Election Results

[wmLambert]

ccording to Sidney Powell, servers seized by US Army in Germany Friday hosting the Dominion & Hammer election software system used by 28 US states tell a very interesting story.

Early data analysis show Trump won with 410 electoral votes and Dominion & Hammer switched Trump votes to Biden.

See: https://welovetrump.com/2020/11/17/rumors-fly-that-server-seized-in-raid-shows-trump-actually-got-410-electoral-votes-media-panics/

[DonaldD]

I thought Michigan was going to be decided by the legislature as a result of the certification being rejected... and that the legislature was going to send electors supporting Trump...?  It's hard to keep track of all that straw upon which you are grasping.

It's interesting, though, that none of those votes were switched in Georgia, where the full manual recount was done.  Very lucky for Dominion that they decided not to flip anything in Georgia!

[DonaldD]

but seriously... servers in Germany were "seized" and the information in Germany proved that votes were switched in the US, because, apparently, the servers in Germany were keeping an audit of the cheating going on in the states.

Do you ever question anything before you post?

[yossarian22c]

Too bad the company doesn’t have any servers in Germany.

Also the us military doesn’t seize servers in NATO countries. If there were going to be an operation like that it would be the German police coordinating with the FBI.

And 410 electoral college votes?!? I guess if you’re going to lie, lie big.

[yossarian22c]

Also imagine the uproar if the 5500 ballots in Georgia had been found in the more Democratic areas.

It has narrowed the count by about 1000. Guess the recount is having a larger than expected impact but still far below the threshold of the difference.

[TheDrake]

I'm going to give lambert the benefit of the doubt and suppose that he posted this as satire.

[Aris Katsaris]

Sad thing is I'm giving it about 50/50 odds that Trump will also soon start tweeting he won 410 electoral votes, based on this non-existent raid on the non-existent Frankfurt offices.

He'll then fire any official who insists that there was no such raid on offices, or indeed any offices in Frankfurt.

[DonaldD]

It would be nice if it was satire, but has anybody checked that Twitter link he provided? It was truly sad... so many people absolutely desperate for this clearly wackadoodle theory to be true, thanking God for the story coming out, thanking God for Trump (or maybe the other way around) and of course, so much pleasure at finally owning the libs (and of course, lots of "throw Biden in jail).

So many people, so damaged.

[Wayward Son]

I love how the article mentions that the Dominion & Hammer software is used by 28 states, but the map shows the "real" results for all 50 states, including the 22 that don't use the software and wouldn't be on the server! 

[DonaldD]

The Republican Secretary of State for Georgia, Brad Raffensberger, has told the Washington Post that Lindsey Graham, among other Republicans, pressured him to throw away legal ballots. 

It's now been two days... and I am shocked - shocked, I say! - that all those folks who have been so concerned about fraud in the electoral process have stayed silent in the face of evidence directly implicating a high ranking party member in an attempt to manipulate vote counts in 3 separate states.

Again, I am shocked they are not strongly advocating for an investigation to be opened.

Another day goes by, and... wait, what's that?  Another high ranking Republican calls somebody responsible for the counting and/or validation of votes out of an abundance of concern?  In a state that just coincidentally Trump needs to have switched?

So Trump called up one of the two Wayne County Republican board members who previously certified the Detroit votes, and now, those board members want to switch their votes back...

Please, all you election-integrity-at-all-costs people who re arguing that fraud should lead to tossing millions of votes, please explain how high ranking Republicans who need votes changed or discarded calling other Republicans who are responsible for counting or discarding votes, how is that either a good or even a defensible thing, and why, since you are all about election integrity, why are you not screaming at the top of your lungs over these overt and unacceptable attempts to pervert the election?

Ok, we already know why...

[cherrypoptart]

‘What difference, at this point, does it make?'

If our elections can't be rigged or stolen then Trump won't be able to rig this one after the fact and steal it. If our elections are as solid as we're told they are then no harm can come from taking the time to do these recounts right and letting the process work it's way through the courts even up to the Supreme Court.

I still don't think Trump has any chance of winning but wouldn't that be something if he did? It would be hilarious seeing how fast Democrats insisting on how it's the solemn duty of every American to respect the integrity of the election goes out the window.

[DonaldD]

I still don't think Trump has any chance of winning but wouldn't that be something if he did? It would be hilarious seeing how fast Democrats insisting on how it's the solemn duty of every American to respect the integrity of the election goes out the window.

Explain what you think Trump winning would look like, in this scenario - and be specific.  Because there are no longer any possible ways that his winning would be based on counting votes.

[yossarian22c]

I love how the article mentions that the Dominion & Hammer software is used by 28 states, but the map shows the "real" results for all 50 states, including the 22 that don't use the software and wouldn't be on the server! 

They hacked those too!!!! That's why Trump had to fire the man he hired to lead the US cybersecurity agency. It was an inside job. /sarc

[cherrypoptart]

How could Trump win? Well if his good buddy Amy over at the Supreme Court pulls some strings or something and gets tens of thousands of Biden votes thrown out I guess that would do it. Now I don't see that happening. That's something that leftist conspiracy theorists have nightmares about, but I bet respect for our election process would go right out the window then and the same people insisting we respect our system now would literally be rioting in the streets screaming about voter fraud and corruption.  If you want a serious way that Trump could win then I don't have one. I don't think there's any way it's going to happen. Most of this is just to cross every t and dot every i and will end up helping legitimize Biden's victory with some little bits of fraud and mistakes uncovered that will work to help make our elections a little bit more secure in the future. Part of it is also political too just like the Russian collusion hoax was to fire up the base and reduce the power of the incoming opposition President  by calling into question his legitimacy just like the Democrats did to Trump, a page right out of the same playbook. It won't have any effect on the final result of the election but it may affect the political landscape for the next four years right into the next election and beyond.

[Wayward Son]

Well, actual voter fraud, corruption, and throwing out the legitimate votes of millions of American has a tendency to cause civil unrest, cherry.

[Lloyd Perna]

If the Supreme Court decided to throw out some votes (they won't).  Then, by definition, they would not be legitimate.

[DonaldD]

If the Supreme Court decided to throw out some votes (they won't).  Then, by definition, they would not be legitimate.

Was that sarcasm, or do you really need to be explained what is wrong with that statement?

[DonaldD]

Another day goes by, and... wait, what's that?  Another high ranking Republican calls somebody responsible for the counting and/or validation of votes out of an abundance of concern?  In a state that just coincidentally Trump needs to have switched?

OMFG

After failing repeatedly in court to overturn election results, President Trump is taking the extraordinary step of reaching out directly to Republican state legislators as he tries to subvert the Electoral College process, inviting Michigan lawmakers to meet with him at the White House on Friday.

Bueller?  Bueller? Bueller?

[Seriati]

I found this assertion interesting (cited in a write up of Giulianni's press conference):

One affidavit said that workers in Pennsylvania were instructed to assign ballots without names to random people, resulting in thousands of people in Pittsburgh showing up to the polls to find that votes had been cast in their names.

That seems like something that actually could have resulted in some evidence.  Anyone live nearby?  Curious on local sources.  If it's true, that's the kind of evidence that starts tipping a scale in my head, whether or not its provable that this particular instance impacted "enough" votes, finding it at all when there are many places where partisans could do the same thing without getting caught indicates a fundamental flaw in the election results.  I have no idea how the computer results work in some areas, but if there isn't a physical record verified by the voter and collected at the polls I don't trust them.  Locally here, ballots are  hand completed prior to being tabulated by the computer, which creates a satisfying validation tool  If there's a recount they'd be able to actually use those records (fraud in that case is much more complicated and would require changing out entire boxes of votes to match a preset electronic tally - not impossible but requiring a deliberate sophisticated act).  A system that hands the voter a receipt but doesn't use that receipt to allow the voter to verify their choices and submit the receipt into collection is a fake control.

I think this one is interesting too:

Another affidavit said that a supervisorin Michigan instructed workers to change the dates on absentee ballots to show that they arrived earlier than they had. An affidavit also claimed that workers were told not to request photo identification from Michigan voters, even though state law requires it.

Counting illegal votes - votes that are not submitted in accordance with the laws - is a form of disenfranchisement of legitimate voters.  I get that the DNC claims it has a moral high ground on "counting all votes" but it's not true.  If illegal votes were allowed to influence an election on a discretionary basis (ie some districts followed the law and some didn't) you have an invalid result.

I think too after the deliberate manipulation of information engaged in by the media and big tech in advance of the election, it's beyond criminal for them to continue after the election.  Maybe ask yourself, if the election results are legit, why aren't the liberal media investigating and reporting on these fraud claims aggressively?  Wouldn't trying to find the fraud diligently demonstrate that the election was fair?  Instead, you get the same story to move on and "there's no proof" of fraud - I mean we didn't actually look for it or anything, and when we've been told about it, we've ignored the reports, but it's pretty clear it didn't happen to us as "legitimate" reporters. 

I think too its interesting that so many seem to think that district court decisions are "proving" there was no proof of fraud.  Virtually all the allegations of fraud would be centered in electoral districts controlled by the party that "won," be investigated by prosecutors that are in the party that "won," come before judges generally appointed by the members of the party that "won" (based on how this worked historically, there's a heavy alignment of DNC judges in blue states and Republican ones in Red States), and ultimately the proof would be undermining that "win" and have to be found by, disclosed by and ruled upon by persons who all voted for Biden.  It's actually incredibly surprising given the way our elections are set up and that level of the hurdles to cross that they're finding as much evidence of fraud as they are.

Still it's impossible to imagine that even finding evidence of the biggest fraud in history will be enough to overturn the result (because even if the vote was in fact rigged, it won't matter).  Elections can only be overturned if they put Democrats into power.

[msquared]

Seriati

When are you going to bring up the dead voters in GA that Trump talked about? And has not walked back?

[DonaldD]

Hmmm... maybe this time Lucy won't pull away the football, Charlie Brown...

[TheDrake]

I'm looking forward to the perjury trials for everyone who submitted a false affadavit.

[msquared]

The President said he would pardon them when he called them on the phone to tell them to file the paper work.

[Aris Katsaris]

Most of this is just to cross every t and dot every i and will end up helping legitimize Biden's victory

I don't know if you're so much in denial about human psychology, or whether you yourself don't believe what you're saying.

The vast majority of people who currently believe Trump in his claims of Biden being elected fraudulently will NEVER believe otherwise, no matter how many investigations and court decisions. And the longer this nonsense goes on, the more they'll be stubborn in their beliefs, having sunk too many costs, declared their belief too strongly and too repeatedly to back down.

If an investigation decides otherwise, they'll say the investigation was fraudulent.
If a court decides otherwise, they'll say the court was bought.

The alternative would be to say that they were wrong -- and not just on a matter of fact, but also on a matter of ethics, by accusing people of a horrible crime with absolutely zero evidence.

The majority of people don't change their minds, once made. And the more irrational their belief, the most unlikely they're to change it, because they'll have to admit they shouldn't have held that belief in the first place.

What you're saying about how it'll help "legitimize Biden's victory" goes against human psychology.

But we can make a bet if you want. Whether 6 months from now, after all the courts have concluded, and Biden is president, whether someone like wmLambert will concede that Biden was legitimately elected and that there was no significant amounts of fraud, at least not anywhere enough to affect the outcome.

[msquared]

Or will Trump, after all is said and done, and the courts find all of his claims with out merit, will he say it was a clean election, Biden won fair and square and that he, Trump, lost?  Can he admit the he lost?

Every other President that has lost an election has admitted that. And I am not talking now. I am talking about after Biden is sworn in.

[Wayward Son]

Maybe ask yourself, if the election results are legit, why aren't the liberal media investigating and reporting on these fraud claims aggressively?

Because they have been, Seriati, but every time they do, they find there is nothing there. 

Didn't you hear about all those dead voters?  The "liberal media" investigated 30 of them.  Most hadn't voted.  Others weren't dead.  One wasn't the person who died, but his wife who was listed as "Mrs." so-and-so.  Look at Snopes and PolitiFact and see how many of these allegations were disproven.

I'm sorry Republicans are lying like dogs.  But the media is investigating the claims, and the ones they do are all coming up poop.

[rightleft22]

Or will Trump, after all is said and done, and the courts find all of his claims with out merit, will he say it was a clean election, Biden won fair and square and that he, Trump, lost?  Can he admit the he lost?

Every other President that has lost an election has admitted that. And I am not talking now. I am talking about after Biden is sworn in.

Trump has never shown such a ability so I wouldn't count on it. Such thing goes against his "Art of the deal' philosophy and phycological make up.
Its one of the 'character' traits that many of his followers admire without it appears spending much time pondering how such character traits might not make for great leadership

[cherrypoptart]

The people who still believe, or say they believe, that this election was stolen will be just like the ones who still believe that Trump colluded with Russia and stole the 2016 election.

Some will actually believe it and others will just say they believe it because it serves their purposes.

I mean we still have people who say that the Supreme Court stole the election from Gore and handed it to Bush. And this is how many years later?

That's just the way the game is played now.

It's actually amusing seeing the same people who called into question the integrity of past elections including the one right before this one now with a straight face insisting that we must respect the integrity of our elections and hold up the winner as our newly anointed rightful leader like some kind of little Simba.

That's just NOT how the game is played anymore.

People can't reasonably refuse to accept the legitimacy of the opposing party President for four years and then suddenly expect everyone to turn around and accept theirs. I say they can't but apparently they do anyway. It doesn't work like that. The well of goodwill has been poisoned and there's no way to purify it. It's useless.

[Wayward Son]

As John Oliver said, there is a big difference between saying "He's not my President" and "He's not THE President." 

[cherrypoptart]

"Or will Trump, after all is said and done, and the courts find all of his claims with out merit, will he say it was a clean election, Biden won fair and square and that he, Trump, lost?  Can he admit the he lost?"

There are two separate issues there.

Sure the vote count was fair and square and Biden won that.

But is that the same as saying Biden won fair and square?

I think not.

The collusion between the mainstream media and the Democrat campaign went way beyond the pale this time. It was outright lies and propaganda.

Our own media did to us what they accused the Russians of doing four years ago. They colluded with  one campaign against the other. I'm not saying there are emails or people giving debate questions this time. It went even deeper than that with an understanding that required no overt communication.

You can't really have a free and fair election when the fourth estate has been 90% corrupted and censors itself to hide the faults of one side while exaggerating and outright lying about the faults of the other.

And that's just the media. There is also the issue of the deep state including the Obama administration that spied on the campaign of the opposition party and set into motion their Plan B which was to de-legitimize the new President. And of course Biden was part of that administration. He has good and plausible deniability of course but this election has been getting rigged since before even the last election.

Again, that's entirely separate from the vote count. But it's still a big issue and anyone not willing to accept Biden as the rightful heir to power could have their reasons. If they want to buy some used "RESIST" gear off the Democrats now that would be perfectly understandable.

[DonaldD]

The people who still believe, or say they believe, that this election was stolen will be just like the ones who still believe that Trump colluded with Russia and stole the 2016 election.

I am sure there are some who hold that specific view, but that's more than a bit of a straw man in general.  Let's break it down:

• Did Russia take actions to help get Trump elected?
• Did Trump campaign staff cooperate with Russian agents during the campaign?
• Did they cooperate with the goal of helping Trump's electoral chances?

If you are honest with yourself, you will admit that the answer to all three of those questions is "yes", as was confirmed by the Republican led Senate committee on Russian interference in the election.

Say it, cherry, I know you want to - the Trump campaign cooperated with Russian agents during the lead up to the 2016 election.

Did Donald Trump directly involve himself with Russian agents?  Almost certainly not.  Was he aware of what was going on?  That is a valid question, as it is possible his staff tried to inoculate him from those activities.

[Seriati]

I'm looking forward to the perjury trials for everyone who submitted a false affadavit.

It's just as important to hold anyone making a false affadavit responsible as it is to make sure we didn't have election fraud.  We can't have a fair system if people cheat or if people lie about people cheating.

[Aris Katsaris]

The people who still believe, or say they believe, that this election was stolen will be just like the ones who still believe that Trump colluded with Russia and stole the 2016 election.

Some will actually believe it and others will just say they believe it because it serves their purposes.

I mean we still have people who say that the Supreme Court stole the election from Gore and handed it to Bush. And this is how many years later?

That's just the way the game is played now.

So basically, you were being dishonest when you were saying "it will help legitimize Biden's presidency" -- you never actually believed that. In fact you are indeed seeking the opposite, out of revenge for Democrats' (supposedly) doing the same to you.

The difference about Gore's election is that the facts are not actually in doubt. We know what happened. We know it was a few hundreds votes apart in Florida, we know the Supreme Court stopped the recount. People can argue about whether they were right or wrong to do so, but the facts aren't really in doubt. And nobody AFAIK is actually claiming fraud there, certainly I don't remember Gore asserting fraud.

The difference with the Trump investigation, is that the Russians actually *censored*ing interfered in the election, and Trump's campaign did communicate with the Russians. You know what the equivalent would have to be now, if you want to draw actual parallels? Imagine if some leftist country, say Venezuela, had been proven to have helped commit millions of votes worth of fraud in favour of Democrats, imagine that it was known that Venezuela had been in communication with the Democrats -- and the only question was whether there was enough proof that they'd actually colluded on that crime. *That'd* be the equivalent now, of what the Russian collusion case was 4 years ago.

But under Trump's psychopathic lying, we don't actually need a crime to have taken place at all! Instead he has people believing that there's millions of votes that got switched. That's what Trump claims, that's what his naive fans believe are the facts of the matter. They think *those* are the facts. He doesn't speak about fear of fraud, or worries about fraud, or the need to investigate in case there was such -- he speaks it as a fact that there has been massive fraud, he has fired people who've insisted otherwise.

Your hypocritical obsession about what Democrats have or haven't done in the past is disgusting. YOU are the people who can't *censored*ing have it both ways. You can't have spent decades whining that Gore wanted a recount in Florida, and now thinking it perfectly proper when Trump wants to disenfranchise million of voters. You can't complain that HOW DARE THEY INVESTIGATE AN ACTUAL CRIME (Russian interference in USA election) which btw, HAS INFACT BEEN PROVEN IT INDEED HAPPENED, and now you think it perfectly fine for Trump to open his mouth and accuse everyone of everything without a shred of evidence.

At least the Trumpist idiots *believe* what he's saying -- you don't believe it and you're still justifying it with self-serving excuses. Shame on you.

[Seriati]

The vast majority of people who currently believe Trump in his claims of Biden being elected fraudulently will NEVER believe otherwise, no matter how many investigations and court decisions. And the longer this nonsense goes on, the more they'll be stubborn in their beliefs, having sunk too many costs, declared their belief too strongly and too repeatedly to back down.

Maybe, but I think you're wrong about this.  It's in every politician's interest to claim elections are credible, afterall they got their own power through an election.  Whatever Trump wants, unless he finds hard proof, the entire political class and their media sychophants are going to claim the results were legitimate and hard sell it.  Even if there is fraud, those who continue to assert it after this wall of "certainty" has closed are going to be marinalized and treated as crazy.

But I think you missed a more fundamental point.  There is election fraud.  There is election fraud in every election.  Continually lying about it undermines credibility in the real claim you're making that - the fraud isn't severe enough to undermine the election results.  Refusing to properly investigate it does increase the certainty of those on the other side not only that it's real but that YOU must believe it is in fact so significant as to overturn the results.  What else would you be afraid of?

If an investigation decides otherwise, they'll say the investigation was fraudulent.
If a court decides otherwise, they'll say the court was bought.

Depends on the investigation and the court.  What investigation, for example, could determine if the unsolicited ballot sent to a registered voter, who isn't dead, was returned by that voter?  You could compare the signature on the envelope to a signature already in the records of the state (didn't happen).  Can you go ask that voter who they voted for and compare it to the ballot?  My understanding is that once the vote is separated from the envelope that's impossible.  How do you verify that the separation and vetting of ballots was legitimate after the fact if observers couldn't see it and there was no way to actually detect whether the voter completed the ballot?

All anyone can do there is rely on the "good faith" of every person that ever had access to any ballot that wasn't their own and rely on the lack of reports from anyone who can prove their ballot was voted illegally (how would they even know?).

As to the courts, I doubt anyone thinks they've been bribed.  They think they're partisans.  It doesn't take a phd in rocket science to match up the President that appointed a judge with the direction of the decisions they make.

The majority of people don't change their minds, once made. And the more irrational their belief, the most unlikely they're to change it, because they'll have to admit they shouldn't have held that belief in the first place.

I agree with this, which is exactly why voting fraud continues and even increases.  You can't accept that you believed something so irrational without any evidence its true so you're compulsively ignore any amount of evidence that the system has been set up to make it virtually impossible to detect voter fraud, and everything you know about human nature when the stakes are this big, rather than deal with the reality that voting fraud does occur and its a question of how much and why don't we have more decisive systems to prevent it.

What you're saying about how it'll help "legitimize Biden's victory" goes against human psychology.

So far Biden is playing it right and even Trump's supporters are beginning to doubt him.  The media's selective reporting scam works or we wouldn't even be having this discussion.  I saw some pretty interesting statistics that show up to a third of Biden voters were unaware of the connections of Joe and Hunter to China, or in fact of the whole Hunter problem and that if they had known it may have resulted in up to a 15% change in votes.  That's stunning.  Imagine what would have happened if 2-3 of those Covid vaccines had been announced as 90%+ successful in mid October. 

Does it not bother you at all that apparently it took suppressing the truth, lying about the candidate and lying about his policies to win the election for Biden?  If there's fraud on top of that election interference, it's just a stunning pile of dung at the end of the day.  If Biden had better policies he should have been able to win on them.

But we can make a bet if you want. Whether 6 months from now, after all the courts have concluded, and Biden is president, whether someone like wmLambert will concede that Biden was legitimately elected and that there was no significant amounts of fraud, at least not anywhere enough to affect the outcome.

It's funny, because there is absolutely no way that will ever be known under the systems we have.  Why do you think it's a fair measure of reasonableness whether someone will agree to a false claim (not whether or not fraud occurred, the false claim is that we can know it didn't), just because you've accepted it as true?

[Seriati]

Maybe ask yourself, if the election results are legit, why aren't the liberal media investigating and reporting on these fraud claims aggressively?

Because they have been, Seriati, but every time they do, they find there is nothing there. 

Didn't you hear about all those dead voters?  The "liberal media" investigated 30 of them.  Most hadn't voted.  Others weren't dead.  One wasn't the person who died, but his wife who was listed as "Mrs." so-and-so.  Look at Snopes and PolitiFact and see how many of these allegations were disproven.

See what you did there, you flipped it around.  Sounds like the media is investigating to disprove claims of fraud not to determine fraud occurred.  It's an interesting distinction, and one I don't think you accidentally ignored.  Compare that to how aggressively they investigate on behalf of the DNC, you could look at Bush v. Gore, or heck even Stacy Abrams in GA - where the media went full into to try and create a controversy, while CA flipped a dozen seats with exactly the same kind of harvesting of ballots (albeit legally sanctioned).

If the media investigates fraud when a Democrat losings and investigates to falsify fraud when a Democrat wins you end up with a reason to mistrust the media.

So the better question is why didn't the media find those dead voters in the first instance?  How many investigations have you seen where they tried to find voter fraud from unsolicited ballots?  There's been any number of reports that the MSM has buried.

I'm sorry Republicans are lying like dogs.  But the media is investigating the claims, and the ones they do are all coming up poop.

shrug.  I think your wrong about the Republicans lying, but as I said, the system is set up to make it virtually impossible to catch fraud.  That's why you get these "systemic" claims, look at the dead voters, look at the felon voters, look at the out of state voters, that turn up more false positives than real fraud.

Show me where they can catch or even detect voter manipulation in take home votes as a nursing home.  Show me how they would verify or repudiate claims that an election worker saw DNC operatives filling in multiple mail in ballots?  Show me the investigation that tracked down and verified whether every voter in a large apartment complex received their unsolicited ballot.

When you create a system where there's virtually no way to get caught and a big incentive to win what happens EVERY SINGLE TIME?

[Seriati]

The people who still believe, or say they believe, that this election was stolen will be just like the ones who still believe that Trump colluded with Russia and stole the 2016 election.

I disagree.  Far more people believed and still believe the fake story about Trump and Russia than will end up believing that Trump won this election.

I mean we still have people who say that the Supreme Court stole the election from Gore and handed it to Bush. And this is how many years later?

Not only years later, but proven untrue by the final final final recount after the election.

People can't reasonably refuse to accept the legitimacy of the opposing party President for four years and then suddenly expect everyone to turn around and accept theirs. I say they can't but apparently they do anyway. It doesn't work like that. The well of goodwill has been poisoned and there's no way to purify it. It's useless.

QFT

[Seriati]

I am sure there are some who hold that specific view, but that's more than a bit of a straw man in general.  Let's break it down:

• Did Russia take actions to help get Trump elected?
• Did Trump campaign staff cooperate with Russian agents during the campaign?
• Did they cooperate with the goal of helping Trump's electoral chances?

If you are honest with yourself, you will admit that the answer to all three of those questions is "yes", as was confirmed by the Republican led Senate committee on Russian interference in the election.

Or you could be honest for a change.  Mueller's report specifically and decisively concluded that there was no evidence that any American citizen (let alone any on in the Trump campaign) was working with the Russians.  For you to continually repeat a lie without establishing any basis for it is part of why we have a problem in this country.  2 of your 3 claims are decisively false.

And it's beyond ridiculous to look at the manipulation that occurred in the information flow in this election cycle and to whine about the Russian's in the last.  You had a conspiracy to suppress stories unfavorable to Biden, including conflicts of interest and criminal conduct, while simultaneously printing even known falsehoods about Trump that was far more of a manipulation than what the Russians actually did.  Lest we forget the most impactful Russian action was the dissemination of true information about the DNC and Hillary campaign from stolen emails (assuming, since I know you believe it, that the Russian's were decisively shown to be responsible for the hack), and a drop in the bucket of the total add spend targetted at social media that again Mueller was unable to establish had any impact on any voters any where.

Say it, cherry, I know you want to - the Trump campaign cooperated with Russian agents during the lead up to the 2016 election.

Did Donald Trump directly involve himself with Russian agents?  Almost certainly not.  Was he aware of what was going on?  That is a valid question, as it is possible his staff tried to inoculate him from those activities.

I wish there was a way to flag your posts with a label like they do on twitter, DonaldD.  You reassert more falsehoods and debunked claims than almost everyone else together.

[Wayward Son]

Sounds like the media is investigating to disprove claims of fraud not to determine fraud occurred.  It's an interesting distinction, and one I don't think you accidentally ignored.

No, it sounds to you like the media is investigating to disprove claims of fraud.

Look at my example.  If 30 votes happened to come from deceased people, do you think the media would have quelled the story?  Hell, no!  It would be front-page, breaking news.  They would get so many viewers/hits/papers sold, they would never quash such a story. People would be outraged.  I would be outraged.  That's a sexy story.

But they had to go with the more boring story that they could not confirm it.

They couldn't confirm the story because the story was a lie. An out-and-out fabrication.  Something that you happen to be ignoring.  Trump and his cronies are lying to you.  They are making these false accusations, out and out lies.  And you're suspicious about the media because they aren't confirming them. 

If you're so angry at the "liberal media" making false reports and lies, why the hell aren't you angry about Trump lying to your face for the last four years??

But, of course, we've all gotten used to that.  That's expected.  That's not "news."  That's what our country has become.  That what Republicans have made this country become. 

[DonaldD]

Or you could be honest for a change.  Mueller's report specifically and decisively concluded that there was no evidence that any American citizen (let alone any on in the Trump campaign) was working with the Russians.

Seriati, why are you being so dishonest about the words that I used above (and which you actually quoted)? 

Did members of the Trump campaign meet with Russian agents (yes, even at the Trump tower) in order to get information damaging to Clinton?  Why, yes, they did.  Were the Russian agents working towards getting Trump elected?  Yes.  Are you really contending that meeting with Russian agents in order to get damaging information on Clinton is NOT 'cooperating'?  You can try to sell that argument, but nobody short of wmLambert is buying.

[yossarian22c]

Seriati

When are you going to bring up the dead voters in GA that Trump talked about? And has not walked back?

Or the 136,000 votes all for Biden at one time in Michigan. His lawyers repeated that canard earlier today. The "media" did an interview with the woman who entered the data wrong, an extra 0 on the number of Biden votes and then how it was corrected within 20 minutes. But someone on the right took screen shots of the vote totals and places them out of order so instead of it looking like 136,000 votes disappeared for Biden it looked like they appeared. You're being lied to repeatedly. If you're interested in the media investigating these claims I can find the link to the interview. By the way the woman responsible is a registered Republican and a Trump voter.

[yossarian22c]

Or you could be honest for a change.  Mueller's report specifically and decisively concluded that there was no evidence that any American citizen (let alone any on in the Trump campaign) was working with the Russians.

Seriati, why are you being so dishonest about the words that I used above (and which you actually quoted)? 

Did members of the Trump campaign meet with Russian agents (yes, even at the Trump tower) in order to get information damaging to Clinton?  Why, yes, they did.  Were the Russian agents working towards getting Trump elected?  Yes.  Are you really contending that meeting with Russian agents in order to get damaging information on Clinton is NOT 'cooperating'?  You can try to sell that argument, but nobody short of wmLambert is buying.

Paul Manafort shared polling data with the Russians.

Roger Stone communicated with WikiLeaks about the timing for leaks of data hacked by Russia.

[DonaldD]

The Trump campaign is now 1-31 in court cases.  That should be sufficient to convince some people they are being played, but... cognitive dissonance for $200 Alex (RIP)

[Aris Katsaris]

As to the courts, I doubt anyone thinks they've been bribed.  They think they're partisans.  It doesn't take a phd in rocket science to match up the President that appointed a judge with the direction of the decisions they make.

When the Supreme Court also turns Trump's claims down, even though there's a conservative majority and Trump appointed 3 of the 9 judges... then I'm guessing you'll hear claims they've been bought by the Democrats, and Trump lamenting the backstabbing SC judges.

So far Biden is playing it right and even Trump's supporters are beginning to doubt him.  The media's selective reporting scam works or we wouldn't even be having this discussion.  I saw some pretty interesting statistics that show up to a third of Biden voters were unaware of the connections of Joe and Hunter to China, or in fact of the whole Hunter problem and that if they had known it may have resulted in up to a 15% change in votes.  That's stunning.  Imagine what would have happened if 2-3 of those Covid vaccines had been announced as 90%+ successful in mid October.

Does it not bother you at all that apparently it took suppressing the truth, lying about the candidate and lying about his policies to win the election for Biden?  If there's fraud on top of that election interference, it's just a stunning pile of dung at the end of the day.  If Biden had better policies he should have been able to win on them.

This extends the discussion to a far far wider topic than the topic currently at issue, that would take volumes of discussion. But in brief: I don't have rose-tinted glasses about democracy, nor about the population always being an *informed* population.

But even uninformed, the population must decide. You may hate it about how not enough people knew about Hunter/Biden and his dealings with China or whatever, or that the media didn't report it in the way you feel they should. I may likewise hate that e.g. Trump pretends to be a Christian, and thus gets the faithful Christian vote, even though he isn't. You may think "If only the media told them about Hunter Biden", and I may likewise think "If all those Christians only realized Trump doesn't give a crap about God".

That all in all, well I won't call it a wash -- but it's unpredictable in which direction the vote would go if every voter was perfectly informed about everything.

[Seriati]

No, it sounds to you like the media is investigating to disprove claims of fraud.

Look at my example.  If 30 votes happened to come from deceased people, do you think the media would have quelled the story?  Hell, no!  It would be front-page, breaking news.  They would get so many viewers/hits/papers sold, they would never quash such a story. People would be outraged.  I would be outraged.  That's a sexy story.

No, what I think is that if Trump had won, it would have been the media that found those votes and promoted the dead vote for Trump angle.  They'd be trawling everwhere looking for fraud.

As far as "sexy stories" I call nonsense.  Hunter Biden's laptop was a sexy story, literally a game changer.  Joe Biden's connection to it?  Almost a once in a generation scandal if the media wanted it to be.  Corrruption in government to get Trump?  Bigger story than watergate.  Sexy is not the measure this media uses.  It's anything, whether stolen, fraudulent, anonymous or made up if it's against Trump and nothing - whether  provably true or not - if it's against Biden.

You literally had the Hunter Biden story suppressed for being "hacked information" when it wasn't hacked, while the Trump tax returns - which were literally stolen, fake or hacked - were broadly rebroadcast.

So it's just a lie you're telling yourself that "sexy" would have been allowed to undermine Biden's chances.  The media was completely in the tank, and what's more you know it was, even if you keep claiming otherwise.

They couldn't confirm the story because the story was a lie. An out-and-out fabrication.  Something that you happen to be ignoring.  Trump and his cronies are lying to you.  They are making these false accusations, out and out lies.  And you're suspicious about the media because they aren't confirming them. 

Lol.  Again you make assumptions.  I've never said I believe Trump or the claims they are making.  I've been pretty clear that our systems make it impossible to detect fraud at any  scale, let alone one sufficient to "prove" the election was stolen in court.  No what I've said is that the DNC made it impossible to detect fraud, is the primary beneficiary of fraud, and in this election (and the last 2 back to 2016) have done everything in their power to increase the opportunity to commit fraud.  I've said we have election fraud in every election - which is a just a fact, not something that's legimtately disputable.  I've pointed out that human nature lets us know that some people are unethical, that when the stakes are big (they are) and the risk of getting caught is low (it is), then it's a certainty that people will cheat.

I don't think Trump can prove it.  I don't think his lawyers will prove it.  I think its a travesty that we'd let this system come to exist and reprehensible that anyone would defend it's operation.  I think it's beyond useless to have a media that has crossed the rubicon and now decides whether to report facts or not, based on which team will be helped. 

It really really bothers me that intelligent people not only are not concerned but that they seem to be actively supporting this state.  Confidence in the election, much like confidence in our laws, or in how our police interact with black people, requires transparency and a commitment to be fair.  It's really impossible to see how anyone can believe in the elections without those.

If you're so angry at the "liberal media" making false reports and lies, why the hell aren't you angry about Trump lying to your face for the last four years??

Mostly because everytime I've investigated I've found it's far more likely the media was lying about it than Trump.  When they routinely use misrepresentations and false statements to show "Trump lied" it makes them not credible.  How many times now have I been to that list of "Trump's lies" on the WP?  A dozen? More?  Never found it to have actual lies just great big political disagreements asserted as lies.  Meanwhile, how many times has the media repeated the lie about what Trump said about Charlottesville?  They knew that was a lie the first day they used it, and they've repeated it now what?  20,000 times?  More?  It's probably be retweeted or shared more than a billion times.  That's just one lie.

How many press conferences does one have to watch where the media lied in their questions, insulted the President without cause, and ultimately heard the response from Trump clearly a dozen times and then ran with a story that completely misrepresented it?  It was a game for them to show how terribly they could misrepresent them.

No, I think the real question, is how you can still believe lies about Trump, after they've been debunked hundreds  or even thousands of time and not hold the media you watch accountable for spreading them. 

I mean I take it you still believe that a state media is problematic?  What's the difference between a state media and a Democratic party media, really?  There isn't one, the "state" media of a communist country is the same thing as the party media.  This level of media collusion is not in our interests and isn't healthy.  Do you really think they're going to flip the switch and report honestly on Biden's administration?  They've already shown you they won't, still no difficult press conferences and maximum deference.  Who is going to actually be watching for abuse where the abusers own the watchdogs?

But, of course, we've all gotten used to that.  That's expected.  That's not "news."  That's what our country has become.  That what Republicans have made this country become. 

Such a lie.  Democrats control the media, they control virtually the entirety of entertainment, they control big tech.  They literally are the ones that have chosen to spread lies.  I would challenge you to prove your case, but we both know its just a sound bite you're repeating from professional liars that have done market research on how to maximize the impact of propaganda, and there's no actual evidence that Republicans are out there trying to spread false information.

[DonaldD]

I mean I take it you still believe that a state media is problematic?  What's the difference between a state media and a Democratic party media, really? 

Fox News, the US state media, does not support the Democratic Party.

That was easy.

I get the feeling, however, that the contract will not be renewed.

[Seriati]

Or you could be honest for a change.  Mueller's report specifically and decisively concluded that there was no evidence that any American citizen (let alone any on in the Trump campaign) was working with the Russians.

Seriati, why are you being so dishonest about the words that I used above (and which you actually quoted)? 

Did members of the Trump campaign meet with Russian agents (yes, even at the Trump tower) in order to get information damaging to Clinton?  Why, yes, they did.  Were the Russian agents working towards getting Trump elected?  Yes.  Are you really contending that meeting with Russian agents in order to get damaging information on Clinton is NOT 'cooperating'?  You can try to sell that argument, but nobody short of wmLambert is buying.

Did DonaldD just post a false claim?  Yes he did.  Did he get caught in  it?  Yes he did.  Is he trying to change the subject by making more false claims?  Yep he sure is.

You must have missed that Mueller in fact investigated Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting.  That Trump Jr. was not in any way protected by any inference of executive privilege and was fully prosecutable had he engaged in any conduct.  Did I miss where Mueller filed charges?  No I didn't but you missed the actual facts.

"Did members of the Trump campaign meet with Russian agents (yes, even at the Trump tower) in order to get information damaging to Clinton?  Why, yes, they did."

Or more accurately, no they didn't.  If you have evidence of "Russian agents" you're the only one that does.  Maybe you should send it to the DOJ, or heck Jerry Nadler if you don't trust the DOJ.  Must be nice to be able to claim without any facts at all that just because some one is a Russian they are a Russian agent.  But even if you believed this, I've yet to see you explain why Clinton's dirty tricks team and lawyers met with the same "Russian agents" before and after this meeting.  You know, the same team that Obama had credible reports were trying to create a Russian collusion scandal to throw people off of the Clinton server scandal.   I mean but hey, not like you ever claimed to be consistently worried about things.

Were the Russian agents working towards getting Trump elected?  Yes.

If you mean the so called agents from the meeting?  Then no.  No one on any team has ever reported that the meeting provided anything useful or that would help get Trump elected.  If you mean some random unspecified Russian agents?  Then maybe you can provide some evidence.  Mueller provided the most in depth review of what was found and it amounted to a virtual hill of beans, with a pretty random spend on social media designed more to sow discord.  Bernie was also a beneficiary of that spend by the way.

Are you really contending that meeting with Russian agents in order to get damaging information on Clinton is NOT 'cooperating'?

Well, I suppose if we use the nonsense you've asserted in the first 2 hypos you could get here, but it's a pretty big fail.  The meeting wasn't with "Russian agents," didn't provide information and ultimately didn't result in cooperation.  How exactly would it entail cooporating with Russian agents (other than in fantasy land)?

I mean, you have no problem with Clinton campaign cash going to a British spy who hired a suspected Russian spy (actually tracked by the CIA) to compose a dossier on Trump largely from Russian intelligence services.  Your problem is with a rando-meeting that purported to be about actual factual information determental to Clinton?  It's a bizarre world you're living in, and one that reflects exactly how much misinformation you've consumed.

You can try to sell that argument, but nobody short of wmLambert is buying.

Well wmLambert and the whole Mueller team that was forced to conclude there was nothing there.  But hey what do they know after conducting that abusive investigation.

[cherrypoptart]

Speaking of "how you concede a presidential election with grace and dignity," I was too young to remember any of this but apparently the Democrats and media pulled the same type of Russian collusion to influence the election trick when Reagan won against Carter except they made the boogey man out to be Iran.

This has been going on for quite a while now. Same old same old.

So the Democrats use treason and collusion with our enemies while the Republicans use voter fraud to justify their feelings. Two sides of the same coin.


https://anncoulter.com/2020/11/18/gee-why-cant-trump-accept-defeat-like-the-democrats/


"In 1980, Democratic President Jimmy Carter lost in a landslide to Ronald Reagan, 489-49 in the Electoral College. So naturally, Democrats concluded that Reagan had committed treason in order to steal the election, to wit: His campaign had conspired with Iranian ayatollahs to prevent 52 American hostages from being released until after the election."

[kidv]

Conspiracy or coordination

To establish whether a crime was committed by members of the Trump campaign with regard to Russian interference, investigators "applied the framework of conspiracy law", and not the concept of "collusion", because collusion "is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law".[83][84] They also investigated if members of the Trump campaign "coordinated" with Russia, using the definition of "coordination" as having "an agreement – tacit or express – between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference." Investigators further elaborated that merely having "two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests" was not enough to establish coordination.[85][86]

The investigation found there were over 100 contacts between Trump campaign advisors and individuals affiliated with the Russian government, before and after the election, but the evidence was insufficient to show an illegal conspiracy.[87] The New York Times estimated as many as 140 contacts between "Mr. Trump and his associates and Russian nationals and WikiLeaks or their intermediaries" in the report.[88]

The special counsel identified two methods the Russian government tried to communicate with the Trump campaign. "The investigation identified two different forms of connections between the IRA and members of the Trump Campaign. [...] First, on multiple occasions, members and surrogates of the Trump Campaign promoted – typically by linking, retweeting, or similar methods of reposting – pro-Trump or anti-Clinton content published by the IRA through IRA-controlled social media accounts. Additionally, in a few instances, IRA employees represented themselves as U.S. persons to communicate with members of the Trump Campaign in an effort to seek assistance and coordination on IRA-organized political rallies inside the United States", the report states.[70]

Secondly, the report details a meeting at Trump Tower in June 2016. The intent of the meeting was to exchange "dirt" on the Clinton campaign. There was speculation that Trump Jr. told his father. However, the special counsel could not find any evidence that he did.[70] The office declined to pursue charges for two reasons: the office "did not obtain admissible evidence" that would meet the burden of proof principle beyond a reasonable doubt that the campaign officials acted with general knowledge about the illegality of their conduct; secondly, the office expected difficulty in valuing the promised information that "exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation" of $2,000 for a criminal violation and $25,000 for a felony punishment.[89]

The Report cited several impediments to investigators' ability to acquire information, including witnesses invoking their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, witnesses deleting electronic communications or using encrypted or self-destructing messaging apps, limitations of interviewing attorneys or individuals asserting they were members of the media, information obtained through subpoenas that was screened from investigators due to legal privilege, and false or incomplete testimony provided by witnesses.[7][8][90][9][91]

While conspiracy or coordination was not proven, Mueller's report left many unanswered questions, such as whether the myriad secret contacts between Trump associates and Russians, which they lied about, constituted, using Mueller's words, "a third avenue of attempted Russian interference with or influence on the 2016 presidential election"? Benjamin Wittes has written about this:

Put another way, what is the story these contacts tell if it's not one of active coordination? They surely aren't, in the aggregate, innocent. They aren't normal business practice for a presidential campaign. When Mueller asks whether they constituted some sort of third avenue for Russian interference, he's really asking, in the prosecutorial language available to him, what to make of them.... To my mind, anyway, that's the story Mueller told in this section. It may not be a crime, but it is a very deep betrayal.[92]

George Croner of the Foreign Policy Research Institute has also expressed his concerns with what he describes as a "curiously flaccid" approach taken by Mueller in dealing with what the public would normally interpret as "coordination". He sees Mueller's dependence on a formal "tacit agreement" approach as "an overly cautious" and "legalistic construct":

To most individuals, at some point, persistent parallel conduct coupled with "multiple links" between the participants increasingly suggests that the conduct is coordinated—not coincidentally parallel.... t is not surprising that many are confounded by the Special Counsel's inability, or refusal, to render a conclusion on what is publicly perceived as having been the raison d'être of the inquiry.[93]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report#Conspiracy_or_coordination

yeah, yeah, wikipedia.  Well cited, seems a fair summary. Follow the links.

[Aris Katsaris]

Is "both sides" your eternal excuse, cherry?

https://anncoulter.com/2020/11/18/gee-why-cant-trump-accept-defeat-like-the-democrats/

"In 1980, Democratic President Jimmy Carter lost in a landslide to Ronald Reagan, 489-49 in the Electoral College. So naturally, Democrats concluded that Reagan had committed treason in order to steal the election, to wit: His campaign had conspired with Iranian ayatollahs to prevent 52 American hostages from being released until after the election."

You've not learned to parse things properly, have you, and read properly what they're telling you and what they're not telling you? Look at the weak-ass "Democrats" there. How many Democrats out of the millions of Democrats in America? One of them, two, ten? No name you'd actually recognize, that's why Ann Coulter uses the weak-ass "Democrats concluded", without giving details. And look at what dates she gives for when it was actually reported by the media, when the theory stopped being obscure.... The first one non-obscure one was in 1987, seven years after the election, and AFTER the Iran-Contra scandal was exposed.

Changes your narrative, eh? Instead of 'two sides of the same coin', what we have instead when we see the details is "Reagan won, and though the hostages were released within minutes of his inauguration, no noteworthy Democrat suggested collusion with the enemy, certainly nobody in Jimmy Carter's campaign, and such a conspiracy theory only gained prominence seven years later after another scandal relating to collaboration between Iran and the Reagan administration was discovered".

[Ouija Nightmare]

DETROIT — President Trump has invited the leaders of Michigan’s Republican-controlled state legislature to meet him in Washington on Friday, according to a person familiar with those plans, as the president and his allies continue an extraordinary campaign to overturn the results of an election he lost.

Yeah ..that’s totally business as usual.