush vs. Gore 2000. It just dawned upon me why her demise has had such an emotional impact upon lefties. They lost a key ally in subverting constitutional government.

“And does anybody doubt Republican legislatures would be open to such a solution, if Trump demanded it after riling up his base and mobilizing his army?“

If your scenario occurred in any state, it would be a justifiable remedy to widespread fraud, however; legislative majorities are notoriously unreliable for acting out of principle. The best path forward would be through the SCOTUS. Amy Coney Barrett would have a 24/7 calendar for 77 days upon assuming office, but it would be doable.

Just out of curiosity Donald, wouldn’t it be easier to nominate a candidate that Democrats can elect, and stop screwing with traditional protections afforded by the secret ballot?

[DonaldD]

Just for clarity; you are assuming critical mass “voter fraud“ by your political clones

There will be, as in all other presidential elections over the past 30 years, minimal voter fraud - neither by Republicans nor Democrats.

Call it what you will, if Democrats have so little confidence in their candidate that they would nullify a vote to install him

None of the swing states are held by Democratic legislatures - as I mentioned earlier, the 6 closest swing states have Republican held upper and lower houses, and almost all states where there is a Democratic legislature also show double-digit leads for Biden, so there is no opportunity for Democrats to do as you suggest in your hypothetical.

If your scenario occurred in any state, it would be a justifiable remedy to widespread fraud, however; legislative majorities are notoriously unreliable for acting out of principle.

That sounds very Trumpy - legislative majorities are notoriously unreliable for acting out of principle, but if one of those state legislatures acted to resume its power to choose electors, that would necessitate there having been fraud in the vote, because state legislatures only ever act on principle - there is no other possible interpretation.

[noel c.]

Donald,

“There will be, as in all other presidential elections over the past 30 years, minimal voter fraud - neither by Republicans nor Democrats.“

This is not a “minimalist” environment, even if I conceded equivalence in partisan fraud, which I do not.

“None of the swing states are held by Democratic legislatures - as I mentioned earlier, the 6 closest swing states have Republican held upper and lower houses, and almost all states where there is a Democratic legislature also show double-digit leads for Biden, so there is no opportunity for Democrats to do as you suggest in your hypothetical.“

Republican collective behavior is impaired by the same lack of accountability that all quasi-anonymous group decision making is afflicted by. The Supreme Court decisions are never in the same league, regardless of how a person feels about the outcome. Individual justices are glaringly accountable.

“That sounds very Trumpy - legislative majorities are notoriously unreliable for acting out of principle, but if one of those state legislatures acted to resume its power to choose electors, that would necessitate there having been fraud in the vote, because state legislatures only ever act on principle - there is no other possible interpretation.“

I think that you are projecting again Donald. Your hypothetical presumed widespread voter fraud, and fortuitous legislative preemption of a popular vote. Irrespective the rationale applied, in the real world this is an exploration into an ethical wilderness, which is why state legislatures don’t do it, however; I may be speaking out of turn given that I have no difficulty envisioning a Democratic legislature doing precisely that.

The solution lies in reliance upon the United States Supreme Court.

[DonaldD]

If your references are accurate, that regularly issued live ballots were brought by designated recipients to the “... ballot collection event”, and were then received by deputized ballot collection poll workers, I have to ask; what was the point of the party?

I am pretty sure you are just playing dumb, and expect you can come up with several reasons yourself, but just in case, here are a few:

• To avoid mailing the ballots: for some reason, people don't have the same faith in the USPS as they did even a year ago.
• To avoid travelling to a possibly more distant collection point that is  not as convenient to that particular voter.
• To ensure the vote was provided to poll workers well in advance of the election to avoid the vote arriving late.

As for the 'angle' in that post, I pointed it out very clearly - even though deputized poll workers were being used to accept the votes, and the votes were being brought by the voters themselves - ballots the voters had themselves requested ahead of time - and even though the Republican election lawyer who was quoted agreed that the process was completely legal, the GOP leaders in Wisconsin still attempted to use the courts to halt the voting process.  Of course, maybe they didn't expect to actually halt the process; maybe it was just a political stunt, but that does bring up another issue - abusing the court as a toy in playing electoral games.

[DonaldD]

Your hypothetical presumed widespread voter fraud

No, it didn't, and in the post to which you were responding, I clearly stated as much.  I would say "learn to read" but I'm pretty sure you have no intention of not misrepresenting people's statements, so there is not much point in engaging with you.

This is not a “minimalist” environment, even if I conceded equivalence in partisan fraud, which I do not.

There is no need to concede anything, since as any number of Republican groups who have investigated the topic have conceded, there is negligible vote fraud in presidential elections.  I could point you to Republican election lawyers, the Heritage foundation, the FBI, but I expect you will continue to ignore that and pretend that there has been such fraud, that it has been significant, and that it has been perpetrated primarily by Democrats.

[TheDeamon]

This is not a “minimalist” environment, even if I conceded equivalence in partisan fraud, which I do not.

There is no need to concede anything, since as any number of Republican groups who have investigated the topic have conceded, there is negligible vote fraud in presidential elections.  I could point you to Republican election lawyers, the Heritage foundation, the FBI, but I expect you will continue to ignore that and pretend that there has been such fraud, that it has been significant, and that it has been perpetrated primarily by Democrats.[/quote]

Okay, took me awhile to swing around to this one, but it is the elephant in the room that hasn't been addressed.

Yes, actual voting fraud has been basically undetectable for the past many decades. (Undetectable does not mean it was not present, just that it wasn't detected.

That said, voter registration fraud has been very common, and most commonly found among Democrat aligned groups. ACORN for example was busted for thousands of bogus registrations in Nevada less than 20 years ago.

Not with it established that voter registration fraud has been endemic in years past, regardless of if those fraudulent entries ever voted. The Democratic push for mail-in voting and the desire for ballots to automatically be sent to registered voters for this election cycle? I think Republicans have every right to be skeptical of what the Democrats may be trying to pull in some areas.

[noel c.]

Donald,

“No, it didn't (presume voter fraud). I would say ‘learn to read’ but I'm pretty sure you have no intention of not misrepresenting people's statements, so there is not much point in engaging with you.”

“(Donald): Does anybody really doubt that Trump would push for such a solution should he lose the electoral college due to vote fraud (in the same way as he fraudulently lost the popular vote in 2016)... “

“There is no need to concede anything, since as any number of Republican groups who have investigated the topic have conceded, there is negligible vote fraud in presidential elections. I could point you to Republican election lawyers, the Heritage foundation, the FBI, but I expect you will continue to ignore that and pretend that there has been such fraud, that it has been significant, and that it has been perpetrated primarily by Democrats.”

I was not making a quantifiable statement, but a qualitative one. Democrats have group characteristics that have provided grist for this entire thread. I am simply highlighting another unique propensity, disproportionately represented within liberal ranks.

“I am pretty sure you are just playing dumb, and expect you can come up with several reasons yourself, but just in case, here are a few:
To avoid mailing the ballots: for some reason, people don't have the same faith in the USPS as they did even a year ago.“

Dumb reason. Why not hand it to the same deputized poll worker on November 3rd, when they cannot legally advise voters on ballot selections?

“To avoid travelling to a possibly more distant collection point that is not as convenient to that particular voter.“

No, try again. I have never lived in a district where the polling place was beyond walking distance. I seriously doubt that the Wisconsin voting party location was any different.

“To ensure the vote was provided to poll workers well in advance of the election to avoid the vote arriving late.“

Utterly stupid; hand the ballot in yourself on November 3rd.

I suppose that if you expect to die prior to November 3rd, and don’t trust the USPS, then voting parties make sense.

“As for the 'angle' in that post, I pointed it out very clearly - even though deputized poll workers were being used to accept the votes, and the votes were being brought by the voters themselves - ballots the voters had themselves requested ahead of time - and even though the Republican election lawyer who was quoted agreed that the process was completely legal, the GOP leaders in Wisconsin still attempted to use the courts to halt the voting process.  Of course, maybe they didn't expect to actually halt the process; maybe it was just a political stunt, but that does bring up another issue - abusing the court as a toy in playing electoral games.“

All irrelevant in response to my statements.

[DonaldD]

ACORN for example was busted for thousands of bogus registrations in Nevada less than 20 years ago.

This is both untrue as it relates to ACORN, but also to the extent and substance if the 'fraud'.

ACORN was never charged ('busted') with anything; in fact, ACORN was the victim of the employees who were cheating their employer.

 In fact, the Republican prosecuting attorney, Dan Satterberg, in the largest ACORN case at the time, said that the indicted ACORN employees were shirking responsibility, not plotting election fraud.

So no, not really a good example, not if you meant to suggest that the voting system was somehow at risk of voting fraud.

[DonaldD]

Noel, here's a hint: Trump didn't lose the popular vote in 2016 due to vote fraud. Suggesting fraud occuring in the same way as in 2016 is a clearly sarcastic way of saying that vote fraud will again not cost Trump.

[TheDeamon]

No, try again. I have never lived in a district where the polling place was beyond walking distance. I seriously doubt that the Wisconsin voting party location was any different.

The district I live in has its polling location about 1.5 miles from me I'm pretty sure others in the district could be up to 2 miles from it, and it's been there for decades at this point. At the time it was established, the school it was in was surrounded by cropland for the better part of a quarter-mile at the closest point, and as such had "rural road" infrastructure leading up to it, as the road was presumably built back in the 1950's or 1960's. Which meant no curb, no sidewalk, no shoulder, but it did have a ditch alongside the road! Not very walkable, heck the school itself prohibited students from walking to it and would discipline any that were caught doing so, you had to arrive by bus or parent. That area has since been developed and has sidewalk and all of the amenities along the way.

[TheDeamon]

ACORN for example was busted for thousands of bogus registrations in Nevada less than 20 years ago.

This is both untrue as it relates to ACORN, but also to the extent and substance if the 'fraud'.

So you're denying that thousands of fraudulent voter registrations were submitted and many of them made it through the system?

Intent to commit election fraud in that particular case doesn't matter, it is that that fraudulent voter registration entries were created, something which someone else could potentially capitalize on should said fraudulent ballots find their way into their possession should unsolicited ballots be sent to them.

[noel c.]

Donald,

“This is both untrue as it relates to ACORN, but also to the extent and substance if the 'fraud'.”

... Yet I read people, like you, going to great lengths to excuse mass voter disenfranchisement as, happy “coincidences“.

“Noel, here's a hint: Trump didn't lose the popular vote in 2016 due to vote fraud. Suggesting fraud occuring in the same way as in 2016 is a clearly sarcastic way of saying that vote fraud will again not cost Trump.“

I don’t believe he did, but given the extremely small margin, have no way of knowing that, and neither do you. I mistakenly concluded that you gave Trump the benefit of a doubt to simplify your hypothetical.

“The district I live in has its polling location about 1.5 miles from me, and it's been there for decades at this point. At the time it was established, the school it was in was surrounded by cropland for the better part of a quarter-mile at the closest point, and as such had "rural road" infrastructure leading up to it, as the road was presumably built back in the 1950's or 1960's. Which meant no curb, no sidewalk, no shoulder, but it did have a ditch alongside the road! Not very walkable, heck the school itself prohibited students from walking to it and would discipline any that were caught doing so, you had to arrive by bus or parent. That area has since been developed.”

One and one-half miles, right? When I missed the morning bus during high school, I ran further than that with books under-arm. Is this another democratic propensity to examine?

[noel c.]

Joe Biden spent decades warning of voter fraud — now called a myth by Dems.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/09/19/biden-spent-years-warning-of-voter-fraud-now-call-a-myth/amp/

DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVE: THE RISK OF FRAUD WITH VBM IS REAL

https://www.rnla.org/democratic_operative_the_risk_of_fraud_with_vbm_is_real

[noel c.]

Confessions of a voter fraud: I was a master at fixing mail-in ballots

https://nypost.com/2020/08/29/political-insider-explains-voter-fraud-with-mail-in-ballots/

[DonaldD]

So you're denying that thousands of fraudulent voter registrations were submitted and many of them made it through the system?

I was making two points - first, that as you said, that was not an example of voter fraud - and you had already accepted that this was not the case, so I interpreted the point you were trying to make was that Democrats were primarily involved in illegal activities.  The substance of the fraud - low-level employees submitting false voter registrations and thereby also stealing from ACORN - is not actually an example of Democrat malfeasance, any more than say, the Wells Fargo widespread fraud by low level employees and middle management was the fault of Republicans.  Yes, I get it that Republicans have tried hard to make it sound like a Democratic Party conspiracy, but that is just as stupid as "banks are associated with Republicans/bankers stole from customers/Republicans defrauded customers".

It is also odd that you would bring the ACORN thing up as an example since, aside from it not being shown to have led to any voter fraud, it was also associated with the registrations that could only have been used in-person; basically, it is a point, if anything, in support of mail in voting.

[TheDrake]

So people like to defend the institution of police with a "bad apple" argument. Why shouldn't that apply to people involved in voter registration or handling? If we shouldn't condemn the police based on a smattering of accepted bad actors, why should we condemn voting activists on the same basis of isolated anecdotes?

[noel c.]

Drake,

“So people like to defend the institution of police with a "bad apple" argument. Why shouldn't that apply to people involved in voter registration or handling? If we shouldn't condemn the police based on a smattering of accepted bad actors, why should we condemn voting activists on the same basis of isolated anecdotes?“

“Isolated anecdotes” like those that came from your pre-Obama corruption iteration of Uncle Joe? I grant that this man has never been particularly lucid, but he seemed to grasp the systemic nature of democratic voting corruption, specifically as applicable to mail-in ballots, when advising Jimmy Carter.

[TheDeamon]

Drake,

“So people like to defend the institution of police with a "bad apple" argument. Why shouldn't that apply to people involved in voter registration or handling? If we shouldn't condemn the police based on a smattering of accepted bad actors, why should we condemn voting activists on the same basis of isolated anecdotes?“

“Isolated anecdotes” like those that came from your pre-Obama corruption iteration of Uncle Joe? I grant that this man has never been particularly lucid, but he seemed to grasp the systemic nature of democratic voting corruption, specifically as applicable to mail-in ballots, when advising Jimmy Carter.

That was rather interesting. Joe Biden was very clearly opposed to mail in voting because of voter fraud concerns up through at least the 1990's, after which he may have gone silent on the issue for the most part(although his buddy on the issue, Senator McConnel has remained on track), until 2008 and becoming Obama's running mate, after which he became all for it.

[DonaldD]

That was rather interesting. Joe Biden was very clearly opposed to mail in voting because of voter fraud concerns up through at least the 1990's,

In the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, wouldn't it be stupid not to change one's mind?  Unless, of course, people like McConnell have other motivations aside from the actual prevention of fraud for holding onto the disproven rationalization... given this, I wonder why McConnell is still pushing for regulations with such a small benefit (reducing already trivial levels of fraud) but with such high costs (disenfranchising non-trivial numbers of voters.)   There must be a reason, if only we could figure it out...

[TheDrake]

How are you guys even finding material about Biden and mail in voting historically? I can't get past all the most recent news from this election.

I'd be curious to see what his objections were, and whether they are still valid. Although clearly his reasons wouldn't have lined up with noel's assertion that it was the "systemic nature of democratic voting corruption".

[noel c.]

Drake,

“I'd be curious to see what his objections were, and whether they are still valid. Although clearly his reasons wouldn't have lined up with noel's assertion that it was the ‘systemic nature of democratic voting corruption’.”

The article on New Jersey politics should fill in the blanks for you in relation to both ballot “fixing” methods used, and party orientation.

[TheDeamon]

How are you guys even finding material about Biden and mail in voting historically? I can't get past all the most recent news from this election.

I'd be curious to see what his objections were, and whether they are still valid. Although clearly his reasons wouldn't have lined up with noel's assertion that it was the "systemic nature of democratic voting corruption".

1st result in Google: "joe biden mail in voting fraud 1990's"

https://nypost.com/2020/09/19/biden-spent-years-warning-of-voter-fraud-now-call-a-myth/

[TheDrake]

I didn't see anything in the article about mail in voting. It said he welcomed higher penalties for fraud, and that he disliked the idea of same day registration. I clicked through to his speech in the congressional record, but it is 200 pages of unsearchable text. What is significantly lacking is a statement that he thought fraud was widespread.

[noel c.]

Confessions of a voter fraud: I was a master at fixing mail-in ballots

https://nypost.com/2020/08/29/political-insider-explains-voter-fraud-with-mail-in-ballots/

[DonaldD]

Confessions of a voter fraud: I was a master at fixing mail-in ballots

https://nypost.com/2020/08/29/political-insider-explains-voter-fraud-with-mail-in-ballots/

Wow.

Did you actually buy any of that?

[TheDeamon]

Project Veritas has a new video that has another demonstration of ballot fraud happening this past summer during the primary election cycle.

[noel c.]

Donald,

“Did you actually buy any of that?”

In New Jersey, no problem. Those methods of vote fraud have been detected in elections already, including the Luzerne and Delaware County PA, incidents. All are at least as plausible as your “scam, strategy, and happy coincidence”., which, as a means of mass disenfranchisement, you are so giddy about.

[noel c.]

Veritas video, with text:

https://www.projectveritas.com/news/ilhan-omar-connected-cash-for-ballots-voter-fraud-scheme-corrupts-elections/

The third-world Obama tradition continues...

[DonaldD]

Project Veritas has a new video that has another demonstration of ballot fraud happening this past summer during the primary election cycle.

Project Veritas?  Is that really the hill you want to die on?  The group that has already paid settlements and apologized for defamation for deceptively editing video? The group that has defended itself by stating that they are not journalists at all: "O'Keefe stated that he was out to make a point and to damage ACORN and therefore did not act as a journalist objectively reporting a story"?

You're basically buying into highly edited video by a group that has admitted it selectively and dishonestly edits video in order to attack political opponents.

As an aside, ignoring all the pixelated anonymous faces, which laws do you think were broken - what specifically is the fraud that you are buying into?

[TheDeamon]

Project Veritas?  Is that really the hill you want to die on?  The group that has already paid settlements and apologized for defamation for deceptively editing video?

There is a reason I only mentioned it. But to my understanding the only case they "lost" was the one where they were caught out by a law in California which makes it illegal to film a person without their consent. So the "facts" of the video weren't ever disputed in court in a venue where the plaintiff won their case. What they won was a case brought to bear over being filmed without consent.... Which makes for an odd hill to try to attack them on. "This thing really did happen, but they lost in court because they weren't legally allowed to film it."

[noel c.]

Donald,

Is this the defamation suit that you are talking about?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445091-libel-suit-against-project-veritas-thrown-out%3famp

Or this;

https://youtu.be/1g8sdkeBS2o

Or this;

https://earthfmwrth.com/content/national-news/project-veritas-wins-court-case-on-secret-recordings

There are about seven more, should I go on?...

[TheDrake]

So ilhan Omar has a 37 point lead in a district described as extreme. So what exactly would the motive be to cheat? I'm going to go with Veritas hiring paid actors, at least until I see indictments. By the way, how many indictments have their exposures of illegal activity led to?

[noel c.]

Drake,

“So what exactly would the motive be to cheat?”

Really? A talentless 37 year old African refugee, whose main qualifications stem from a family tradition of third-world “government service”, is pulling down $174,000/month, and you do not think she has competition from other aspiring dim-witted public servants?

She who lives by the scam, will die by the scam.

[DonaldD]

James O'Keefe agrees to pay $100,000, apologizes to Juan Carlos Vera, who lost his job as a result of Project Veritas' dishonest manipulation of video.

O'Keefe, through Project Veritas, also settled a wrongful termination suit brought by an ex-employee who was sacked for warning a journalist that O'Keefe planned on luring the journalist onto a yacht and sexually propositioning her.

[noel c.]

Donald,

Does this sound like an admission of dishonest video manipulation; “‘Sadly, this is the cost of exposing the truth’, O'Keefe said by way of explaining the $100,000 settlement. ‘That's why so few people do it.’ “

I saw that video. If what O'Keefe's recording allegedly omitted was that Vera “contacted police“ after the meeting, it probably has something to do with the fact that he was already busted. You are skirting the fact that you are not personally opposed to voter disenfranchisement, just disenfranchisement of desirable votes. Your credibility based upon any principles of ethical behavior has to surmount that hurdle first.

[DonaldD]

I was going to say "No, but this does:" "O'Keefe stated that he was out to make a point and to damage ACORN and therefore did not act as a journalist objectively reporting a story".

However, O'Keefe probably believes that dishonest manipulation of video to expose a greater truth is acceptable, so maybe "no" isn't quite right, either.

[DonaldD]

it probably has something to do with the fact that he was already busted.

Or, we can read what the Attorney General's report had to say:

Immediately after the couple left, Vera telephoned his cousin, Detective Alejandro Hernandez, at the National City Police Department. He left a voicemail message for Detective Hernandez stating that some “crazy people” were in his office providing information. Vera did not explain the substance of the conversation and did not make reference to prostitution or human smuggling on the message. He asked his cousin to call him back. (Interview with Vera; Vera Phone Records, at p. 4 [reflecting a 2-minute call to Detective Hernandez’s cell phone at 6:40 p.m.]; Detective Hernandez Phone Records, at p. 132 [reflecting a call to voicemail at 6:45 p.m.].)
Later that day, Vera also reported the incident to fellow ACORN employee Cruz Acosta. Acosta had been away from the office while the couple was present. Vera explained to him what happened. Vera also reported the incident, either the same day or shortly thereafter, to Mar Murrillon, an ACORN board member. Vera told Murrillon that he had reported the incident to the police. (Vera Interview.)

And you also wrote this:

You are skirting the fact that you are not personally opposed to voter disenfranchisement, just disenfranchisement of desirable votes.

Why do you feel the need to lie about people's positions?  Do you think lying somehow makes you look good?

[noel c.]

Donald,

“However, O'Keefe probably believes that dishonest manipulation of video to expose a greater truth is acceptable, so maybe "no" isn't quite right, either.“

Try again, your quote does not establish, nor even suggest, admission of video manipulation by O'Keefe. Neither he is claiming to be the YouTube derivative of 60 Minutes. “Journalists” identify themselves. Declining to do so is not dishonest.

“Why do you feel the need to lie about people's positions?  Do you think lying somehow makes you look good?“

Why do you habitually project?

Defend your own equivocal ethics before throwing around terms like “dishonest manipulation”, so I will ask again; Is it okay with you if policy induced voting irregularities are employed to rationalize voter disenfranchisement through legislative usurpation; ‘happy coincidence’, or not?

“He left a voicemail message for Detective Hernandez stating that some “crazy people” were in his office providing information.”

Right; good CYA call.

[noel c.]

Donald,

I have got to ask; do you bother checking your references?

Juan Carlos could not even get his story straight after advising O'Keefe on how to place a group of underage El Salvadoran girls into secure housing for prostitution. His cover story was “I never do anything wrong... You can see when he say they have a pimp they bother me because he control me but I don’t want him to control me anymore.”. The video shows something otherwise.

Beyond that, this was not the first time Veritas stung ACORN. In an earlier episode ACORN staff advised O'Keefe on how to get housing assistance for the purpose of establishing a brothel with a dozen girls. The biggest concern that Acorn staff expressed was to ensure that the prostitutes “attended school“, for tax purposes!

Even Barry threw ACORN under the bus, but not you, right?

[DonaldD]

... or one can instead believe the California Attorney General, rather than a fictitious characterization as is noel's usual modus operandi.

Our investigation revealed that Vera speaks limited English. The language barrier, combined with the couple’s peculiar story, left him confused over whether the couple was serious about running a prostitution business and smuggling young girls into San Diego. He felt the couple’s story was constantly changing and made little sense. At first Vera understood there was another pimp running the business and Giles needed help. Then the story evolved in such a way that Vera understood O’Keefe was actually the pimp. Vera felt something strange was going on and was not sure if the situation was legitimate. (Vera Interview.)

Vera went along with the conversation in hopes of getting information from the couple that he could provide to law enforcement in the event they were telling the truth. (Vera Interview.) He asked when and where the girls would be smuggled into the country. (San Diego Tr. 19, 25.) O’Keefe asked for advice about the best place to smuggle the girls in and Vera said Tijuana and that Vera had contacts in Tijuana. Vera stated that he believed O’Keefe was asking whether it was better to bring the girls in through the port in Tijuana or San Diego. He answered just to go along with the conversation and obtain more information from them. He did not give the answer any thought and does not have smuggling contacts. (Vera Interview.)
Vera had Giles write her telephone number and email on a piece of paper. (San Diego Tr. 21, 23.) He also gave them his cell phone number when O’Keefe asked for a contact number. (San Diego Tr. 29.) He told them he would contact them the following day in hopes of getting rid of the couple. (San Diego Tr. 24, 26; Vera Interview.) He took their information in order to provide it to police. (Vera Interview.)

Giles forgot her sunglasses in Vera’s office and Vera brought the glasses to the couple in the front stairwell of the office building. (Unedited San Diego ACORN Video.) Vera continued to speak with Giles and O’Keefe and O’Keefe also recorded this portion of the conversation. Vera asked Giles about her business. (Second San Diego Tr. 1-4; Vera Interview.) He told the couple that ACORN was hosting an immigration event that Friday. (Second San Diego Tr. 6-7.) Vera again told them that he would contact them the next day. He reassured them that they could trust him and that he would not tell anyone about the substance of the conversation. Giles and O’Keefe left a second time. (Second San Diego Tr. 4-7.)
Immediately after the couple left, Vera telephoned his cousin, Detective Alejandro Hernandez, at the National City Police Department. He left a voicemail message for Detective Hernandez stating that some “crazy people” were in his office providing information. Vera did not explain the substance of the conversation and did not make reference to prostitution or human smuggling on the message. He asked his cousin to call him back. (Interview with Vera; Vera Phone Records, at p. 4 [reflecting a 2-minute call to Detective Hernandez’s cell phone at 6:40 p.m.]; Detective Hernandez Phone Records, at p. 132 [reflecting a call to voicemail at 6:45 p.m.].)

Later that day, Vera also reported the incident to fellow ACORN employee Cruz Acosta. Acosta had been away from the office while the couple was present. Vera explained to him what happened. Vera also reported the incident, either the same day or shortly thereafter, to Mar Murrillon, an ACORN board member. Vera told Murrillon that he had reported the incident to the police. (Vera Interview.)
Vera eventually spoke with Detective Hernandez on August 27, 2009. He told Detective Hernandez that a self-admitted prostitute had been to the office and was discussing human smuggling. He did not know the exact location where the smuggling would take place.

Detective Hernandez said he would contact someone in law enforcement who dealt with that area and get back to Vera. (Interview with Detective Alejandro Hernandez, October 8, 2009; Detective Hernandez Phone Records, at p. 115 [reflecting 12-minute call between Vera and Detective Hernandez on August 27, 2009 at 5:07 p.m.].) The next day, Detective Hernandez and his partner, Detective Steve Villariasa, contacted Detective Mark Haas at the San Diego Police Department. Detective Haas works with cases involving human smuggling. He said he would need more information in order to work the case. (Detective Hernandez Interview; Interview with Detective Steve Villariasa, October 8, 2009; Detective Villariasa Phone Records, at p. 86 [reflecting 4-minute call between Detectives Villariasa and Haas on August 28, 2009 at 7:44 a.m.].) Detective Hernandez called Vera and left a message stating that he had information for him that might help. (Detective Hernandez Phone Records, at p. 115 [reflecting 1-minute call between Detective Hernandez and Vera on August 28, 2009 at 10:48 a.m.].)

Vera attempted to acquire more information as Detective Hernandez had requested. He sent O’Keefe and Giles an email at the address Giles had given him. The email asked them to call him. A short time later, O’Keefe called Vera’s cell phone. O’Keefe said the girls would be crossing in Tijuana, but did not give any other details. Vera told O’Keefe he would call him back and hung up. Vera called Detective Hernandez in order to give him the information. (Vera Interview.)

It sounds like Vera spent quite a lot of effort trying to sting O'Keefe, and there is that pesky $100,000 payment, so clearly, O'Keefe's lawyer at least thought Vera had a pretty strong case.

[noel c.]

Donald,

“... or one can instead believe the California Attorney General, rather than a fictitious characterization as is noel's usual modus operandi.”

Would fictitious characterization would that be, Vera lying to his employer? :

https://youtu.be/K9BmoET5w1A

“It sounds like Vera spent quite a lot of effort trying to sting O'Keefe, and there is that pesky $100,000 payment, so clearly, O'Keefe's lawyer at least thought Vera had a pretty strong case.”

You can safely say that a contingency fee agreement made fighting Vera more costly than $100,000. Why did Vera lie to his “supportive employer“ in the first place, to make his sting more believable? We know that it was good enough to get him fired. More broadly, given that this is the second time ACORN staff stepped into the subsidized prostitution conundrum, are you still sympathetic to the notion of their victim status?

Returning to the question which you persist in avoiding: Do you maintain that it is okay to sabotage confidence in election process and outcomes if it results in the “happy coincidence” of disenfranchisement through state legislative usurpation?

[yossarian22c]

Returning to the question which you persist in avoiding: Do you maintain that it is okay to sabotage confidence in election process and outcomes if it results in the “happy coincidence” of disenfranchisement through state legislative usurpation?

Trump seems to be the only one trying to sabotage confidence in the election process.

[noel c.]

Donald,

“Trump seems to be the only one trying to sabotage confidence in the election process.”

I will take that as confirmation that you are projecting once more.

First ACORN sting :

https://youtu.be/cWRTYD26Kxc

[yossarian22c]

“Trump seems to be the only one trying to sabotage confidence in the election process.”

I will take that as confirmation that you are projecting once more.

Trump.

RIGGED 2020 ELECTION: MILLIONS OF MAIL-IN BALLOTS WILL BE PRINTED BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES, AND OTHERS. IT WILL BE THE SCANDAL OF OUR TIMES!

Breaking: Michigan sends absentee ballots to 7.7 million people ahead of Primaries and the General Election. This was done illegally and without authorization by a rogue Secretary of State. I will ask to hold up funding to Michigan if they want to go down this Voter Fraud path.

The fraud and abuse will be an embarrassment to our Country

Anybody, you don't have to know politics, they're going to mail out 80 million ballots. It's impossible. They have no idea. Who's mailing them? Mostly Democrat states and Democrat governors. Well, supposing they don't mail them to Republican neighborhoods. That means they're not going to get them. So they're going to complain and the election's going to be over.

[DonaldD]

Returning to the question which you persist in avoiding: Do you maintain that it is okay to sabotage confidence in election process and outcomes if it results in the “happy coincidence” of disenfranchisement through state legislative usurpation?

It's amazing how you continue to miss the point of that post.  "State legislative usurpation" is specifically what I was warning about - given that I was warning about that issue, it's odd that you think I might be "okay" with it - and sure, that would also end up sabotaging confidence in the election - a bit of a vicious cycle.  But Trump is also sabotaging confidence in the election processes every day, and the risk is that he is doing so in order to facilitate state legislatures overriding vote counts and the voting process - the "usurpation" you so fear in your post.

I am glad that you agree that states should not "usurp" the will of the people and should allow the voting process and results to speak for themselves; I am also hopeful that should such usurpation occur that you will fight against it wholeheartedly.

[rightleft22]

RIGGED 2020 ELECTION: MILLIONS OF MAIL-IN BALLOTS WILL BE PRINTED BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES, AND OTHERS. IT WILL BE THE SCANDAL OF OUR TIMES!

Isn't this type of statement a kind of rhetorical loaded question suggesting that If Trump wins the election wasn't it will not have been rigged but if he losses it is.

On this forum no one would be allowed have such a statement stand so I find it odd that some are defending and or dismissing it.  (Dismissing it by redirecting focus to the debate on Ballots which is a valid debate however a distraction from what Trump is actually saying.)

If you disagree with me its a rigged discussion.

Trump has set it up so that unless the Dem's win big on Election-day they will lose. I don't see how that would not end any trust in the checks and balances within the system. A system that requires trust to run.

[yossarian22c]

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/918080844/philanthropies-asked-to-help-fund-election-equipment-purchases

After Congress didn't provide additional funds to help run the election safely this year, cash-strapped cities and states are turning to private foundations for help buying needed equipment.

And guess what Republicans are doing, suing to prevent elections officials from using the money.