Election Results

[wmLambert]

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

I'm curious. Did you see his presentation on the EM election results? The judge who would not dismiss his pleas to dismiss evidently did not either. According to the facts Mike had and presented as proved and accurate, the collusion aspects of the voting machines was probable - not implausible. The interrelated software from Smartmatic, Dominion, and ES&S were used on similar machines. When the the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency posted advisories that Dominion machines are now shown to have nine vulnerabilities and 16 states were endangered, are you saying that all three software companies who claimed being perfect are still believable?

The problem is that the coding written for voting machines are not easily verified, because the software companies hold that the work product must be protected because it could be stolen if totally released to the public or to courts. What the judge ruled on is that the company claimed it was unhackable. Since Dominion was proved to produce incorrect totals, why should that broad-based claim from all three software companies be trusted? Reminds me of the FBI lying to the FISA courts to secure warrants to spy on Trump when they knew their affidavits were untrue, or that they leaked untrue info that damaged those they targeted. How could anyone use their reputation after that? Individual state voting officers who have also come up short n their statements be trusted?

[Tom]

William, again, no one is being sued for claiming that electronic voting machines can be hacked.

[TheDrake]

Judge Wright also found sufficient evidence that Lindell knew or should have known his statements were false and acted with “actual malice” in promoting them, a key legal threshold in defamation cases.

That doesn't sound much like "the facts Mike had and presented as proved and accurate". It kind of sounds like the opposite.

[jc44]

I think it is fair to say that worries about insecure voting machines have been around forever.  They've been insecure in the last election, the election before that and the election before that, but to suggest that the results of those elections hung on which side had the better hackers seems implausible to me. I would have been utterly astonished if a security audit hadn't found any holes. But so far there is no proof that they have been hacked by Republicans or anyone else.

[jc44]

Judge Wright also found sufficient evidence that Lindell knew or should have known his statements were false and acted with “actual malice” in promoting them, a key legal threshold in defamation cases.

That doesn't sound much like "the facts Mike had and presented as proved and accurate". It kind of sounds like the opposite.

If you rephrase it as "the [allegations] that Mike had [which he] presented as proved and accurate" then it does fit. And, allowing for some Trumpian value of the word "fact", the former can be parsed as the latter and the judge's suggestion is that the presentation as "proved and accurate" was malicious.

[msquared]

It is quite obvious. The machines CAN be hacked. Trump lost and we don't like that. So the machines  WERE hacked is also obvious. What more proof do you need?

[TheDrake]

I think it is fair to say that worries about insecure voting machines have been around forever.  They've been insecure in the last election, the election before that and the election before that, but to suggest that the results of those elections hung on which side had the better hackers seems implausible to me. I would have been utterly astonished if a security audit hadn't found any holes. But so far there is no proof that they have been hacked by Republicans or anyone else.

To me the paper trail largely settles the issue. That was a glaring hole not only for malfeasance, but just plain software errors. It is possible that a hacked machine could flip the votes on both the screen and the paper, but the machines I've used print the paper, which I hand carry over to be recorded. If the recording machine got hacked, then you'd still have the paper for a hand recount or audit. And no amount of hacking can make the recording machine alter the paper. I've seen other systems where the paper trail is just visible to the voter, and some of the voters could overlook a discrepancy, but not all of them. It would be exposed, it seems.

[jc44]

I think it is fair to say that worries about insecure voting machines have been around forever.  They've been insecure in the last election, the election before that and the election before that, but to suggest that the results of those elections hung on which side had the better hackers seems implausible to me. I would have been utterly astonished if a security audit hadn't found any holes. But so far there is no proof that they have been hacked by Republicans or anyone else.

To me the paper trail largely settles the issue. That was a glaring hole not only for malfeasance, but just plain software errors. It is possible that a hacked machine could flip the votes on both the screen and the paper, but the machines I've used print the paper, which I hand carry over to be recorded. If the recording machine got hacked, then you'd still have the paper for a hand recount or audit. And no amount of hacking can make the recording machine alter the paper. I've seen other systems where the paper trail is just visible to the voter, and some of the voters could overlook a discrepancy, but not all of them. It would be exposed, it seems.

I'm relying on second-hand reporting, our (UK) voting is MUCH simpler (typically one cross made with a pencil on a piece of paper), and I got the impression that some m/cs produced paper trails and some didn't. I'd definitely be in favour of the sort that did.

[NobleHunter]

The whole voting machine initiative is weird because everyone agrees that a good paper trail and validation capabilities are good things to have but we still end up with machines without them.

The last few elections in Ontario have been paper ballots that get scanned, I think. I still marked off a circle with a pencil at least. We have municipal elections next month, so we'll see how they get done.

[yossarian22c]

...
The last few elections in Ontario have been paper ballots that get scanned, I think. I still marked off a circle with a pencil at least. We have municipal elections next month, so we'll see how they get done.

The only reason this isn't the absolute standard everywhere is money. Companies can charge more for touch screen, printer machines than they can for technology that has been around for 70 years. But paper ballots counted by scanning machines is 100% the method that should be used everywhere. Results are quick and fully checkable by hand recounts. Just because more digital is "newer" doesn't make it better for voting. I've yet to see a technology that comes close to the simplicity, verifiability, and security of hand marked scanned ballots.

[wmLambert]

It is quite obvious. The machines CAN be hacked. Trump lost and we don't like that. So the machines  WERE hacked is also obvious. What more proof do you need?

Another smarmy attempt at sardonic humor? You are not very good at it.

Yes, The machines are hackable. That was proved in court. Therefore the three software companies lied - because they stated that they were secure. Apologists often rationalize around it by saying that they can only be hacked locally, because there are no internet connections. However; all these machines do have internet connectioned. The court cited nine vulnerabilities. Pick one and hack it, then claim you never did. Welcome to the Democrat Party.

There have always been engineers and coders who claimed the voting machines could not be trusted yet there are enough paid-for disinformationists who claimed such talk is a conspiracy. The court said otherwise and reversed an election because the machines gave the wrong candidate a stolen victory. Sidney Powell and Giuliani repeated the facts they knew from the truthful engineers and coders - yet the Democrats mounted a "Conspiracy" conspiracy to claim anyone who doubted them were liars. They said Powell and Giuliani couldn't prove what they said, so could not be allowed to present their case.

[Tom]

William, again, PLEASE find better sources. You are woefully ignorant of the actual details of the legal cases in question.

[yossarian22c]

It is quite obvious. The machines CAN be hacked. Trump lost and we don't like that. So the machines  WERE hacked is also obvious. What more proof do you need?

...
Sidney Powell and Giuliani repeated the facts they knew from the truthful engineers and coders - yet the Democrats mounted a "Conspiracy" conspiracy to claim anyone who doubted them were liars. They said Powell and Giuliani couldn't prove what they said, so could not be allowed to present their case.

Saying the machines can be hacked is not the same as saying the companies organized a fraudulent election. That is why all these people are being sued. Not for claiming hacking but by claiming the companies themselves were compromised and organized the Biden victory.

[msquared]

Wm, just because you have no sense of humor does not mean it was not funny.  You wouldn't know something funny unless it was Trump making fun of someone with a disability.

[wmLambert]

William, again, PLEASE find better sources. You are woefully ignorant of the actual details of the legal cases in question.

I read the official court transcripts. What did you read? As I said, the three companies claimed it was impossible for them to be hacked.

The judge used two terms. That was if the charges by Lindell were probable vs. implausible. The vote result was reversed because the Dominion machines gave an erroneous result. One candidates vote total was completely erased. How does that not make Lindell's charges probable?

[TheDrake]

Are you paraphrasing again William? If I look up the court transcripts, will I find someone from any voting machine company or their representatives saying "It is impossible for our products to be hacked."? Or will they be talking about the safeguards employed to avoid hacking and why it wasn't likely? If you're so confident, why not help us out with a quote, or at least a link, to the thing you are claiming? Is it because you are also knowingly making false statements?

[yossarian22c]

William, again, PLEASE find better sources. You are woefully ignorant of the actual details of the legal cases in question.

I read the official court transcripts. What did you read? As I said, the three companies claimed it was impossible for them to be hacked.

The judge used two terms. That was if the charges by Lindell were probable vs. implausible. The vote result was reversed because the Dominion machines gave an erroneous result. One candidates vote total was completely erased. How does that not make Lindell's charges probable?

You're intermingling court cases. Do you mind letting me know what election was overturned as a result of hacking/voting machine error? Do you understand that is not the same as the defamation case against Lindell? Do you understand Lindell isn't being sued for saying that machines are potentially hackable?

[wmLambert]

Wm, just because you have no sense of humor does not mean it was not funny.  You wouldn't know something funny unless it was Trump making fun of someone with a disability.

For attempts to insult and demean people, using untruthful disinformation is not funny, no matter how smarmy the response is.

What is funny about accepting the pejorative attacks from those who have lied and conspired to harm another? You know Hillary paid for the Steele Dossier, largely the imaginings of a Russian sleaze-monger on the FBI payroll. You know Sussman got Hillary's go-ahead before lying about Trump having a secret line to Alfabank. You know the FBI lied about the laptop and lied to the FISA Courts to get a warrant to spy on Trump. Now you know the vote machines are not unhackable. Do you also deny that many, many potential witnesses against Bill and Hillary were said to have suicided on the way to their depositions with gunshot wounds to the back of the head? Do you deny the emails of Strzok and Page confirming they would stop Trump from being elected with a guaranteed plan? Do you deny the Biden Crime family got rich from illegal money from Russia and China? Do you deny the 14 whistleblowers within the rank and file of the FBI exposed their own bosses?

No, you are not funny.

[wmLambert]

...You're intermingling court cases. Do you mind letting me know what election was overturned as a result of hacking/voting machine error? Do you understand that is not the same as the defamation case against Lindell? Do you understand Lindell isn't being sued for saying that machines are potentially hackable?

Do you not understand the defamation case is based on the judge stating Lindell's charges were not probable, but rather implausible? Why did he accept the statement from the EM companies that it was impossible to hack them when it was proved in court that they can be either hacked by an outside source - or privy to faulty software than can completely change the results of elections?

[jc44]

Wow! Having become confused as to which court cases were actually going on I went and searched for it.  This article gives the timeline & list of running related cases:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/09/19/after-court-lets-fox-news-challenge-move-forward-heres-where-dominion-and-smartmatic-defamation-suits-stand-now-and-who-could-be-next/

Gosh there are a lot of them! Without researching each one the central suit seems not to be that the machines are hackable, but that the various defendants asserted that they were hacked and used to change the result of the election - which I hope everyone can see are two different statements.

[NobleHunter]

Not to conspiracy theorists. For them, the possibility of a thing is the same as the actuality of it. If it's possible for the machines to have been hacked, then they were hacked and anyone who says different is lying or ignorant.

Needless to say, this allows them to believe very unlikely things based on little to no evidence.

[msquared]

The only evidence needed is that their guy lost.  What more do you want?

[wmLambert]

The only evidence needed is that their guy lost.  What more do you want?

Again, smarmy and wrong. The point was that the results from EM are not reliable and the government agency assigned to verify them warned 16 states they are not to be trusted. How does that make Lindell's statements implausible? It does not matter who caused the machines to change votes. The results say they can be changed and the court says there is proof of that changing. Outside of the rubber walls of the EM invincibility, the math has never made sense. A person can propose many different people who may have caused the changes, but there are so many candidates that the individuals who actually rigged the votes are buried underneath the conspiracy claims. We know someone did it, but the agencies that should be investigating the criminal hacking seem to be more invested with claiming conspiracy than investigating what happened.

I am satisfied that the EM bandits have been proved, yet not individually named. I also find it amusing that Dem apologists only look at the conspiracy attacks on concerned citizens than be angered by the obvious cheating and want to get at the root of it. Look at Arizona. The bill to make voting safer is happening - even though Democrats fought to block that bill from taking affect. We should be on the same side. As a further example on what is wrong on the macro scale, There will never be any DOJ investigation with results on Hunter unless the red wave takes control of the Legislative branch. Doesn't that bother anyone?

[Tom]

William Lambert has killed a dozen people and eaten their feet. We know this is true because people can be killed and people have eaten other people's feet before, so clearly this is plausible.

[wmLambert]

William Lambert has killed a dozen people and eaten their feet. We know this is true because people can be killed and people have eaten other people's feet before, so clearly this is plausible.

Another smarmy and ridiculous post. You should have said I was not a probable feet eater because I have never done such things, but the people who accuse me of depravity are, themselves, individuals with a history of depravity. It is not me who weaponized the DOJ to destroy political opponents, nor apologized for those I know are dirty. You should look in a mirror more often. There is a rumor that you have broken all the mirrors in your domicile.

Look, It is only the Democrat Party who want to get votes from cemeteries, non-citizens, and prison inmates. It is Democrats who make up rules that allow vote-scamming. It all goes to the root foundation of people who believe the ends justify the means. Republicans and Independents generally believe in honor and justice, realizing they are in the majorit so needn't cheat.

[NobleHunter]

If Republicans realize they don't need to cheat, why are so many of them caught cheating?

[Tom]

You should have said I was not a probable feet eater because I have never done such things...

Are we alleging that Smartmatic has thrown several elections in conjunction with George Soros, or is that also improbable? Or are you saying that because Democrats are (by your reckoning) depraved, of course they would do anything depraved that it is possible to do? Whereas you, as someone who is not (again, by your reckoning) depraved, of course would not do anything depraved, no matter how convenient or beneficial to you?

It makes me sad that you don't realize how poorly your brain is functioning here, William.

[jc44]

The results say they can be changed and the court says there is proof of that changing.

Could you point me at a document produced by a court that says that the machines changed results in an election please (not documents containing allegations presented to a court). So far I've missed that one and a simple web search produces buckets of allegations, but nothing actually produced by a court. Thanks.

[TheDrake]

Most of the "machine changed my vote" accusations have to do with touchscreen calibration and in many cases simply voter error. This is one of the reasons why the narrative of suspicious machines is so dangerous.

background

Could this be done maliciously? At least on some machines. But to allege that enough people were doing this to flip multiple states without detection is ludicrous. Hordes of people would be describing getting checkmarks on the wrong candidates. Examination of the machines by election officials would expose the conspiracy.

can be, not has been

Is it right to be worried about these issues and trying to make the system foolproof? Of course there is. But let's get a grip. It reminds me of the non-political hand wringing over the exposure of memory cache to programs that should not have access on Intel platforms running windows. A researcher proved that it was possible for a hack to extract meaningful information, some of which could be very sensitive data. But nobody had ever actually done it, it would require a massive amount of effort and technical sophistication.

All electronic and physical security is about making intrusion difficult - not impossible. And once you start to have a wholesale distrust for all elections officials, I'm not sure what system will keep you from claiming unproven fraud. Even if people were marking ballots with sharpies, you could blame the calculation machines, the operators of scanning devices, or just the reported precinct totals themselves.

[wmLambert]

Most of the "machine changed my vote" accusations have to do with touchscreen calibration and in many cases simply voter error. This is one of the reasons why the narrative of suspicious machines is so dangerous.

background

Could this be done maliciously? At least on some machines. But to allege that enough people were doing this to flip multiple states without detection is ludicrous. Hordes of people would be describing getting checkmarks on the wrong candidates. Examination of the machines by election officials would expose the conspiracy.

can be, not has been

Is it right to be worried about these issues and trying to make the system foolproof? Of course there is. But let's get a grip. It reminds me of the non-political hand wringing over the exposure of memory cache to programs that should not have access on Intel platforms running windows. A researcher proved that it was possible for a hack to extract meaningful information, some of which could be very sensitive data. But nobody had ever actually done it, it would require a massive amount of effort and technical sophistication.

All electronic and physical security is about making intrusion difficult - not impossible. And once you start to have a wholesale distrust for all elections officials, I'm not sure what system will keep you from claiming unproven fraud. Even if people were marking ballots with sharpies, you could blame the calculation machines, the operators of scanning devices, or just the reported precinct totals themselves.

Well reasoned and honorably posted. There are several responses to your statements of fact. Firstly, The machines can be programmed to cheat - either with simple thumb drives that can be plugged into the machines locally, or purpose-written script that can be hooked up remotely.
 
Here are some bits of info that may be interesting. The last one is particularly worthy to study as it comes from the Gateway Pundit.com which makes an effort to admit Conservative leanings - but insists all claims be transparent and well documented. Maybe someone here can explain why the Edison totals differ from the State totals. "The Edison state data supplied to the media and the county data supplied to the state don’t mirror each other and don’t agree until very late in the process – these results should mirror each other at all times accounting for timing issues".

The Edison state data supplied to the media and the county data supplied to the state don’t mirror each other and don’t agree until very late in the process – these results should mirror each other at all times accounting for timing issues:
"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/)

The CISA advisory is based on a report by computer scientist J. Alex Halderman of the University of Michigan. He has previously argued for multiple safeguards to be put in place for voting machines and has said that hand-marked paper ballots are the most secure way to vote, according to the AP.
Hartman noted that while it’s difficult to carry out a hacking, it can happen.

True the Vote on 2000 Mules ignored case: https://arizonasuntimes.com/2022/09/05/true-the-vote-calls-out-arizona-ag-criminal-division-over-mishandling-its-2000-mules-complaint-unmasking-informants-2/

Data Supporting the Reported Results of the 2020 Election Does NOT Reconcile with Data in Voting Machine Files
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/huge-data-supporting-final-results-2020-election-not-reconcile-voting-machine-files-something-wrong/

Also interesting is that FOI request have returned finally which show there were zero investigations of election fraud which contradicts the official claim.

[Wayward Son]

True the Vote on 2000 Mules ignored case: https://arizonasuntimes.com/2022/09/05/true-the-vote-calls-out-arizona-ag-criminal-division-over-mishandling-its-2000-mules-complaint-unmasking-informants-2/

The article only details the accusations from True the Vote.  It does not include any response from the AG criminal division, since they had not responded to the author's questions by press time.  They may have a completely different story.

I would question the integrity and accuracy of True the Vote.  As I mentioned a while back:

Quick question, William ... :  if 2000 Mules was such a devastating and accurate documentary, why did they use videos of people legally putting ballots in drop boxes as examples of ballot harvesting?

When the MSM does something like that, you'd claim it was deceptive videos, wouldn't you?/quote]

So I wouldn't take them at their word.

[TheDrake]

Thank you for providing a source. Did you read your own article?

So far nothing bad has happened. The advisory said, “While these vulnerabilities present risks that should be mitigated as soon as possible, CISA has no evidence that these vulnerabilities have been exploited in any elections.”

Indeed, CISA has called the 2020 election “the most secure in American history.”

The descriptions of the nine vulnerabilities are fairly technical and include recommendations for election officials to mitigate them.

No evidence that these have been exploited, and has mitigation advice.

“They are things that we should worry could be exploited by sophisticated attackers, such as hostile nation states, or by election insiders, and they would carry very serious consequences,” he told the AP.

In other words, it requires an insider as I said. At some point you have to trust someone, even with paper ballots which an election insider can exploit by simply destroying some of the ballots.

Did you read the CISA document? Nowhere do they assert that the machines should be taken out of service. Most of the mitigation advice involves making sure only authorized people have access to the machines. Which is why the machines that have been given to third parties trying to prove fraud will never be put back into service. The vast majority of these machines are air-gapped. A strong mitigation recommendation is, don't connect them to the internet. There are isolated incidents where a contractor working from home accessed some machines remotely. It didn't happen in hundreds of precincts, as would be necessary to flip the 2020 election for President.

Such vulnerabilities would be particularly valuable in smaller jurisdictions, where all the machines necessary would be in one place, not hundreds.

Then there's a gaping question here - Democrats have this awesome power to flip elections through these vulnerabilities. They have no scruples. Why do they only use it for the Presidency? Why didn't Soros and his pals hand-deliver all the Senate and Congressional results as well with a wave of the remote magic wand?

[msquared]

 "or by election insiders"  I take it to mean people like Tina Peters or the lady in GA who let Trump supporters into see the machines with out notifying anyone, even when it is against the rules.

That type of access could be used to contaminate machines.  Since Republicans have been caught red handed tampering with machines, we should ignore any vote cast for a  Republican in GA since it would obviously be suspect.

[msquared]

Well Sydney Powell's counter suit gets tossed.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-tosses-sidney-powell-countersuit-160804840.html

Her claim? That their defamation suit was an abuse of process. That was it. One suit was an abuse of process.

I wonder if she was ever a real lawyer?

[DJQuag]

Trump has only the best attorneys. Just look. Look at their records. Undeniable.

[msquared]

Trump just sidelined a real lawyer from FL that he paid a 3 million dollar retainer to.

[TheDrake]

Well Sydney Powell's counter suit gets tossed.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-tosses-sidney-powell-countersuit-160804840.html

Her claim? That their defamation suit was an abuse of process. That was it. One suit was an abuse of process.

I wonder if she was ever a real lawyer?

I'm starting to think that getting suits tossed is part of their design. Look at all the suits they brought where they absolutely knew that they didn't have standing. So it gets tossed, and they get to claim it is because the system is biased, AND never have to actually show the evidence and have it rejected. This one will be used to continue to undermine faith in the justice system. Because Cleetus and friends will be told its anti-Trump bias, and they will lap it up. Look at all the suits they refused to hear! It MUST be because they didn't want the evidence to get out! Ignoring the fact that any evidence they had could just be posted to a website.

[rightleft22]

Its part of the 'Art of the Deal'
 
You don't have to wonder if its a strategy, it is

[msquared]

A conviction for Election Fraud in NC.  Guess who was involved?  Not Democrats.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/four-plead-guilty-ballot-fraud-103107858.html

From most of the stories about election fraud the Republicans claims of fraud sure seem to be projection. They know there is fraud going on because they are the ones committing it.

[TheDrake]

A conviction for Election Fraud in NC.  Guess who was involved?  Not Democrats.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/four-plead-guilty-ballot-fraud-103107858.html

From most of the stories about election fraud the Republicans claims of fraud sure seem to be projection. They know there is fraud going on because they are the ones committing it.

That's only because of the corrupt justice system in all fifty states that only try to prosecute Republicans while giving Democrats a pass. WWG1WGA

PS Wh0t 4bout Hun7erZ L4pT0p!

[DJQuag]

Oh good lord. Please, everyone do themselves a favour and stop defending Hunter Biden.

This guy is an unmitigated piece of *censored*. We've seen the pictures, we've heard the stories. Man likes crack and literal whores. It is what it is. He banged his dead brother's widow ffs.

He's a piece of *censored*, but that's where the Repugs have trapped you. They have you all wildly trying to defend the president as if the actions of his grown ass son, like it means something to what he will do. It's ridiculous.

The Crunches, Cherries, and Lamberts of the world will focus on this. We don't need to. Just ignore it.

[TheDrake]

I've never defended Hunter. He's a deeply flawed craven who rode shameless nepotism by proxy to riches he didn't deserve. But whenever you bring up any topic about justice, he gets trotted out. Since I was mocking the view that MAGAs have of the justice system, it seemed appropriate to include their most popular hit.

[DJQuag]

Based upon evidence in hand, Hunter Biden should be facing charges. He won't, though. Because he's the President's son.

[msquared]

Lindell gets denied at the US SC.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-turns-back-effort-134336065.html

[TheDrake]

"As a preliminary matter, a reasonable juror could conclude that the existence of a vast international conspiracy that is ignored by the government but proven by a spreadsheet on an internet blog is so inherently improbable that only a reckless man would believe it," U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols wrote in his opinion.

I love this.

[TheDrake]

Deirdre Holden is an unelected civil servant with the job of Supervisor of Elections and Voter Registration. She is in charge of the mechanics of voting, making sure polling stations operate smoothly, ballots are collected safely and counted accurately. Holden doesn't tear up easily, but when she rereads the threat letter she received after the 2020 election she chokes, for just a second.

"This election is effing rigged," it reads. (Deirdre is exceptionally polite, she has that wonderful Southern gentility, and she wants to spare me the profanities.) "Detonations will occur at every polling site in this county. No one at these places will be spared. If you think we're bluffing, eff-ing try. You've been warned. We will end you all." Deirdre puts down the letter and wipes her eye.

But yeah, you know, its only the liberals who embrace violence, and the conservatives just want to protest peacefully.

Deirdre wasn't the only election official to be targeted after that vote. The select committee investigating the Capitol Riot interviewed several witnesses who had been threatened, along with their families. After Al Schmidt, Philadelphia's elected Republican city commissioner, defended the election's integrity and confirmed Biden's win, he got one text that read, "You lied. You [are] a traitor. Perhaps 75 cuts and 20 bullets will arrive soon."

It's strange, but I can't really remember liberals sending death threats to elections officials. Must be selective memory.

[wmLambert]

...It's strange, but I can't really remember liberals sending death threats to elections officials. Must be selective memory.

Why would any Democrat make death threats at Democrat election officials who cheated for them? We all know that Democrats have no scruples against lying for political advantage.

Query: is there one Democrat apologist here in this forum who has admitted that the DOJ's interference in the election cost over 17% of votes for Biden being changed? That is the official poll numbers from people who now know the details of Hunter's criminal actions and payments from China, Russia, and other foreign adversaries - with 10% going to the "Big Guy." Add that to the verification of all of Bobulinski's eyewitness statements and evidence against the Biden Crime family that the DOJ and media kept hidden from the people. I still believe the cheating that was not investigated (verified from FOIA requests) that claimed violation after violation of election scamming. Look, the people here who apologize for every accusation of criminality claim the non-investigations prove the innocence of those who should be wearing prison orange today.

Smarmy insults don't change the big facts. Dems knew their minions in the DOJ were purposefully stopping fair coverage from affecting the election. Many voting violations occurred that were never investigated. Trump was impeached for invented crimes. The votes for any bills the Dems pushed went through on straight party-line votes, with no effort to work with anyone but themselves.
Any successful actions by Trump were immediately stopped by Biden, only because they were not Democrat ones - and the ecnmy tanked. As the ecnomy tanked - Biden blamed Trump. The border is now designed to draw illegal aliens - and Biden was shipping them to Red states in the dead of night unannounced. The reason was flawed - but no one on the Left would question anything. All or nothing.

[Tom]

That is the official poll numbers from people who now know the details of Hunter's criminal actions and payments from China, Russia, and other foreign adversaries...

Which people, specifically?

[wmLambert]

Judge Wright also found sufficient evidence that Lindell knew or should have known his statements were false and acted with “actual malice” in promoting them, a key legal threshold in defamation cases.

That doesn't sound much like "the facts Mike had and presented as proved and accurate". It kind of sounds like the opposite.

On the contrary...  The Judge's statement cited the Lindell position was implausible. Now that the government has verified the EMs are not perfect, and one election was reversede. Lindell believed from the evidence he saw that the EMs were not to be trusted, and the facts have now verified that his fears were probable.

[msquared]

So not perfect means never to be trusted.  Paper ballots are not perfect so I guess we should not use them either.

Lindell has not shown any evidence that fraud happened in any scale, anywhere.