Election Results

[wmLambert]

When asked to supply the evidence Truth the Vote claims to have about election "mules" in AZ they did not hand over the evidence to the authorities who asked for it.

https://www.axios.com/local/phoenix/2022/09/02/2000-mules-group-ignored-arizona-ags-requests-info?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab&fbclid=IwAR05irrVc4wfd0fQIfYrITJiIYBVmwlBLwYMaJrNVnf3ywF-pyT5sMB_mxc

You are on the wrong side, the side of evil and darkness. True the Vote is calling out the Arizona AG and the Criminal Division for over a year of “good faith attempts to work together,” You've been played for suckers. Anyone who believed the stories out of the AG's office should really reexamine their fundamental zealotry of anything that seems to discredit the truth. Please read the Arizona Sun Times' article: https://arizonasuntimes.com/2022/09/05/true-the-vote-calls-out-arizona-ag-criminal-division-over-mishandling-its-2000-mules-complaint-unmasking-informants/

Nor only did the AG's office lie about their meetings with True the Vote, but they disappeared the hard drive especially made for them and handed over in a meeting. They also published the names of whistleblowers which resulted in their being threatened.. "The AGO released its own case notes to the Associated Press — including the names of whistleblowers. [True the Vote’s Catherine Engelbrecht and lead investigator Gregg Phillips of the OPSEC Group, an election intelligence company] said, “One of the people named was a whistleblower shown in the 2000 Mules movie. That’s when we stopped communicating.” One was a judge, and another has received threats as well as being the victim of a tire-slashing incident.

Once again, you have disparaged and smeared the truth by believing the pejorative disinformation from what you want to believe. Too bad for your honesty and morality.

Once again, 2,000 Mules was a legitimate proof of election fraud, which was hidden from sight by those who didn't want to investigate it. There is little you can say that will salvage their impropriety.

[Tom]

Stop being delusional, William.

[yossarian22c]

...
Once again, 2,000 Mules was a legitimate proof of election fraud, which was hidden from sight by those who didn't want to investigate it. There is little you can say that will salvage their impropriety.

You have a film made by a felon convicted of campaign related fraud. I guess you consider that some sort of expertise in election fraud? Why not a document, written reports, published data analysis, linked images of all the vote harvesters? All this could be public and sent to all the appropriate law enforcement authorities, other media to verify, whoever. But that isn't the format he chose. You still can't get yourself to understand why he chose a film format.

Two reasons for a film:
1) To con the Trump crowd out of $20 to get their daily dose of outrage.
2) Its much easier to mislead in a film. He gets complete control over the timing, narrative, and images and its really hard to check because you don't have links to the underlying images or claims.

[msquared]

That one must have really hit home for Wm.

[wmLambert]

...Under the law, an item will not be accepted as evidence during the trial—will not be seen by the jury—unless the chain of custody is an unbroken and fully documented trail without gaps or discrepancies. In order to convict a defendant of a crime, the evidence against them must have been handled in a meticulously careful manner to prevent tampering or contamination.(Emphasis mine.)

As I mentioned before, I was the senior Art Director at the Criminal Justice Institute, 6001 Cass Ave, Detroit MI, designing the training programs to teach judges, AG's, and all responsible investigators in the Criminal Justice genre how to implement and maintain Chain of Custody for all judicial proceedings. I don't know what you think you know - but I taught whoever it was that gave you the pieces of info you posted snippets from. Mac Issac had an unbroken Chain of Custody. It does not have any gaps or discrepancies, except for bogus innuendoes by court flunkies who should know better. When a firefighter throws a melted plastic milk bottle of leftover gasoline out the window of an arson scene to protect the personnel at the scene, it breaks the chain of custody when it is left unsupervised outside. As long as the item is under supervision or under lock and key - which the lap top was - it fulfills all aspects of Chain of Custody. When one supervisor hands an item into another's keeping a signed affidavit goes with it, maintained thereafter by the Criminal Justice organization that received it.

What you misperceive is that the untrue chatter that Russia spoofed the laptop was ever a legal finding. The FBI has announced the laptop is real. They knew it from the onset. There never was any doubt of an unbroken and fully documented trail without gaps or discrepancies. The discrepancies came from evildoers trying to game the system.

[yossarian22c]

...
You are on the wrong side, the side of evil and darkness. True the Vote is calling out the Arizona AG and the Criminal Division for over a year of “good faith attempts to work together,” You've been played for suckers. Anyone who believed the stories out of the AG's office should really reexamine their fundamental zealotry of anything that seems to discredit the truth. Please read the Arizona Sun Times' article: https://arizonasuntimes.com/2022/09/05/true-the-vote-calls-out-arizona-ag-criminal-division-over-mishandling-its-2000-mules-complaint-unmasking-informants/

Nor only did the AG's office lie about their meetings with True the Vote, but they disappeared the hard drive especially made for them and handed over in a meeting. They also published the names of whistleblowers which resulted in their being threatened.. "The AGO released its own case notes to the Associated Press — including the names of whistleblowers. [True the Vote’s Catherine Engelbrecht and lead investigator Gregg Phillips of the OPSEC Group, an election intelligence company] said, “One of the people named was a whistleblower shown in the 2000 Mules movie. That’s when we stopped communicating.” One was a judge, and another has received threats as well as being the victim of a tire-slashing incident.
...

Would you be surprised to learn that the Arizona Sun Times is a sham entity that produces propaganda pieces and does no real reporting?

[Tom]

I taught whoever it was that gave you the pieces of info...

Don't arrogate expertise to yourself here, William. You claim to have been the Senior Art Director for Wayne State University's Criminal Justice Center.

And, no, you don't understand chain of custody. Do you understand why "the laptop was in possession of a tech who may have tampered with the data on it, and then had its hard drive copied multiple times and disseminated to hostile sources who reported on what they found on the copies" makes it very difficult to make a criminal case?

[msquared]

I find it hard to believe that an art director would be teaching stuff like Chain of Custody to LEO.

[msquared]

That must have been a while ago. That address does not have that Institute there now and I find nothing on the web for Criminal Justice Institute in MI.

[yossarian22c]

...

And, no, you don't understand chain of custody. Do you understand why "the laptop was in possession of a tech who may have tampered with the data on it, and then had its hard drive copied multiple times and disseminated to hostile sources who reported on what they found on the copies" makes it very difficult to make a criminal case?

This still assumes that Hunter Biden was in fact the individual that handed the computer off to the blind computer repair man. This seems to be something that has never been verified by anyone. What has been verified is that some of the emails on the laptop did belong to Hunter Biden. And unnamed sources have said that the laptop at one time was Hunter Biden's. Beyond that we have no confirmed information on that laptop that shows the commission of any crime.

[Wayward Son]

...Under the law, an item will not be accepted as evidence during the trial—will not be seen by the jury—unless the chain of custody is an unbroken and fully documented trail without gaps or discrepancies. In order to convict a defendant of a crime, the evidence against them must have been handled in a meticulously careful manner to prevent tampering or contamination.(Emphasis mine.)

As I mentioned before, I was the senior Art Director at the Criminal Justice Institute, 6001 Cass Ave, Detroit MI, designing the training programs to teach judges, AG's, and all responsible investigators in the Criminal Justice genre how to implement and maintain Chain of Custody for all judicial proceedings. I don't know what you think you know - but I taught whoever it was that gave you the pieces of info you posted snippets from. Mac Issac had an unbroken Chain of Custody. It does not have any gaps or discrepancies, except for bogus innuendoes by court flunkies who should know better. When a firefighter throws a melted plastic milk bottle of leftover gasoline out the window of an arson scene to protect the personnel at the scene, it breaks the chain of custody when it is left unsupervised outside. As long as the item is under supervision or under lock and key - which the lap top was - it fulfills all aspects of Chain of Custody. When one supervisor hands an item into another's keeping a signed affidavit goes with it, maintained thereafter by the Criminal Justice organization that received it.

What you misperceive is that the untrue chatter that Russia spoofed the laptop was ever a legal finding. The FBI has announced the laptop is real. They knew it from the onset. There never was any doubt of an unbroken and fully documented trail without gaps or discrepancies. The discrepancies came from evildoers trying to game the system.

I think I see the confusion that is causing our disagreement here.

In a technical sense, you could say that there is a Chain of Custody.  From when Hunter dropped off the laptop (assuming that is was Hunter who did so), we know who had possession of the laptop until the present time.  That would be a Chain of Custody.

However, you seen to be ignoring my highlighted part in the quote.  Although we know who had it at any given time, it was not held in "a meticulously careful manner to prevent tampering or contamination" the entire time.  Which means that while it was in a "chain of custody," it does not rise to the legal definition of a Chain of Custody.

Let me give you an example.

You go to a pool and give your wallet to an attendant at that pool.  He puts it into a cubby hole to hold it while you swim.

While you are swimming, the police come in with a warrant.  Child pornography has been reported in the pool, and they have come to search the premises.  They search your wallet (since it is on the premises--let's not worry if it's legal or not, this is just an example ), and discover a child porn photo folder up in it.  The police immediately take custody of it, and you.

Now, you have to admit that the Chain of Custody was never broken.  You handed it the attendant; he put it in the cubby hole behind him; the attendant never left the area; the police took it out of the cubby hole.  At every given moment, it is known who had control of your wallet.

But--and this is the important thing--you cannot infer that your wallet was not tampered with.  Because the pool attendant could have slipped that photo into your wallet while he was alone at the desk, perhaps because he heard the police coming.  (Why do you think the police got the warrant in the first place? )  This is because one of the persons who had control of your wallet was not trustworthy.

You keep saying that the laptop could not have been tampered with because there was an unbroken Chain of Custody.  But we don't know how trustworthy the computer repairman is.  And we don't know how securely he kept that laptop.  For these reasons, while there is a "chain of custody," it does not reach the legal standard of a Chain of Custody of evidence that could not have been tampered with.

Do you understand my point?  Or do you think you should be put on the sexual predator list for the rest of your life in the example above?

[TheDeamon]

We aren't talking about what other states are doing.  Your claim is that California's re-districting is a shining example of Democratic run states trying to "get the politics out of redistricting and end gerrymandering" but unfortunately, just like in New York, having an 'Independent" commission does not guarantee a non partisan gerrymander.  In most cases it only provides a veil of political cover for those states trying to claim so.

There is an important distinction to be made when it comes there being a difference between "independent" and "non-partisan." They are not inherently synonyms even if people like to treat them as such.

[msquared]

Dr Oz says he would have certified the 2020 results.  I wonder how long before Trump calls him a RINO never Trump loser?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dr-oz-throws-trump-under-191645135.html

[Wayward Son]

Now it appears that a significant group of people are trying to sabotage their local elections.

Supporters of former president Donald Trump have swamped local election offices across the nation in recent weeks with a coordinated campaign of requests for 2020 voting records, in some cases paralyzing preparations for the fall election season.

In nearly two dozen states and scores of counties, election officials are fielding what many describe as an unprecedented wave of public records requests in the final weeks of summer, one they say may be intended to hinder their work and weaken an already strained system. The avalanche of sometimes identically worded requests has forced some to dedicate days to the process of responding even as they scurry to finalize polling locations, mail out absentee ballots and prepare for early voting in October, officials said.

In Wisconsin, one recent request asks for 34 different types of documents. In North Carolina, hundreds of requests came in at state and local offices on one day alone. In Kentucky, officials don’t recognize the technical-sounding documents they’re being asked to produce — and when they seek clarification, the requesters say they don’t know, either.

The use of mass records requests by the former president’s supporters effectively weaponizes laws aimed at promoting principles of a democratic system — that the government should be transparent and accountable. Public records requests are a key feature of that system, used by regular citizens, journalists and others. In interviews, officials emphasized that they are trying to follow the law and fulfill the requests, but they also believe the system is being abused.

“When you are asking for every single document under the sun, it becomes difficult for us to do our job,” said Claire Woodall-Vogg, the executive director of the Milwaukee Election Commission.

Many administrators said they suspect that may be the point.

They believe that those organizing the effort are not out for information but rather are trying to cause chaos as their fall crunchtime approaches, making it more difficult to run smooth elections and giving critics new openings to attack the integrity of election administration in the United States. They point to the identical nature of the requests as well as the number of duplicates individual counties have received — each one of which they must respond to, by law.

“It’s the public’s right to transparency, and I understand that,” said Chuck Broerman, the Republican clerk of El Paso County, Colo., who has hired an additional employee for the 10-person elections division to handle public records requests. “But at the same time, it’s been reported to me that some of this has been done perhaps deliberately to break the system. And you have to ask yourself, why do they want to do that?”

Yeah--why do they want to do that? 

[TheDrake]

Another question to ask - why does anyone have to request anything? Why isn't it already public? Maybe this can prompt governments to be proactively transparent. Maybe people shouldn't have to file an FOIA request, maybe the material should be freely available. Maybe all documents should be redacted and made available. Then it would be pretty easy to send out the form letter when someone who requests something that cannot be made available, because you've already done the work. I'm not backing what Lindell and co are doing, it is reprehensible, but just pondering on the matter.

[wmLambert]

...one of the persons who had control of your wallet was not trustworthy.

You keep saying that the laptop could not have been tampered with because there was an unbroken Chain of Custody.  But we don't know how trustworthy the computer repairman is.  And we don't know how securely he kept that laptop.  For these reasons, while there is a "chain of custody," it does not reach the legal standard of a Chain of Custody of evidence that could not have been tampered with.

Do you understand my point?  Or do you think you should be put on the sexual predator list for the rest of your life in the example above?

Again, snippets of information - but not much understanding. Chain of Custody says that the supervision of the item was there. At this point, any legal actions using the laptop is admissible. No "lack of standing to hide it from viewing. If there is an issue with the contents - then the contents may be contested - but not its admissibility.

No issues have been raised about Mac Issac's supervision, nor adulteration of the contents. suspicion is not admissible.

One important aspect that you apologists always avoid, is that this all occurred well before the election, and there was never any hint of anything that made the laptop suspect. The sole reason for stopping all reporting of an open story was to protect Biden. Remember, at the time, the FBI already knew there was no Trump collusion with Russia. there was not even a suspicion of wrong-doing - except their own.

[wmLambert]

Now it appears that a significant group of people are trying to sabotage their local elections.

Evidently, Amy Gardner and Patrick Marley, the authors of this propaganda hit piece were attacking Mike Lindell's efforts to generate the cast vote records before the tasking period before the Labor Day weekend expired. No mystery there. They used the term "Election Deniers" as a pejorative insinuating an effort to Block the work of election officials rather than fix bad and illegal procedures. Why would anyone want to not have fair and honest elections?

One reason they are fighting the fixing of what is wrong is the same reason a Clinton-Appointed Federal Judge barred Arizona officials From enforcing new law to remove dead voters, non-residents, and non-citizens from voter rolls:

https://republicbrief.com/clinton-appointed-federal-judge-bars-arizona-officials-from-enforcing-new-law-to-remove-dead-voters-non-residents-and-non-citizens-from-voter-rolls/

Stop the complaining and personal attacks and please explain why anyone wants these illegal voters left on the rolls.

[TheDrake]

Now it appears that a significant group of people are trying to sabotage their local elections.

Evidently, Amy Gardner and Patrick Marley, the authors of this propaganda hit piece were attacking Mike Lindell's efforts to generate the cast vote records before the tasking period before the Labor Day weekend expired. No mystery there. They used the term "Election Deniers" as a pejorative insinuating an effort to Block the work of election officials rather than fix bad and illegal procedures. Why would anyone want to not have fair and honest elections?

One reason they are fighting the fixing of what is wrong is the same reason a Clinton-Appointed Federal Judge barred Arizona officials From enforcing new law to remove dead voters, non-residents, and non-citizens from voter rolls:

https://republicbrief.com/clinton-appointed-federal-judge-bars-arizona-officials-from-enforcing-new-law-to-remove-dead-voters-non-residents-and-non-citizens-from-voter-rolls/

Stop the complaining and personal attacks and please explain why anyone wants these illegal voters left on the rolls.

The problem comes in when they start wiping out valid voters. Which is what they are really trying to do.

Do you even know what this law does?

Attorneys for the Arizona Asian American Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander for Equity Coalition say the provision in HB 2243 creates an "anyone-can-accuse 'investigation of those we have reason to believe are not U.S. citizens' scheme.'' The result they said, will result in "arbitrary'' investigations using databases not designed to determine voting eligibility.

What's worse said Amit Makker, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, is that anyone who does not provide what he called "onerous evidence of citizenship'' within 35 days is referred to the county attorney and attorney general for criminal investigation.''

So if I'm your neighbor, wm, and I assert that you are not a citizen, you will have 35 days to get your ass down to city hall to prove that you are a citizen.

Does that seem right to you? Aren't you worried that Soros and friends are going to weaponize the law to target Republican voters?

Ah, well, they fixed that part of the bill. Now they let the official "obtain" information. Wonder how they'll do that?

why this law harms citizens who want to vote

Voter advocates feel differently. They point to a remaining provision directing recorders with “reason to believe” a voter isn’t a citizen to check whether the person is in the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, a federal database most often used by agencies to verify immigration status for the purposes of receiving benefits.

The law “could be easily manipulated by vigilantes who are using racist attacks against people in our voter database,” said Alex Gulotta, the Arizona director of All Voting Is Local.

The database could be inaccurate or out of date, and federal officials have in the past said it isn’t meant to be used this way. Voting advocates say relying on it could violate state and federal law.

So here, this provision is specifically designed to look for poor immigrants. Nobody updates that database to reflect change in citizenship status, so if you were a legal immigrant who received public assistance, you get entered into that database and when you get your citizenship, and register to vote, you'll get your registration cancelled because you were previously not a citizen. Assuming you don't race down within the narrow 35 day window of time to protect your registration.

Not to mention false matches, like being matched up with some other Juan Garcia in the database.

You want to make sure non-citizens are not voting? Fine by me, as long as the method creates an equal amount of hassle for every voter. Make Bill Smith march down to the clerk's office with his ID in hand. By the way, they're not allowed to use their automobile and will have to miss work getting down there.

[Wayward Son]

...one of the persons who had control of your wallet was not trustworthy.

You keep saying that the laptop could not have been tampered with because there was an unbroken Chain of Custody.  But we don't know how trustworthy the computer repairman is.  And we don't know how securely he kept that laptop.  For these reasons, while there is a "chain of custody," it does not reach the legal standard of a Chain of Custody of evidence that could not have been tampered with.

Do you understand my point?  Or do you think you should be put on the sexual predator list for the rest of your life in the example above?

Again, snippets of information - but not much understanding. Chain of Custody says that the supervision of the item was there. At this point, any legal actions using the laptop is admissible. No "lack of standing to hide it from viewing. If there is an issue with the contents - then the contents may be contested - but not its admissibility.

Which is all find and dandy for a court of law.  But the issue is whether the contents of the laptop are Hunter Biden's and Hunter Biden's alone.  And Chain of Custody does NOT prove that, since one of the person's who had custody is not above suspicion that he could have altered the contents.

No issues have been raised about Mac Issac's supervision, nor adulteration of the contents. Suspicion is not admissible.

Of course no one has raised any issues about the repairman's supervision--because it hasn't come into a court of law yet. If I were a lawyer, the first thing I would do is ask, "How far can you trust Mr. Mac Issac?  A computer repairman, not a sworn member of the court or law enforcement.  A man who released a copy of what he said he found on the laptop to Rudy Guilliani, who he knew would present it in the worst possible light for his political opponents.  Why did Mr. Mac Issac give a copy to Rudy?  What plausible reason would he have, except to trash Hunter Biden?  And if he was willing to trash Hunter by releasing his copy, how do we know that he didn't add files to that copy, or perhaps allow someone else to add files?"

You say that suspicion is not admissible, but suspicion founded on facts is also known as reasonable doubt.

Now, perhaps there are facts known today that make such questions irrelevant (I don't know), but they certainly were not known just before the election.   

One important aspect that you apologists always avoid, is that this all occurred well before the election, and there was never any hint of anything that made the laptop suspect. The sole reason for stopping all reporting of an open story was to protect Biden. Remember, at the time, the FBI already knew there was no Trump collusion with Russia. there was not even a suspicion of wrong-doing - except their own.

With the uncertainties swirling around the laptop, it was responsible reporting not to jump to conclusions (as the Right Wing media did) and declare all sorts of unknown things, such as saying that everything on the laptop must have been from Hunter Biden.  The fact that you demand that facts that were not known at the time to have been widely published just shows your bias in the matter, not your sense of fairness.

[Wayward Son]

Now it appears that a significant group of people are trying to sabotage their local elections.

Evidently, Amy Gardner and Patrick Marley, the authors of this propaganda hit piece were attacking Mike Lindell's efforts to generate the cast vote records before the tasking period before the Labor Day weekend expired. No mystery there. They used the term "Election Deniers" as a pejorative insinuating an effort to Block the work of election officials rather than fix bad and illegal procedures. Why would anyone want to not have fair and honest elections?

One reason they are fighting the fixing of what is wrong is the same reason a Clinton-Appointed Federal Judge barred Arizona officials From enforcing new law to remove dead voters, non-residents, and non-citizens from voter rolls:

https://republicbrief.com/clinton-appointed-federal-judge-bars-arizona-officials-from-enforcing-new-law-to-remove-dead-voters-non-residents-and-non-citizens-from-voter-rolls/

Stop the complaining and personal attacks and please explain why anyone wants these illegal voters left on the rolls.

I'm sorry.  Can you explain how a judge stopping a law in Arizona affects the electoral count in Wisconsin? In Colorado? In North Carolina? In Missouri?

And could you explain how the guy in Kentucky would use the documents he specifically requested to prove voter fraud when he didn't even know what the hell they were?? 

And why are these people asking for them now?  I mean, wouldn't right after the election, when everything was still fresh, be a better time?  Why wait until just before the next election to ask for them?  Were they all lazy and didn't get around to it until now? 

I know you like to believe that these people are only doing these things from the purest of intentions, but you have to admit, with the timing, the quantities of requests, the identical wording of many of the requests, the fact that some of the people don't even know what they are requesting--that this isn't about the information.  It's about straining the resources of election departments, in order to cast doubt about the results, in order to make sure that your vote doesn't count and that they can dictate to you who "actually" won.

I know you are concerned about election fraud.  But wouldn't the election departments' efforts be better used to try to identify and prevent such fraud now than to fulfill information requests about the last election?  Wouldn't that prevent more fraud?  Or is voter fraud really what you are concerned about?

Because it doesn't seem to be what these people are concerned about. 

[wmLambert]

TheDrake and Wayward Son, your posts are both reasonable except for the main idea.

Yes, any law can be gamed - but you want the gaming only on the Democrat side, with the main targets of the law: dead people, non-citizens, and non-registered names to be allowed to vote. One law does not fix all the possible problems - but doing nothing guarantees the problems continue. If there is a problem with the mechanics, let's fix them - but doing nothing is far worse. If there is a database that does not establish their eligibility to vote correctly, then fix the database. As you said, the 35-day rule was put in to guarantee a valid voter can't be excluded unfairly. What you want are allowing the few exceptions that are fixable to allow vote-scamming for the rest of the ineligible voters. I'm sure the three or four people who recently won their citizenship which don't show up on some database can benefit from volunteer help from your party for far less cost than what was used to allow illegal votes.

As for the laundry list of states affected by the law, it is the idea that all states should be legal - not just some of them

You guys are once again on the wrong side. You want 50,000 or more illegal votes who all vote Democrat, because you fear four or five can't figure how to ensure their votes will be acceptable. You have no confidence on who is able to do simple things, and if they can't due to funds or travel - then a few volunteers would help them do what the law established to fix any hard-to-anticipate exclusions.

[Tom]

It's worth noting that Wisconsin Republicans are working very hard to ensure that volunteers cannot help people who lack the funds and/or transportation to vote.

[wmLambert]

...I know you like to believe that these people are only doing these things from the purest of intentions, but you have to admit, with the timing, the quantities of requests, the identical wording of many of the requests, the fact that some of the people don't even know what they are requesting--that this isn't about the information.  It's about straining the resources of election departments, in order to cast doubt about the results, in order to make sure that your vote doesn't count and that they can dictate to you who "actually" won.

No, it's not that there aren't some people who game the system on all sides. But maligning the good people who just want the voting to be legal is wrong. Like I said you are on the wrong side.

The reason the requests were made in the way they were is because Mike Lindell learned about the deadline rather recently without enough tine to do anything in other than a rushed manner, and generally asked for help. Your surmise that straining the resources of election departments, in order to cast doubt about the results, is in order to make sure that your vote doesn't count and that they can dictate to you who "actually" won - is specious. Any election department is already charged with securing a legal voting list. Any help given them is a benefit - not a hindrance. Wouldn't you prefer to err on the side of honesty and legality than allowing vote-scamming?

[wmLambert]

It's worth noting that Wisconsin Republicans are working very hard to ensure that volunteers cannot help people who lack the funds and/or transportation to vote.

Really? Who told you that? If you mean to stop ballot harvesting, that is a good thing - not a bad thing. Volunteers are always allowed to provide transportation and information. What they can't do is scam the vote. Democrats are famous for giving voters "walking-around money" to get them to the polls.

[TheDrake]

Now it appears that a significant group of people are trying to sabotage their local elections.

Evidently, Amy Gardner and Patrick Marley, the authors of this propaganda hit piece were attacking Mike Lindell's efforts to generate the cast vote records before the tasking period before the Labor Day weekend expired. No mystery there. They used the term "Election Deniers" as a pejorative insinuating an effort to Block the work of election officials rather than fix bad and illegal procedures. Why would anyone want to not have fair and honest elections?

One reason they are fighting the fixing of what is wrong is the same reason a Clinton-Appointed Federal Judge barred Arizona officials From enforcing new law to remove dead voters, non-residents, and non-citizens from voter rolls:

https://republicbrief.com/clinton-appointed-federal-judge-bars-arizona-officials-from-enforcing-new-law-to-remove-dead-voters-non-residents-and-non-citizens-from-voter-rolls/

Stop the complaining and personal attacks and please explain why anyone wants these illegal voters left on the rolls.

The problem comes in when they start wiping out valid voters. Which is what they are really trying to do.

Do you even know what this law does?

Attorneys for the Arizona Asian American Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander for Equity Coalition say the provision in HB 2243 creates an "anyone-can-accuse 'investigation of those we have reason to believe are not U.S. citizens' scheme.'' The result they said, will result in "arbitrary'' investigations using databases not designed to determine voting eligibility.

What's worse said Amit Makker, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, is that anyone who does not provide what he called "onerous evidence of citizenship'' within 35 days is referred to the county attorney and attorney general for criminal investigation.''

So if I'm your neighbor, wm, and I assert that you are not a citizen, you will have 35 days to get your ass down to city hall to prove that you are a citizen.

Does that seem right to you? Aren't you worried that Soros and friends are going to weaponize the law to target Republican voters?

Ah, well, they fixed that part of the bill. Now they let the official "obtain" information. Wonder how they'll do that?

why this law harms citizens who want to vote

Voter advocates feel differently. They point to a remaining provision directing recorders with “reason to believe” a voter isn’t a citizen to check whether the person is in the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, a federal database most often used by agencies to verify immigration status for the purposes of receiving benefits.

The law “could be easily manipulated by vigilantes who are using racist attacks against people in our voter database,” said Alex Gulotta, the Arizona director of All Voting Is Local.

The database could be inaccurate or out of date, and federal officials have in the past said it isn’t meant to be used this way. Voting advocates say relying on it could violate state and federal law.

So here, this provision is specifically designed to look for poor immigrants. Nobody updates that database to reflect change in citizenship status, so if you were a legal immigrant who received public assistance, you get entered into that database and when you get your citizenship, and register to vote, you'll get your registration cancelled because you were previously not a citizen. Assuming you don't race down within the narrow 35 day window of time to protect your registration.

Not to mention false matches, like being matched up with some other Juan Garcia in the database.

You want to make sure non-citizens are not voting? Fine by me, as long as the method creates an equal amount of hassle for every voter. Make Bill Smith march down to the clerk's office with his ID in hand. By the way, they're not allowed to use their automobile and will have to miss work getting down there.

Apologies for botching these quote blocks. I think it is probably clear that the text wasn't actually written by wm.

[TheDrake]

I'm sure the three or four people who recently won their citizenship which don't show up on some database can benefit from volunteer help from your party for far less cost than what was used to allow illegal votes.

Actually....

Nearly half of all immigrants in Arizona are naturalized U.S. citizens.

431,667 immigrants (45 percent) had naturalized as of 2018, and 219,447 immigrants were eligible to become naturalized U.S. citizens in 2017.

That's 200,000 in one year, 400,000 in an election cycle, yes? That's why Republicans are desperate to suppress them. Even if your grossly exaggerated suggestion of 50,000, that's 8x more people. Not three or four. Now, I don't know how many of those eligible actually applied for citizenship, but its a hell of a lot.

[Tom]

I know you were asking rhetorically, William, but the leader of the Wisconsin GOP is actually on record as saying, in front of a crowded room, that the fewer people vote in Wisconsin, the better it is for his party.

There are very few things that Wisconsin Republicans do consistently. One of them is reducing voting opportunities by any means available. You'll want to look up "demographic deterrence strategy."

[wmLambert]

I see. Several replies - but no one had the moral courage to say scamming the vote is bad.

The only real response was to try to find any off-hand remark that may look sinister by any GOP.

The reason any intelligent person wants a smaller vote is because that would indicate less vote-scamming. Last election, Trump broke all records for votes won. Far more than Obama or Clinton. He also had huge inroads in the voting blocs that Democrats needed to win. It was Pelosi's first bill when she gained the House majority that enabled ballot-harvesting. It was in the planning for two years, and miraculously - even though Trump's huge numbers in every group should have cemented his victory.

In other words - there are no election deniers, but there are vote-scammers. You know they did it, but their long-time planning protected the scamming. Trump graciously stepped-down rather than cause problems - not like Hillary who never admitted she lost because of her incompetence, and spent his entire term blocking and mocking his every action. When Biden was sworn in, he spent his entire time blaming Trump for his own ineptitude.

[Tom]

The reason any intelligent person wants a smaller vote is because that would indicate less vote-scamming.

William, do you sincerely believe this to be the case, or are you knowingly spouting a bit of propaganda?
I ask because it's unfortunately hard for me to tell. If you would like to be confronted by evidence that people -- mostly Republicans, so I suppose their intelligence could be up for debate -- have reasons to want fewer votes that are not tied to vote-scamming, I would be happy to provide some, but I'd like to know before I bother that you honestly just haven't encountered this evidence before and aren't simply pretending to be a babe in the woods.

[Wayward Son]

You want 50,000 or more illegal votes who all vote Democrat, because you fear four or five can't figure how to ensure their votes will be acceptable.

Here's the thing, William: There are no 50,000 illegal votes in any state.  And certainly not any of the states that I listed.

How can I know?  Because all those things you talked about--checking to make sure only citizens can vote--is what election officials do, every election.  They are already doing what you want them to do.  And from what we saw in the last election, they are doing a pretty good job.

Sure, there are god-d@mned liars who will tell you that there we hundreds of thousands--millions!--of illegal votes.  But they are liars.  They never show the evidence they supposedly have, because they don't have it.

So when they say they want to prevent 50,000 illegal voters from voting, they end up preventing 40,000 - 49,000+ legal voters from voting.  They just tell you they are illegal.  They don't mention that most are on one side of the political spectrum.  And that it helps them to win by disenfranchising these voters.

If they really wanted to prevent voter fraud without tipping the scale from one side or the other, they would also help voters prove they are legal.  They would help people who are burdened by the new identity laws provide their documentation.  And they would try their hardest to make sure not a single legal voter would lose their constitutional right to vote by their new laws.

But they never do.  Because they don't want to.

Is it really worth preventing a handful of illegal votes by preventing thousands of legal votes, one of which could be yours? 

[TheDrake]

Trump graciously stepped-down

That might be the most illucid statement you've made yet, wm.

[NobleHunter]

Let me get this straight. Less vote means less vote scamming, therefore more votes means more scamming and Trump got so many "more votes" that he broke records.

Uh, that doesn't look good for Trump.

[msquared]

Only Dems cheat at elections. Ignore all of the other examples of Republicans committing voter fraud, like Mark Meadows or the dozens of other proven cases of Republican voter fraud.

The fact that the proof is not visible is just proof of how devious and smart these people are. The lack of proof is proof.

[TheDrake]

We're talking about people who think the burden of proof has been met for a dozen Clinton murders, pedophile pizza parlors, and JFK Jr rising from the dead.

[msquared]

More voter fraud.  Again, guess who is doing it?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-election-official-arrested-upstate-024900108.html

[TheDrake]

The Times Union reported that he was subpoenaed earlier this year in connection with a sweeping ballot probe that has also led a Troy city councilwoman to plead guilty to a count of identity theft.

Maybe they'll stop calling for probes when they realize they are finding mostly Republican fraud?

[yossarian22c]

The Times Union reported that he was subpoenaed earlier this year in connection with a sweeping ballot probe that has also led a Troy city councilwoman to plead guilty to a count of identity theft.

Maybe they'll stop calling for probes when they realize they are finding mostly Republican fraud?

I'm sure they'll just add another layer to the conspiracy theory. That all the people looking into it are covering for the democrats or that the democrats are so organized and good at it that they leave no evidence. Unlike the Republicans who just have the occasional bad apple (as Chief of Staff to the president) but they aren't organized or good at it therefore it's really the Democrats who are committing most of the voting fraud.

[msquared]

Well the MyPillow guy tried to get the Smartmatic suite dismissed and was not able to.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-refuses-lindell-motion-dismiss-155929037.html


I wonder if he will learn that if he gives discounts to his business while promoting faleshoods, that is not a First Amendment issue. Also, lying is not protected  by the First Amendment in civil cases.

[wmLambert]

We're talking about people who think the burden of proof has been met for a dozen Clinton murders, pedophile pizza parlors, and JFK Jr rising from the dead.

Not a dozen Clinton murders. There were more like a hundred Arkancides (where a potential witness against the Clintons were found dead before being able to testify. The Arkansas Medical Examiner Fahmy Malak who repeatedly obstructed justice by declaring murders as "suicides" or "accidents." Many of his Arkancides were called suicides with bullet wounds to the back of the head. No pedophile pizza parlors - but Clinton was a regular at Jeffrey Epstein's pedophile island. And JFK didn't rise from the dead, But the Daley machine in Chicago did secure his election from the cemeteries there.

Well the MyPillow guy tried to get the Smartmatic suite dismissed and was not able to.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-refuses-lindell-motion-dismiss-155929037.html

I wonder if he will learn that if he gives discounts to his business while promoting faleshoods, that is not a First Amendment issue. Also, lying is not protected  by the First Amendment in civil cases.

What falsehoods? He only asked for the unread affidavits to be recognized. He also nailed Dominion to the wall with their claim that their machines could not be hacked - and that any claims otherwise was conspiracy theory. But then again, this past primary season, a voting machine was proved to have been hacked. The courts established that one candidate received zero votes, and ultimately took the win away from the machine winner, and gave it to the real winner. The court said the machine was hacked - so it is now confirmed that the claim of non-hackability was the lie. The official court decision is that paper ballots are the only way to have secure votes.

"Government Admits Dominion Voting Machines Vulnerable to Hacking in 16 States.

Dominion voting machines have the potential to be breached, according to an advisory from the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

These, of course, are the machines that caused controversy in the 2020 election.

The Dominion machines are now shown to have nine vulnerabilities, according to the Friday advisory."

(https://www.westernjournal.com/government-admits-dominion-voting-machines-vulnerable-hacking-16-states/)

[TheDrake]

The flaws, many of which are highly technical and which mostly stem from machine design as opposed to coding errors, generally require an attacker to have physical access to the devices or other equipment used to manage the election, CISA said.

But you already know this. Almost any electronic system is vulnerable to hacking if someone gains access to the physical machines for a significant period of time. That's why there are safeguards to prevent people from messing with them. You'd only be worried about that if you already thought there was widespread interstate fraud being committed by elections officials. Which is nonsense on its face.

[msquared]

Wm why do you change the subject of what the story was about. This is about Smartmatic, which has been lumped into the same group as Dominion. Smartmatic was used in one county in the whole country.

[msquared]

Talk about being hacked. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/video-shows-trump-allies-handling-121425894.html

[wmLambert]

Wm why do you change the subject of what the story was about. This is about Smartmatic, which has been lumped into the same group as Dominion. Smartmatic was used in one county in the whole country.

No, the government said machines in 16 states were proved to be hackable from external sources. Even if someone had local access, the safeguards already employed did not work and the results of elections had to be reversed, the machine selected winner tossed out of office and replaced by the actual winner from hand counts. It was the government agency charged with election security that said only paper ballots were safe.

Now, how again is Lindell in any jeopardy?

[wmLambert]

Please remember that in 2020, The electiom machines sent their digital count to Spain, where it was sorted and counted.

[NobleHunter]

How many hand recounts has Trump won?

[Tom]

You need to start using better information sources, William, or you are never going to be able to make sense of the world.

(For example: when you talk about "sent their digital count to Spain," are you rehashing the whole Scytl lie, which originally had Louis Gohmert claim that the Army had seized a Spanish company's server in Germany based on paid Russian disinformation "leaked" on an Indian blog? I can't think of anything else you could mean, but the claim that the tiny handful of Scytl machines used during American elections -- which BTW aren't affiliated with either of the two companies we've discussed so far, Smartmatic OR Dominion, and none of which are voting machines -- actually send their information to Spain instead of American-hosted AWS buckets is a pretty egregious misrepresentation.)

[yossarian22c]

Wm why do you change the subject of what the story was about. This is about Smartmatic, which has been lumped into the same group as Dominion. Smartmatic was used in one county in the whole country.

...
Now, how again is Lindell in any jeopardy?

Lindell isn't being sued for saying that it is possible to hack voting machines. He's being sued for much more specific false claims he made about the companies and their employees.

[msquared]

And Lindell said that Smartmatic was running those machines. And Smartmatic only ran machines in 1 county. 1 county in the whole USA.  If Lindell did not use all of the social media I would say he was a Luddite, but he is just ignorant (well was ignorant. Now he is willfully stupid).

[wmLambert]

And Lindell said that Smartmatic was running those machines. And Smartmatic only ran machines in 1 county. 1 county in the whole USA.  If Lindell did not use all of the social media I would say he was a Luddite, but he is just ignorant (well was ignorant. Now he is willfully stupid).

"Government Admits Dominion Voting Machines Vulnerable to Hacking in 16 States.

Dominion voting machines have the potential to be breached, according to an advisory from the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

These, of course, are the machines that caused controversy in the 2020 election.

The Dominion machines are now shown to have nine vulnerabilities, according to the Friday advisory."

(https://www.westernjournal.com/government-admits-dominion-voting-machines-vulnerable-hacking-16-states/)

[msquared]

I am not talking about Dominion. Why do you keep going back to them?