Election 2020

Trump: If the President Doesn't Have Standing to Pursue Wild, Unsubstantiated Claims of Election Fraud, Who Does?

Fox News interviewer Maria Bartiromo uncritically accepts Trump's outlandish conspiracy theory.


In his first TV interview since the presidential election, Donald Trump spoke to Fox News host Maria Bartiromo on Sunday morning, reiterating his unsubstantiated claim that vote counting was "rigged" to ensure Joe Biden's victory. Although Bartiromo began by inviting the president to "go through the facts" that support his allegations of systematic election fraud, he presented no real evidence, and Bartiromo did not press him to do so.

Instead Bartiriomo seemed to accept the president's claims at face value. "This is disgusting!" she said. "And we cannot allow America's election to be corrupted."

Any mildly skeptical person would have seen several opportunities for follow-up questions. "This election was a fraud," Trump said. "It was a rigged election." How so? "We had glitches where they moved thousands of votes from my account to Biden's account," he asserted.  "They're not glitches. They're theft. They're fraud—absolute fraud."

Trump was repeating a story about fraud-facilitating voting machines that has been repeatedly debunked. "To our collective knowledge," a group of 59 computer scientists and election security experts said in an open letter published earlier this month, "no credible evidence has been put forth that supports a conclusion that the 2020 election outcome in any state has been altered through technical compromise." Trump's own Department of Homeland Security called the 2020 election "the most secure in American history," saying, "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised."

In addition to claiming that voting machines were rigged, Trump said large numbers of fraudulent ballots mysteriously arrived at counting locations to save the day for Biden. "This election was over, and then they did dumps…big, massive dumps in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and all over," he said. "If you take a look at just about every state that we're talking about, every swing state that we're talking about…they did these massive dumps of votes. And all of a sudden, I went from winning by a lot to losing by a little….They started just doing ballot after ballot very quickly and just checking the Biden name on top. " This is another claim that the Trump campaign has failed to substantiate in court. "They backdated all these ballots that came in," Trump said, referring to yet another accusation that did not pan out.

Trump also asserted that "there are a lot of dead people that so-called voted in this election." Such cases, which typically involve people who mail absentee ballots on behalf of recently deceased spouses, are "exceedingly rare," FactCheck.org found. More often, purported examples of dead voters turn out to be mistakes—confusing a father and son with similar names, for instance. Sometimes people who cast votes by mail die before Election Day. "Every once in a while, it turns out that someone votes in the name of someone who's passed away," Justin Levitt, a voting fraud expert at Loyola Law School, told FactCheck.org. "A handful of votes in a sea of millions. It's not OK, but it doesn't swing results."

Trump expressed disappointment that the Department of Justice and the FBI had not taken his allegations more seriously, saying "maybe they're involved." If so, they would join a long list of alleged conspirators, including Democratic and Republican election officials, the Biden campaign, Dominion Voting Systems, George Soros, the Clinton Foundation, and the Venezuelan, Cuban, and Chinese governments, not to mention the Republican members of Congress, Trump-friendly news outlets, and Republican-nominated judges who have been skeptical of the president's claims about election fraud.

Again and again, post-election lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign have failed to specifically allege the sort of massive fraud that could have changed the outcome. Trump complained that some of those lawsuits have been dismissed for lack of standing, meaning the campaign failed to show that it had suffered an "injury in fact" caused by the defendants that would be addressed by the remedy it sought. "They say you don't have standing," Trump told Bartiromo. "You mean as president of the United States, I don't have standing. What kind of a court system is this?"

As U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann explained when he rejected the Trump campaign's attempt to block certification of Pennsylvania's election results, it's the kind of court system that is empowered to act only when it is presented with "cases" or "controversies." To satisfy that requirement, Brann noted, "a plaintiff must establish that they have standing," which is "an 'irreducible constitutional minimum,' without which a federal court lacks jurisdiction to rule on the merits of an action."

The Trump campaign, joined by two voters, challenged Pennsylvania's policy regarding technical errors in absentee ballots. Some counties, following advice from Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar, gave voters a chance to "cure" those errors, while other counties did not. The campaign and the voters argued that the uneven application of that policy violated the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection.

Brann found that the two voters, whose ballots were rejected by counties that did not give them a chance to fix their mistakes, could not show that the injury they asserted—invalidation of their votes—was caused by the parties they sued: Boockvar and seven counties that allowed curing. Furthermore, the remedy they sought—preventing certification of millions of other people's votes—would not have corrected the injury.

As for the Trump campaign, Brann said, the issue of standing "is particularly nebulous because neither in the [first amended complaint] nor in its briefing does the Trump Campaign clearly assert what its alleged injury is. Instead, the Court was required to embark on an extensive project of examining almost every case cited to by Plaintiffs to piece together the theory of standing as to this Plaintiff."

Brann considered two possibilities: "associational standing" and "competitive standing." He concluded that neither applied in this case.

Associational standing requires that an organization's members "would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right." Since the voters who joined the lawsuit did not have standing to sue Boockvar and the seven counties, Brann said, the campaign could not meet that prong of the test.

Competitive standing, according to case law from the 9th Circuit on which the Trump campaign relied, "is the notion that 'a candidate or his political party has
standing to challenge the inclusion of an allegedly ineligible rival on the ballot, on
the theory that doing so hurts the candidate's or party's own chances of prevailing
in the election.'" That description did not apply to this case either.

Although Brann concluded that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue, he considered their equal protection claims while deciding whether to dismiss the lawsuit. "Even if Plaintiffs had standing, they fail to state an equal-protection claim," he said. "The general gist of their claims is that Secretary Boockvar, by failing to prohibit counties from implementing a notice-and-cure policy, and Defendant Counties, by adopting such a policy, have created a 'standardless' system and thus unconstitutionally discriminated against Individual Plaintiffs. Though Plaintiffs do not articulate why, they also assert that this has unconstitutionally discriminated against the Trump Campaign."

The two voters' equal protection claims ran into the same problem as their argument for standing: The defendants were not responsible for rejecting their ballots. "Because Defendants' conduct 'imposes no burden' on Individual Plaintiffs' right to vote, their equal-protection claim is subject to rational basis review," Brann said. "Defendant Counties, by implementing a notice-and-cure procedure, have in fact lifted a burden on the right to vote, even if only for those who live in those counties. Expanding the right to vote for some residents of a state does not burden the rights of others."

Brann concluded that Pennsylvania's notice-and-cure policy easily satisfied the highly deferential rational basis test, because "it is perfectly rational for a state to provide counties discretion to notify voters that they may cure procedurally defective mail-in ballots." Although "states may not discriminatorily sanction procedures that are likely to burden some persons' right to vote more than others," he said, "they need not expand the right to vote in perfect uniformity."

Regarding the Trump campaign, Brann wrote, "they do not allege that Secretary Boockvar's guidance differed from county to county, or that Secretary Boockvar told some counties to cure ballots and others not to. That some counties may have chosen to implement the guidance (or not), or to implement it differently, does not constitute an equal-protection violation."

The campaign also complained that election officials in some counties kept poll watchers unreasonably far from the vote counting. But here, too, it failed to allege that the practice discriminated against Republicans. "Plaintiffs fail to plausibly plead that there was 'uneven treatment' of Trump and Biden watchers and representatives," Brann said.

Contrary to Trump's implication in the Fox News interview, then, Brann did consider the plausibility of the campaign's equal protection claims, and he found them wanting. So did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in a ruling it issued on Friday. "The Campaign cannot win this lawsuit," the unanimous three-judge panel said in a scathing opinion written by a Trump appointee. "The Campaign's claims have no merit."

NEXT: The Shaky Case for State Bailouts 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Fox News interviewer Maria Bartiromo uncritically accepts Trump’s outlandish conspiracy theory.”

    Here goes Stalinist-Communist “UnReason” once again advocating that the Demonrat Party should just go right ahead and install brain-control machines on us ALL!!!

    Dammit, it is a known FACT that fluoridated water is chock-full of tiny little Hunter Biden homunculi (one each per each fluorine atom, with a tiny sub-atomic Hunter Biden working the tiny little brain-control levers, and chucking an evil laugh) as they FORCED tens of millions of fluoridated-water-drinking voters to NOT vote for Trump!

    Worse yet, the lamestream media REFUSES to investigate or report these FACTS!

    1. Take your Adderall, Sqrlsy dear… and please stop playing with the cat’s nipples. It won’t give milk.

      1. Sevo says it will.

        1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet.Akl Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions………….. Visit Here

          1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regulaer office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
            on this page…..work92/7 online

      2. Sqrisy fails to recognize an obvious satirical post.

    2. I get paid more than $120 to $130 per hour for working online. I heard about MED this job 3 months ago and after joining this i have earned easily $15k from this without having online working skills. This is what I do….. Visit Here

    3. SQRLSY is just a crazy homeless guy who makes a living eating ass and ranting on street corners.

      1. Wow, Product-Dumped-in-the-bottom-of-the-John-of-the-Diablo, what clever wit! Did your mommy help you write that?

        1. How To Work From Home” Online Jobs 2020
          Here are 7 at-home jobs that pay at least $100/day. And there’s quite the variety too! Some of these jobs are more specialized, others are jobs that anyone can do. They all pay at least $3000/month, but some pay as much as $10,000.

      2. no, he’s obviously posting satirically. I realize we are in poe territory, but his comment about tiny Biden humonculuses being in flouridated water pulling your brain levers is clearly a mark of a satirical post.

  2. Fine you leftist cunt have it your way. Time to go join antifa in burning it all down to the ground as illegitimate. I’m sure you’ll cover those riots as “peaceful protests” like your propagandist ass did over the summer for your marxists allies.

    This election was rife with fraud and your protests there wasn’t don’t pass the sniff test any honest journalist could apply. You are actively engaging in the destruction of the Republic as you cheer banana republic voting standards and fraud. Apparently baseless conspiracies are only worthy of serious consideration when brought forward by the left.

    1. Do these tantrums make you feel better? I didn’t think it could get worse than the dems’ Russia Fever for 4 straight years but it looks like these Trump whiners are going to top it.

      1. Fuck off, Jeff. You’re not fooling anyone..

        1. The fuck should you care, Canadian?

          1. The fuck you should care. Jeff’s Canadian.

    2. Snowflakes everywhere, it’s like a blizzard.

    3. “Apparently baseless conspiracies are only worthy of serious consideration when brought forward by the left.”

      No, no. Theyre worth exactly the same as when they do it. CNN, MSNBC, NYT championed the russia hoax, hardcore leftists online and on twitter championed it, and the majority of the country rolled their eyes about it and said…”listen, you lost, better luck next time, get over it”

      Now OANN, breitbart, and sometimes Fox are championing the MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD SOROS VENEZUELA DOMINION ANTIFA conspiracy; the hardcore rightwingers online are buying it, and the majority of the country is rolling their eyes, saying, “listen, you lost, better luck next time, get over it”. Really nothing to see here other than we are in a downward spiral with each team having a large amount of gullible rubes willing to help them get to the bottom faster than the other side did last time.

      Oh ya, and this time the rhetoric is “well, if we dont get our way at least we have 2a to remedy things”…so ya, Russiagate was not comparable or worse.

      Get the fuck over it, take the L

      1. ^truth

      2. * slow clap *

      3. That was absolutely beautiful.

      4. Yup pretty much.

      5. Amen…I have some hard core lefty friends who were positive (and had “proof”) that Trump and his cronies swapped thousands of ballots in key districts in the three swing states where Trump became the first Republican to win in a quarter century. They still believe and cite eyewitness accounts of suspicious boxes being delivered to precincts in the middle of the night. The nonsense from the Trumpites is very similar.

      6. Too many conservative grifters like Dinesh D’Souza et. al. are making money off of this fraud nonsense for it to ever stop.

        It’s just part of the right-wing landscape now, like Obama birtherism and QAnon.

      7. In the meantime a court in Georgia stopped Democrats from erasing voting machines and insuring the software used during the election could not be audited. I wonder why they are in such a hurry to reset the machines?

        1. That and the dominion equipment “crashed” during hand recount. Reliable equipment that “crashes” when the electronic numbers dont match the paper backup ballots.

          1. here ill try my hand at an oldie and goodie from you folks and the russia hoax

            “You got em now! Walls are closing in!!”

            Man, its like the same shit, over and over. Different rubes, same story

      8. Stop eating Biden’s ass, it’s making you retarded.

        Dominion is a Canadian company, and we are unable to inspect the source code. That by itself is a massive reason to not trust elections.

        The accusations of fraud aside, I was shocked to learn that:
        1. Foreign entities were even allowed to manage our elections.
        2. The public has no legal ability to inspect the source code to verify (or disprove) accusations of fraud.

        Any reasonable person should recognize that as utterly insane and that skepticism is fully warranted given those circumstances.

    4. Lefties are getting very nervous that Biden wont win based on a massive Democrat election fraud scheme.

      They refuse to even give any Trump campaign claims an ounce of review.

      Even when Democrat Governors and state election officials changed election laws without state legislature approval as required by the US Constitution. Democrats thought they could get away with this plan because Trump would concede or Roberts would side with Democrats on the SCOTUS against challenges to this fraud.

      1. thats not even accurate. The constitution gives the right to determine how to send electors to each state and uses the word “state legislature.” However, there is nothing in the constitution that requires a state to have a state government similar to the structure of the US federa government; they have just almost all copied that form with some minor exceptions.

        Hence the constitution’s reference to “state legislatures” must be understood as “the legitimate governing body of the state” not the specific state legislature branch of a state government, as the constitution makes no requirement for the structure of state governments other then that such can not invalidate the restrictions extended by the incorporation doctrine.

        Since a state constitution could in theory have a single governor and no legislature, or a state government’s legislature could delegate powers related to presidential election law of that state, the claim that the constitution specifically required any laws regarding state presidential election law to come specifically from a state legislative branch and not an executive branch an obvious misinterpretation of the intent of the text and this doctrine has been established in previous court cases repeatedly.

        1. There you go, changing the definition of legal term again.

          “no requirement for the structure of state governments”
          The Constitution requires states to have a Republican form of government. That would mean having a legislature of elected representatives with divided government.

          THIS IS WHAT WE’RE DEALING WITH PEOPLE!! Liberals who just change their interpretation of the law to suit their corrupt interests!

    5. This election was rife with fraud

      Then prove it in court.

      Not just present “statistical anomalies” (which doesn’t prove fraud, only that this election was unusual – duh)

      Not just affidavits which present “evidence” that is on the order of hearsay.

      Prove that millions of ballots were changed by fraud.

      1. “This election was rife with fraud

        Then prove it in court.”

        That’s a little iffy, don’t you think, when the courts are saying that you must prove it in order to *get into* court.

        1. Uh, no. One must plead fraud (with particularity) to get into court — that is, facts which if proved will show the pleader´s entitlement to a remedy which the court can grant. If that obstacle is surmounted, (which in Trump´s case it has not been,) the plaintiffs have an opportunity to support their claims with admissible evidence.

        2. Democrats use lower dismissals as evidence of Trump’s lack of evidence proving massive democrat election fraud.

          They did the same thing in 2000 with bush vs gore. I was shocked when the SCoTUS sided with bush because the lying media has convinced everyone that bush had no evidence of election fraud.

          1. Uh, Bush led in the election. He was not making any claim of electoral fraud.

        3. No, they’re not. They are saying you must have evidence to back up your claims, which is standard for any legal action. The trump lawsuits WERE in heard in court and were dismissed for various reasons.

          Claiming trump’s lawsuits never made into a court is clearly fake news.

      2. It wasn’t millions it was a few hundred thousands in 3 states.

      3. https://votepatternanalysis.substack.com/p/voting-anomalies-2020

        Statistical anomalies can show probable cause to further examine the data and the voting machines. A court in Georgia just stopped Democrat counties from resetting the voting machines and erasing all the data from the election. There are some that want to know why they were in such a hurry.

        1. sigh. The hand recount already showed that the paper receipts from the dominion machine matched the voting tally which puts to bed the dominion voting switch theory.

          Obviously, after the election, those machines are reset. The injuction is preventing the machines from being reset not for the purpose of a recount, which has already been done, but for forensic inspections of the machines.

          The ruling was overturned by a judge, however a temporary injuction has been filed for Union County to hear arguments on the matter.

          1. The only acceptable resolution to the Dominion accusations is to release the source code to the public so it can be inspected and verified that there are no bugs or fraud-enabling logic in the code.

            Matching the paper is meaningless since, guess what, when you add a vote electronically you just print out a paper receipt with it! How secure is THAT?

      4. My concern is not merely that there are “statistical anomalies” – because this is a highly unusual year – but that these anomalies seem extreme. That should be cause for concern, it should be sufficient evidence to require further investigation. Everyone concerned about fairness, even if they are anti-Trump, should want such an investigation.

        Dismissing these anomalies is like someone dismissing a 99% proof of paternity as being insufficient.

        My other concern is that probably many (most?) judges lack scientific knowledge (including mathematical and statistical knowledge), and so don’t understand this evidence, and are therefore too ready to just dismiss it.

        1. Except they’re not. There aren’t any significant anomalies- just bad reporting by conspiracy theorists and misunderstanding of how various things work, plus allegations with no proof, or confused statements that mix and match data from different counties and states to try and create an argument.

  3. “Any mildly skeptical person….”

    …would read the first few paragraphs of this screed and realize that its overflowing with loaded words and little critical assessment.

    …would realize that there are an awful lot of shady activities that occurred during this election. And while there may never be a literal smoky gun to prove what happened, it smells of fraud.

    …would get tired of being propagandized by low information ‘journalists’ who are peddling DNC propaganda.

    …would have learned by now that both sides lie constantly and its not who is telling the truth, but who is lying least or lying about the issues of lesser importance. When dem’s cry “no evidence”, they are really saying “prove that we cheated”, and not what we would hope they were saying: “we didn’t cheat”.

    1. every ballot has a serial number assigned to a registered voter. here is what would happen if there were actually the kind of fraud trump wants to pretend happened.

      1. there would be massive differences when there are hand recounts, like in Georgia….. this has never happened. the only time we ever had any drama over recounts was the infamous “hanging chads,” and that had nothing to do with fraud.

      2. there would be massive numbers of people reporting ballots being rejected as the “fake” ballots got counted instead.

      3. there would be known rampant dead people on the voter rolls. political parties have access to the name, address, and age of everyone who votes in every election…… this would be impossible to hide, as they could then bounce those names off public death records.

      i am not listening to what any “side” has to tell me. i am looking at the facts and understanding that there was no widespread fraud. everything people are trying to point to as evidence to the contrary is easily explained by one simple truth of this election….. trump told his supporters to vote in person, while Biden told his to vote by mail. if anything, the fact that the outcome was predictable based on that alone makes one need to be skeptical of Trump’s claims now…..

      1. There is? I think you assuming things. My advance ballot had no unique markings whatsoever. Only the outer envelope. Once it’s removed there is no way to tie it back to me.

        1. “My advance ballot had no unique markings whatsoever. Only the outer envelope. Once it’s removed there is no way to tie it back to me.”

          Exactly. In PA, mail-in ballots are returned in a signed security envelope that has the voter’s signature for the legally required signature verification. The ballot itself has no unique identifier.
          By law, the ballots are supposed to be kept with the security envelope after tabulation. Apparently this did not occur in many PA precincts, eliminating any ability to validate the legitimacy of the ballot post-election.
          Normally, that kind of BS would get people arrested.

          1. “Apparently this did not occur in many PA precincts, eliminating any ability to validate the legitimacy of the ballot post-election.”

            People need to stop repeating these things unless they are confirmed. I have seen this repeated in multiple places, and denied in others. I have seen no official proof that this happened (i.e. confirmation from government or a filing in court).

            1. Trust the masters

          2. Which law exactly requires ballots to be always kept with their envelopes?

            How are they supposed to keep the envelope with the ballot? They run hundreds or even thousands of ballots through the counting machine, they would have a stack of envelopes equally as high. I call BS!

          3. And once the ballot is mixed in with the others, there is no reliable way to determine if it was a legal ballot or not.

        2. “Once it’s removed there is no way to tie it back to me.”

          If this is true (I have doubts), the only way for cheating to occur, is if the ballot that is removed from the envelope is switched with another ballot. Aren’t there observers watching the whole process that would notice such a thing occurring en masse? Assuming envelopes are scanned in to verify the voter ID, just dumping a bunch of ballots would easily be caught because the number of ballots would not match the number of envelopes. Furthermore, auditing of the ballots with a hand count would validate the counting machines. Just curious how you see this fraud taking place.

          1. There have been accusations of mass ballot dumping in PA. the late-night ‘pause’ occurred after they knew how many mail-in ballots were received and how many were requested. a simple thing then to manufacture a bunch of ballots within that range and run through the scanners. No switching is required, just adding new ballots. If the security envelope was not kept with the ballot, then there is no ability to verify its legality. if the security envelope was discarded/lost/etc even better.

            It would be an very easy thing to prevent/debunk, simply by following the election procedure and keeping the ballot with the envelope. take out, scan/count, put back in, do the next. they had multiple days to do this afterall. So why create all this issue?
            And why prevent observers from observing?

            this is why it smells.

            1. “It would be an very easy thing to prevent/debunk, simply by following the election procedure and keeping the ballot with the envelope. take out, scan/count, put back in, do the next. ”

              If the envelopes were scanned and ID verified, then there is a verifiable count of how many votes were cast. If there was ballot dumping, the vote totals wouldn’t match the data from the scanned envelopes. If there was switching, how was it done? There are numerous articles stating there were independent observers in PA present during this process (you can google it yourself). There is a reason that all of these lawsuits are getting tossed, there is no credible evidence.

              1. Not all the lawsuits are getting tossed.

                It needs to go to the SCoTUS to decide for Trump anyway. Just like bush won in bush vs gore.

        3. there is a barcode…. it was unique to you…. how do you think they are able to have a web site where you can check on your ballot status if there is no serial number?

          and even if the serial number was “only” on the outside, the situation remains unchanged……. they would have to receive ballots, mark them as received, and then throw out and replace millions of ballots…. at exactly the number of officially received ones…. and not have a single person in the thousand person scheme slip up.

          1. They did screw up as they are sloppy in their fraud.

            They counted on Trump conceding and no support. Trump didnt concede and he has support.

      2. Some states also mailed ballots to every registered voter. They also allow political parties to see who’s voted. (ostensibly for voter out reach efforts). And day of election registration.

        All of those things are fine by themselves if your goal is to increase turnout. There are reasonable cases to be made in support of those policies but they also make it easier to conceal fraud, specifically because the reasons you elude above are no longer valid statements.

        1. let me see if i get this right….. you think the political parties having access to the names of every person who voted makes fraud easier to conceal? having the names of everyone who voted makes it harder to find out if votes are being cast by people who did not actually vote or who are not eligible? how does that work?

      3. “every ballot has a serial number assigned to a registered voter.”

        That is not a fact. There is not serial number on ballots in most states, particularly the key states in question, like PA.

        “i am looking at the facts…”

        apparently not.

        1. pa had the ability to check your mail in ballot status online, including when your vote was recorded…… as this is not possible without a serial number, you are wrong.

      4. “2. there would be massive numbers of people reporting ballots being rejected as the “fake” ballots got counted instead.”

        There are. The investigation in PA has found over 100k voters who showed up on election day and learned that the records showed they ‘already voted by mail’ even though they never requested a mail-in ballot.

        1. I’m not sure which investigation you are referring to, but could you provide a link that supports:
          “PA has found over 100k voters who showed up on election day and learned that the records showed they ‘already voted by mail’ ”

          There are stories about people never requesting a mail-in ballot but getting the form to apply for one. Apparently this is typically done (legally) by state party officials. They basically request the form for you.

          1. Replying to myself.
            I found this story:
            https://abc11.com/nc-vote-provisional-ballot-voter-already-voted-what-is-a/7588117/ But that was one voter. Not 100K and it was in Durham (presumably North Carolina). The state claimed a clerical error (checking off the wrong name from the list).

        2. that is a complete lie. the 100k is people who filled out provisional ballots…… they were on the mail in list, but there could not have been any evidence that a mail in ballot had actually been sent….. because PA did not start counting mail in ballots until election day…… what you are claiming they were told was impossible for anyone to know…..

          these were people who had not mailed ballot in time, or who were not sure it would arrive in time……. there is zero evidence of a single case where someone else mailed in a ballot with their name. not one.

          1. you either don’t know what you are talking about or you are lying. which is it?

            In PA, if a mail in ballot was requested, that voter is then not eligible for in-person voting. Regardless of whether it was sent back or not, if that voter shows up at the polling place on election day, they are given a provisional ballot only.

            1. odd to call someone a liar and then admit what you said was a lie….. they were told they were on the mail in voting list, not that one had already been sent in.

              just about every provisional ballot was counted….. meaning that none were sent in and counted instead……. there were no fraudulent ballots sent in for these people. your premise is a lie.

              this is exactly what i was talking about. if fraudulent mail ballots were being sent, a significant number of provisional ballots would be rejected. that isn’t happening. the mail in ballots are not being obtained fraudulently…. these are people who forgot they requested one, lost the ballot, or for whatever other reason just did not mail it. the number of provisional ballots is meaningless, it is the number of provisional ballots rejected that matters. considering the number of counted provisional ballots matches the number of provisional ballots cast, it does not seem that any were rejected.

              I’m sorry this is so hard for you to grasp. having provisional ballots is not a sign of fraud, it is standard practice. to show potential fraud, you would need the number of REJECTED provisional ballots to be high. it isn’t.

              1. You are grasping at ‘facts’ that aren’t facts at all. Kinda pointless to argue with you since you can’t even maintain your argument from one reply to the next.

                1. you are the one who said they were told a mail in ballot had been received, and then backtracked to they were on the mail in list. the fact that the low number of rejected ballots demonstrates a lack of fraudulent ballots mailed in was my point from the beginning…. i am not grasping at anything, you are just wrong and resorting to insults now that it has been clearly explained to you how wrong you are.

      5. trump told his supporters to vote in person, while Biden told his to vote by mail. if anything, the fact that the outcome was predictable based on that alone makes one need to be skeptical of Trump’s claims now

        Set election fraud aside, take Trump’s and Biden’s names out of it, and say it again. Then think about what you’re saying. In February, we weren’t going to vote by mail. Then we were all locked down and the vote by mail policy went into effect.

        When you’re done thinking about that, think about the fact that the courts aren’t just reluctant to challenge it, but say there’s no standing.

        Imagine if Trump had ordered the lockdown, pushed vote by mail, and told his supprters to vote by mail and won. Imagine if, in 2024, Biden or the EPA did something like ban combustion engines and the several states moved to have one polling location at the capital. Only the ~1% who owned electric cars and were within 1-charges distance of the capital would be able to vote. It would/could completely undermine the EC. Imagine if, voter ID laws got enacted in October, even just in swing states. Even if you assume everything voting-wise was 100.0% on the up-and-up, it’s still pretty fucked up. The combination of lockdowns and mail-in voting is the most crooked, evil, destructive, authoritarian con job since conscription.

        Obvious prediction: By 2022 and absolutely by 2024, we either won’t be voting by mail or, we will all be voting by mail (or even online). If the former, it will be very telling if/when all those swing states that had been red in the previous election, and where Trump gained in-person vote counts, suddenly turn back. If the latter, I expect many more ballots to be cast via the fourth box.

        1. Imagine….a world without non-sequitur and hyperbole. I wonder if you can.

          1. Since it’s so easy if you try, you should be able to say, “Yes, if Trump ordered the lockdowns and vote by mail and won, I would accept that outcome.”

            I made it even easier because you don’t even have to actually imagine, you can just cut-and-paste.

            1. Yes, if Trump ordered the lockdowns and vote by mail and won, I would accept that outcome.

              1. ^ ’nuff said.

                1. What is it that you think you’ve proven, Stan Lee? That anyone who orders a lockdown will have an advantage with mail-in ballots? Seriously, I have no idea what point you think you are making.

                  1. Reply to this post when you’ve stopped beating your wife.

                  2. We will accept your premise when you stop raping kids.

        2. I’m not sure what your point is….. if something different had happened, things might be different?

          1. ‘Something different’ didn’t ‘just happen’, the differences I pointed out were mandated and at least some of them were unconstitutionally authoritarian if not more fundamentally anti-human rights.

            1. so……. you don’t have a point.

              1. If I’m so incoherently wrong, you should have no problem replying; “Yes, if Trump mandated the lockdowns and mandated vote by mail and won, I would accept that outcome.”

                It’s a simple cut-and-paste.

                1. are you exposing your devotion as being so blind as to say you would have still supported him if he had done that? the fact that trump loosing is the only reason you don’t accept the results has nothing to do with reality, or my ability to see it.

      6. Once the ballots are harvested, all recounts will do is recount the original harvested totals. Hand recounts would catch any machine programming errors or hacking, but once the ballots are accepted the game is over.

        1. Care to explain how the ballots are “harvested”? I’m assuming by “harvested” you mean switching legitimate ballots with non-legitimate ballots. How is this done in the numbers required to tip an election in front of observers from both teams?

          1. what hes saying doesnt make any sense. To fraudulently make a handcount of the paper receipts match the tabulated votes if there was a vote switching algorithm, thousands of people across the state would have to be given complex instructions to switch up ballots in the exact same way the algorithm did, without producing any proof of the switching or communication of the algorithmic methods which is impossible.

        2. Its why during georgia’s hand recount the dominion equipment “crashed”. The election officials also want to clear all voting machines. This does need to be done before the runoff but we have two weeks before early in person voting starts.

          1. Sigh. No. The voting machines have a hard coded record of the votes, but a one way transmission of the tabulation of those votes to servers. Prior to a recount, it is customary to run a diganostic on said servers as they are involved in a two step verification process of the machine tabulated votes, basically confirming that the origianl tabulation was accurate.

            The results from said machines are not read individually by persons who then report such votes as that would create an obvious hole in security.

            The dominion software team instructed fulton county officials how to run the diagnostic, but they didnt follow their instructions. They “cut corners” by trying to run the diagnostic through a smaller server, not the main one. The diagnostic has to diagnostic has to run on all server connections, and only the main server has the capacity to do so. trying to use the smaller secondary server to run the diagnostic temporarily crashed that system. Note this doesn’t effect the individual machines or their hard coded vote tallies, rather the set up of server systems that tabulate the information from those machines.

            Due to this issue, the hand recount was temporarily delayed untill the dominion team could fix the issue and get the full system running. This was PRIOR to the hand count, and by nature a crahed system couldnt alter vote totals, as well as the fact the system operates on a one way data basis- the servers can’t alter the hard coded vote records on the machines, they can only receive output data. It’s like when you use a cable to connect your tv to your computer. the tv can receive input from the computer but not the other way around.

            The dominion machines were designed this way and signed off BEFORE the election specifically because of issues raised by congress in previous elections about security issues- thus the security concerns that applied to previous voting machines have been remedied, and all voting systems have been inspected and certified both by the state government AND Trump’s own election security office (run by Krebs who was acknowledge bipartisanly as being good at his job and politically unbiased, he first served in cybersecurity during the Bush administration but continued in such capacities under the Obama administration and later under the Trump administration and was fired for contradicting Trump’s claims.

            If you are concerned about election security, it is really worth watching his interview on sixty minutes where he explains in details what he and his office did.

      7. I think Biden won… so just playing Devil’s Advocate.

        Re:1- IF the ballots are fraudulent then a hand count of fraudulent ballots would yield the same result as the machine count. In both cases it would be “bad data in > bad data out”. Logistically it may still be hard to create this scenario of bad ballots… but that is a different argument than you seem to be making in point 1.

        Re:2- IF fake ballots are submitted on behalf of someone who is not an active voter, the number of “real” ballots getting kicked out could be kept to a small and otherwise “normal noise” level. It is incorrect to assume the fraud is taking place across the whole of the voter rolls. Selected targeting of names to use could help conceal the issue.

        Re:3- There ARE known dead people on voter rolls. The GOP has been trying to purge the rolls for several cycles and have consistently been met with charges of race-based voter suppression (at worst) or courts who have said “yeah… let’s just wait until after this next election to do that since we are already so close” which was the result of the legally mandated changes being challenged at every turn. If you can tie up the change for 6 months at a time then there is bound to be some vote around the corner that demands you leave the rolls unclean for just… this… one… more… vote. Now… you do have a point re: getting those votes bounced. However… since we have a secret ballot system how do we know which ballot to bounce once it has been counted and mixed in with the rest? And who is has the time to cross reference that much data in a short amount of time to yield any level of large scale numbers?

        Vote grad isn’t like most crimes. Most crimes you want to not get caught. In this case you don’t want anyone to know the crime even happened. And if it doesn’t look like a crime happened… did it?

        Again… I predicted Biden would get 300+ in the EC. I think Trump lost. I think the worries people have about fraud are not ONE HUNDRED percent baseless and they deserve to have their fears addressed, not dismissed or ridiculed. Those aren’t the same thing. And citing a news story that claims something debunked without citing the investigation that debunked it with the data isn’t really debunked. It is parroting an empty cry… it is a thing serving as it’s own proof… you can’t usually do that and be right (I am not a master philosopher or logistician so I don’t know if it is 100% or not… but I know in rational thinking it is not usually accepted).

        1. Re:3- There ARE known dead people on voter rolls. The GOP has been trying to purge the rolls for several cycles and have consistently been met with charges of race-based voter suppression (at worst) or courts who have said “yeah… let’s just wait until after this next election to do that since we are already so close” which was the result of the legally mandated changes being challenged at every turn. If you can tie up the change for 6 months at a time then there is bound to be some vote around the corner that demands you leave the rolls unclean for just… this… one… more… vote. Now… you do have a point re: getting those votes bounced.

          This is part of my point above. How long does it take to purge voter rolls? How long does it take to enact voter ID laws? (How long does it take to get immigration reform?) Now, comparatively, how long does it take to mandate people stay in their homes? How long does it take to ensure that vote by mail isn’t riddled with fraud, or bias, or whatever else is the reason we have to wait until the next election cycle to purge voter rolls (or whatever)? Why does fraud for vote-by-mail get no standing but objections that black people are too stupid to know where to get their voter ID, years ahead of any election, stand on its own merits?

          Again, the point isn’t fraud, the point is one team is already getting homered and the home team is petitioning for rule changes to their advantage. Eventually, the only way for the underdogs to stand a chance of “winning” in such a situation would be to start slaughtering everyone on the field.

        2. There are numerous examples of election fraud and incompetence by election officials in almost every state. Certain states are front and center because republicans have to pick their battles.

          The question whether this unprecedented massive democrat election fraud scheme is large enough to alter the results and that is for the SCoTUs to decide.

          1. How will SCOTUS decide that with no evidentiary record? The most it can do is vacate orders of dismissal and remand to district courts for taking of proof.

        3. 1. Changing the paper receipts would require all the counters perfectly matching the supposed alfgorithms. Considering the sheer number of people invovled, the difficulty of both communicating and executing the task without proof, it is a practical impossibility.

          2. This requires someone who is not an active voter but also registered to vote, and people identifying those people, intercepting their ballots, and mailing them in-while at the same time having virtually none of those people decide to vote which would show the scam. Not impossible, and maybe even happened in a few cases, but not likely to be something on a scale that would have any impact on the results- such would not likely be organized fraud, but say, a mother who submits ballots on behalf of her children.

          Such might be technical fraud, but it is more likely a thing like “hey, i’ll do your ballot for you- would you be voting for this guy? “yes.”

          such could have theoretically happened in a few instances but if it as co-oridnated fraud would ring alarm bells as there would be duplicate votes coming in all overr the place, and even the above scenario is only very technical fraud.

          3. This has been covered extensively. The reason this election was likely the most secure was because of the foreign interference in the previous one, and the job of Krebs preventing shenigans.

          As has been explained, there is no evidence of dead votes being counted, other then in the rare case where two people who have the same name and live in the same residence, i.e., father and son, where the father has died recently has the vote counted as the father. However, the son doesn’t get a sepaarte vote, his one vote is counted butb attributed to the wrong person. Admittedly this does happen on occasion but is rare and doesn’t effect the outcomes. It’s true that vote rolls are consistently being purged as counties update methoids and technology, but that problem appears to only be on the voter role end, not the vote counting end, which uses separate rolls based on more recent data and state uniform standards then older rolls which were kept on a county by county basis and duploicated back before electronic records many times so some of those duplicated paper files havent been updated, particularyl if the digitization process used a more recent form of data as its basis. This does leas on occasion to dead people being entered as those backfiles are digitzed, but there are systems set in place by current election standards and better software to immediately correct across digital records and flag such things for investigation. It does take time to catch all of them so someone can point out to some digitized source which still has dead people on the rolls, but those sources aren’t the ones used to send out ballots or tabulate votes- rather then are digitization of previous county documentation that serves as an extra “check” against other data- but which will mark such conflicts for examination. As different counties digitize files at different times and make digitizing such records a lower property then the business of preparing for the election, it is misleading to be able to find some digitized voter roll that is inaccurate and thus claim dead people are voting.

          That was an issue in previous decades, notoriously in large cities prior to the 1970s where there were uniparty “machines” but a lot has changed since then.

      8. You’re making some vast assumptions there…

        1. When you add a vote electronically, it’s not a big deal to cause the fucking machine to print out a receipt to go with it, sheesh.

        2. Wrong. Some people did report this, but it wouldn’t be hard to register a bunch of homeless people or other unlikely voters and then cast a ballot for them.

        3. There is no debate that lots of dead people are on the voter rolls in many states. This has been a gripe of Republicans for years because some states are not very vigilant of purging voter roles.

    2. Why would the Democratic Party say, “prove that we cheated.” Political parties are not responsible for administering elections. It is almost as if some people lack a basic understanding of American political institutions.

      1. “Political parties are not responsible for administering elections”

        Responsibility for administering elections falls to the elected representatives of the states. The representatives are uniformly a member of a political party. Do you imagine that the elections are run by non-partisans? If so, you have a serious misunderstanding of the US political/election system.

        1. Elections are, by design, administered with bipartisan coordination at local levels. The elected state representatives are merely architects of broad procedures. If you think about, elections in the United States are actually peak libertarianism in practice. They are as decentralized and as efficient as a public operation can possibly be. I wish other departments would learn from them.

          1. ward/precincts in deep blue urban areas like philly, detroit, atlanta, are run/administered/counted/verified entirely by dems. The idea that these are “bipartisan” is nothing more than an idealistic delusion.

            Philly for example is notorious for precinct workers in dem campaign gear ‘helping’ voters chose the candidate to vote for. In 2016, there were ‘guards’ outside precincts in philly, forcibly preventing legal GOP observers. There was a verified report of 3 poll workers filling out ballots themselves in one Philly precinct. 2020 saw more of the same. To act like elections in these areas are somehow ‘bipartisan’ coordination is laughable.

            1. Does that not demonstrate the weakness of Trump’s case? Even the craziest Trump supporters must concede that three poll workers filling out fraudulent ballots is nowhere near enough to have an impact on the results of an election.

              1. I gave one example from 2016. WTF are you rambling about now?

                1. Democrats ask for proof of election fraud. When you give them proof of election fraud, democrats claim its not enough to impact the election results. When you prove the election fraud was large enough to impact the election results, democrats say biden won the popular vote.

                  1. Where is that proof of election fraud? Please be specific.

      2. such as you. It is EVERYONE who is asking for proof of fraud. The courts trying cases, the officials being asked not to certify results, the public who is interested in the facts

      3. What a fucking retard. Who certifies the election results? An elected representative who’s a member of a political party.

        Who administers elections at a polling location? In heavily Democrat districts, they will tend to be Democrats, in heavily Republican districts, they will tend to be Republicans.


    3. except all the “fraud” arguments are coming from the trump campaign and supporters, where the “not fraud arguments” are coming from multiple sources, not just democrats, including republican governors, judges, and people trump himself hired to make sure the election was fair.

  4. I’m sure if you say it often enough it becomes true.

    1. I only have to say it once to believe it.

      But I lag behind most people who believe it before they see (and say) it.

    2. If you lie, make it a big lie.

      If you cheat massively, it makes it more believable to accept that it’s legit.

  5. If FactCheck.org says it isn’t so it should be illegal to even think it!

    1. Coming soon to a (re)education facility near you!

    2. Who should we listen to, the original Money Honey or “FactCheck” BS?

      I’m with Joey Ramone on this one:


  6. Trump’s outlandish conspiracy theory

    Jacobs working overtime on this one. His brown envelope must’ve been fatter than most.

    Hey Jacob, how is it possible that voter turnout in just those key cities in just those key states was so high: often 90 percent or more?

    How is it possible that Joe Biden, who barely campaigned, garnered more votes in just those spots than even Barack Obama had done? After midnight Biden suddenly became more popular than any previous Democrat ever.

    How is it possible that, as everyone was getting tucked into bed on the night of November 3, Donald Trump had notable leads in almost all of those states and then, suddenly, all at once, in the wee hours, floods of votes poured in and—wouldn’t you know it—they were overwhelmingly, sometimes exclusively, for Biden?

    How is it possible for Trump to get 7.3 million more votes than four years ago and lose to a dementia patient hiding in his basement instead of campaigning. That sort of vote increase has always gone to the winner in every other American election in history>

    “Herp, derp conspiracy theory”

    Fuck you Sullum. You obviously paid-off propagandist.

    1. “How is it possible that, as everyone was getting tucked into bed on the night of November 3, Donald Trump had notable leads in almost all of those states and then, suddenly, all at once, in the wee hours, floods of votes poured in and—wouldn’t you know it—they were overwhelmingly, sometimes exclusively, for Biden? ”

      PA and other states have laws that you can’t start counting mail-in ballots until the polls close on election day. Did you not know that? Because that fact completely obliterates your narrative and makes you look like either a liar, or a gullible idiot

      1. “you can’t start counting mail-in ballots until the polls close”

        You can’t count regular ballots either… Hell, you can’t count ANY ballots there until polls close, so what the hell are you trying to pull?

        What you seem to be trying to say is that they counted Trump’s ballots first and then Biden’s just before midnight.
        How fucking stupid are you?

        1. “You can’t count regular ballots either… Hell, you can’t count ANY ballots there until polls close, so what the hell are you trying to pull?”

          lmao you are actually so dumb I kind of feel bad for being mean to you now

        2. The votes from in person voting were tallied first because they were in digital form in the polling places.
          The votes from mail-in voting had to be opened, manually placed in the counting machines. That took multiple days. So in-person counted first, mail-in finished last.
          Again, this is not evidence of fraud.

          1. Not every county used electronic voting machines. Both mailin and in person ballots were being counted simultaneously in most locations.

      2. “Because that fact completely obliterates your narrative”

        Actually, no, it doesn’t.
        The vote flooding in the wee hours should have occurred in a steady stream, as each county/precinct/ward uploaded their totals. But instead it occurred in very unusual spikes. It may be legitimate, but perhaps some actual analysis would occur instead of the constant cries of “nothing to see here!”.

        1. If you look at the propaganda given to us by the Republicans such as DT Jr, there are spikes in vote counts for Trump, as well. Is that evidence of voter fraud? Or am I just imagining those graphs and such that he posted on Instagram?

          1. yeah, you are imagining that

          2. No you did not see any major spikes for Trump without concurrent smaller spikes for Biden. The thing about large numbers is that the more votes in a spike for either candidate, the closer to balanced the spike for the opposition candidate should be. The idea there would be a 19+:1 six figure vote spike occurring at all is almost completely farcical on it’s face and should be taken as strong evidence of voter fraud by itself. That it happened after they “stopped counting” and kicked all the poll watchers out, with the exact same sequence of events happening in the 3 other majorly contested states with similar, if slightly less outlandish spikes, is virtual confirmation of fraud and easily passes the sniff test for any ‘guilt’ metric short of beyond a reasonable doubt, which is damned sure not the metric to be used for kicking the votes to the state legislatures or state delegations anyway.

    2. Hey Jacob, how is it possible that…

      Shhhhh… They’re trying to build a narrative here.

    3. Get a pacifier crybaby.

    4. “Hey Jacob, how is it possible that voter turnout in just those key cities in just those key states was so high: often 90 percent or more?”

      Turnout around the country was remarkably high. It is not unimaginable that turnout in SWING STATES would be among the highest, given that both parties were pouring millions of dollars into these states.

      “How is it possible that Joe Biden, who barely campaigned, garnered more votes in just those spots than even Barack Obama had done?”

      Biden got more votes than Obama had done ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. In red states and in blue states, all over the country, Biden gained more votes. He garnered a larger percentage of the votes, and (because of the higher turnout) a higher absolute number. Most states- even states like Kentucky and Kansas- where Trump won, he won by a lower percentage than he beat Clinton.

      As for how Biden got these votes, without campaigning- it’s simple: He had 95% of the US media campaigning for him.

      If you are really confused about this, consider just how unlikely Trump’s win was in the first place. He won in 2016 campaigning against a Clinton- one of the worst examples of establishment corruption ever. But he also won on an inside straight. He won by some 70,000 votes in 3 states. All Biden needed to do was swing 70,000 votes- 70,000 people sick of the bullshit that the media has been feeding them all day every day for 4 years.

      1. “Biden got more votes than Obama had done ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. In red states and in blue states, all over the country, Biden gained more votes. He garnered a larger percentage of the votes, and (because of the higher turnout) a higher absolute number. Most states- even states like Kentucky and Kansas- where Trump won, he won by a lower percentage than he beat Clinton.”

        This is what the simpletons dont get. This “fraud” would not have just required someone stuffing a ballot box in philly. It would have taken people in even DEEP RED STATES, coordinating in the same fashion, to proportionally run up Biden totals there as well, so the numbers would jive. Literally areas with solid R poll workers, community members, local politicians, secretaries of state, all of them would have had to be in on the conspiracy, otherwise Biden wouldn’t have out performed Obama and Hillary there either. Otherwise it would ONLY look that way in the swing states, which would be fishy. So basically the entire country, deep red R districts included, conspired in 50 separate state elections, to steal the presidency from Trump.

        But you cant talk sense to a conspiracy theorist, they will just assume the wool was pulled over your eyes, or youre in on it too!

        1. You have no idea how the Democrats perpetrated the largest election fraud scheme in US history.

          We do though. Kungflu ain’t gonna save Democrats.

          1. So you have the inside story? Why aren’t you giving us all the gory details, man? Are you special ops or just special?

            1. Poor new unreason bots.

          2. Maybe if you suck Trump’s cock hard enough he’ll love you like your daddy never did, loveconstitution1789, but I doubt it.

            1. where are all you faggots coming from?

            2. STFU and get back to eating Biden’s ass you bitch.

      2. Now do Florida and Ohio

        1. Yup. That overt narrative is so hilarious.

          Fraud exposers are claiming that michigan created 500,000 votes out of thin air. Turnout might have been higher for election 2020 but turnout was artificially inflated via election fraud. Republican and democrat votes were created to give an illusion of an even higher turnout than actually happeneed.

          Obama was the first black presidential candidate but biden got more black voters for him. Sure he did.

    5. 1. trump sucks and a lot of people REALLY do not like him. especially in deep blue areas.
      2. election day voting is generally counted real time as ballots are cast. mail in ballots were most of what was being counted after polls closed.
      3. for months, Trump had been urging his supporters to show up at polls, while Biden encouraged his to vote by mail.

      1. Trump urged his supporters to vote in person because he knew that he would get millions of illegal mail-in ballots tossed.

        Democrats are patting themselves no the back for their election fraud scheme but they wont be when the mail-in ballots are tossed by the millions. Democrats didnt follow the constitution on election law changes. Trump knew that and said that.

        1. useful idiot, you are. trump told his supporters to vote in person because he knew then he would have this horseshit to feed you clowns…… trying to throw out legally cast mail in ballots while pretending the other side were the ones guilty of fraud.

          1. Dont be scared. The constitution strikes again!

            1. yup…. that is why trump’s attempt to steal the election is failing.

          2. You are such a fucking ass eater. When the signatures don’t match, they are illegal ballots (but don’t check signatures as required by law). When the envelope is illegally separated from the ballot, they become illegal ballots, as required by law. When they are harvested ballots in states that prohibit the practice, they are illegal ballots.

            Because, and only because, these illegal practices impacted such a large number of votes, judges are simply ignoring the law; afraid that doing their job would overturn the election and make them look bad. If it impacted a smaller number of votes, THAT difference would produce a different outcome in the courts. And THAT difference is not valid legal reasoning by our politicians in robes.

      2. Except the difference in mail vs in person ballots for each candidate was relatively small in 90% of states, with Michigan and Pennsylvania as massive outliers

        1. and what do you base that nonsense on?

            1. so, you are a liar who will throw out utter BS without proof. got it.

              1. You are just being obtuse. Accept the overwhelming evidence. Drop the willful ignorance.

      3. I showed up at the usual precinct, on voting day, and not even a note of where the vote was ‘really’ being held was posted(!) The precinct had been moved, it seems, out of the district.

        Staleness of info on the internet means that city or county governments further host a list of precincts no longer valid, as if they represent diligent efforts to maintain a database (yeah, even during a quatantine). But that’s another story.

    6. High voter turn out is not evidence of fraud. Trump got more votes than ever and somehow that’s OK?
      As for Joe’s campaign strategy. Every hear the term “give them enough rope to hang themselves” tRump does a fine job at pissing off half the country, why would Joe even consider getting in his way. Me personally, I’d vote for a rock before I voted for tRump – by every measure he is a hypocritical a-hole.
      It was predict that mail-in votes would be heavily Democratic because Republicans are too stupid to socially distance and have pretty much given our economy away, allowing China to dominate world trade. So rather than request a mail-in ballot, Republicans went in person. Mail in ballots take longer to process.
      As for tRump loosing to a dementia patient. Perhaps tRump is just that bad. Documented liar, cheater (SAT, taxes, bank loans, and of course on his wife), draft dodger and all with the intelligence of a 4th grader (and he doesn’t drink beer!). Pence isn’t much better (as best I can tell he is a “young Earther” or as I call it, “a science denier”)

      1. One major clue would be whether the voting turnout and results is reflected in non-swing states, especially in those cities with comparable voters.

  7. It was Russian Facebook trolls in 2016. Compromised Venezuelan voting software in 2020.

    Anyone have early picks on who will steal the election in 2024?

    1. Fuck off, Jeff.

    2. Anyone have early picks on who will steal the election in 2024?


      1. I’ll take that bet, no way Biden will go for 8 years.

    3. depends entirely on who wins. we have to know which team is picking the boogeyman.

    4. “Anyone have early picks on who will steal the election in 2024?”

      The winner. Because the loser will be another crybaby who will whine about the election being stolen.

      1. +100 winner winner chicken dinner

      2. Because the loser will be another crybaby who will whine about the election being stolen.

        We are all the losers. Every election. Including Trump’s.

    5. Poor unreason staff. They are gonna whine for years after Trump wins Trump vs biden in SCOTUS.

    6. Up until now it has always been the Democrats. But now that they successfully legalized voter fraud, and got the courts to provide precedent, it’s anybody’s guess.

      Elections are no longer determined by votes, they will be determined by who cheats better.

  8. So, there might have been some isolated fraud and other irregularities, perhaps affecting a few tenths of a percent of votes. Nothing to get worked up about, just regrettable but acceptable losses. And certainly not worth shutting down the electoral process.

    Now about the “pandemic”, which has drastically affected a few tenths of a percent of people. I guess we should not get worked up about those regrettable and acceptable losses, and not shut down the work and life process.


    1. Right

    2. Now about the “pandemic”, which has drastically affected a few tenths of a percent of people. I guess we should not get worked up about those regrettable and acceptable losses, and not shut down the work and life process.

      How many trillions in losses has been accrued directly from the loss of life? Not the cost of combating it, just the man-hours and the resulting goods produced lost.

      How many trillions in losses has been accrued from the lockdowns? Including the added medical costs incurred from delayed treatments, unprevented suicides, and jobs lost?

      What are the respective trillions in regard to Biden’s proposals for his GND, the economy in general, etc.?

      It has been shown and was predicted early on that even if we all donned bunny suits 24/7, at least a quarter of a million people were going to die. How much *more* money should be expend combating something we can’t change relative to the amount of money we haven’t spent figuring out something that we did change?

    3. Democrats fucked up when they made changes to election laws about mail-in ballots and counting of ballots without state legislature approval.

      The SCOTUS is going to toss millions of illegal ballots because of this.

      1. Uhm, in PA the changes were done by a Republican legislature back in 2019. I guess your drinking the Kool-Aid. Don’t let facts get in the way.

        1. This is confusing two separate issues in PA.

          1) The mail-in voting provisions established in 2020 by the legislature violates the PA state constitution. There were challenges to this prior to the election, but dismissed due to lack of standing.
          2) The Dem SOS overrode parts of the legislature approved election changes of issue 1. Specifically the compromise around voter signature verification and validation practices. thus the mail-in validation procedure violated the law as written, which itself may have been unconstitutional

          1. None of that matters. The courts have ruled that it’s ok to violate the law.

        2. Poor new unreason bots.

          The PA state legislature approving mailin ballots and election officials changing those set rules are two very different things. State Executive officials needed to follow state legislature rules not make up rules that suited their purpose.

          Some state legislatures never approved mailin ballots at all.

      2. Where were changes made to election laws regarding mail-in ballots without legislative approval, and if so, where is the total of affected ballots sufficient to overcome Biden´s margin of victory? Please be specific.

        And how is SCOTUS going to toss millions of ballots with no evidentiary record having been developed before trial courts?

        1. Their is an evidentiary record based on filings. Since they are verified documents like affidavits, the courts must assume they are truthful.

          The SCoTUS doesnt need evidence to decide anyway. There is a dispute with some claims being constitutional in nature. A disputed election can be sent to the house by the ScOtUs for any reason.

          Popular votes to determine president dont exist in the US constitution. Electors do.

          1. Statements in pleadings are not evidence. When and where did you get your legal training, if any?

            The most that SCOTUS can do in the absence of an evidentiary record is to vacate orders of dismissal and remand to district courts for taking of proof.

  9. It’s been a long time since a couple of classes in corporate law, so I had to refer to wiki for the definition of standing. “ability of Party to demonstrate sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged.” Why wouldn’t a party to an election have standing to bring a court action against the election officials?
    Seems that taxpayers or others challenging decisions made in the direction of less freedom mostly lack standing, while those supporting authoritarian measures usually are granted standing.

    1. If you read the article the author points out the reasons courts may not accepting standing for several reasons. The first is that you did not show how your injured. It not enough to say I lost therefore I am injured. Second is where your actions are directed and the remedy you are seeking. In the case of the two citizens, there lawsuit was not aimed at the their own county that did not facilitate curing their ballots but was rather directed at other counties that did facilitate for their voters. Their suggested remedy was also ridiculous. As our ballots were not cured you need to discard every other cured ballot, no court would accept that idea. These citizen would have standing to sue their own county and to demand that their ballots be cured. They have standing for nothing more.

      Further more no President, no citizen has standing in any case unless they can show a connection. Neither you, I or Trump can walk into a court room and demand standing in any case we wish.

      1. You dont know what you are talking about. A federal judge already tossed a PA state senate race result because of election fraud by democrats on 1994.

        Democrat election fraud is rampant in the USA. The funny thing is Biden might have won without election fraud. We will never know because democrats chose to use fraud and the SCoTuS will punish them for it.

  10. “Trump expressed disappointment that the Department of Justice and the FBI had not taken his allegations more seriously, saying “maybe they’re involved.” If so, they would join a long list of alleged conspirators . . .

    I can’t believe I’m reading this from Sullum. How many decades has Sullum been questioning the claims of the FBI? From the drug war to the war on terror, the FBI has been full of crap since forever. Trump regrets that the FBI didn’t take his allegations more seriously, and suddenly the FBI is credible?!

    Call it TDS. Call it confirmation bias. Call it anything you want. Because you don’t buy into President Trump’s accusations is no reason to go to bat for the credibility of the FBI.

    Surely you realize that you’ll have to live with the things you said once President Trump is no longer in office–and the FBI will be doing all sorts of anti-libertarian things and lying through their teeth about it for many years to come. In going to bat for the credibility of the FBI, we lose our own credibility.

    There’s more to being a libertarian than hating President Trump.

    1. I honestly suspect, based on the sheer number of these anti-investigation articles Sullum is pumping out, that Charles either handed him an assignment, or this is brown envelope journalism.

  11. Great Job Jeff, you reported on an interview without doing any of your own research other than reiterating what every other “reporter” already reported. The only “reason” I read Reason is to see if you will get off your fat ass and do your own investigation. Keep up the laziness by burying your head in your ass.
    By the way, the “evidence” is now being “secured” for forensic review by the plaintiff in Georgia. This is how the judicial process works.

  12. “Fox News interviewer Maria Bartiromo uncritically accepts Trump’s outlandish conspiracy theory.”

    Oh, and speaking of credibility, Maria Bartiromo has made an excellent name for herself in financial journalism–where investors have depended on the credibility of what she reported to make critical decisions with their life savings for decades.

    There isn’t anything about letting President Trump make his case that makes Bartiromo a bad reporter or this interview a bad job. If anything would have made this a bad interview, it would have been imposing her own opinions on what Trump was saying rather than letting the subject of the interview say what he had to say.

    In fact, one of the reason the credibility of the mainstream news is in the toilet with so many Americans is because they won’t let Republicans generally and President Trump specifically make their case without imposing their own opinions on it.

    If you’re not afraid of the truth, then there’s no reason to effectively edit people’s false claims. Let them make their false case (if that’s what it is) and call them out on the facts if you think they’re wrong. Uncritically allowing the president to say what he has to say simply isn’t doing a bad job.

    For goodness’ sake, never thought it would be necessary to defend the basic principles of free speech and good reporting in a Sullum article.

    1. Exactly. It’s been a really cringe worthy bad look lately from one of the few, old guard writers on here that I still have a lot of respect for.

  13. Man- what a bunch of sore losers in here. You fascists are just upset that there are (slightly, which is sad) more people in the right places that didn’t want your orange crybaby to be president for 4 more years.

    Get the fuck over it you snowflakes. Isn’t that what you all said after 2016? Fuck your feelings.

    1. Democrats are corrupt losers who have to cheat lie and steal to win.

      1. “Democrats are corrupt losers who have to cheat lie and steal to win.”

        Would maybe mean something if you werent actively cheering on throwing out millions of votes that went for someone you didn’t vote for.

        Fuck off, partisan

      2. Since Democrats and our Lizard overlords run this mfer maybe you should watch how you address us? The Lizards would just eat you if it was up to them but we still think there’s a chance you’ll learn but maybe we’re wrong?

    2. We’re fascists, and Biden is the one looking to create “National Commanders” for segments of the economy.

      Get up off of your damn knees.

      1. Right. Just like Trump was literally Hitler and, for sure, going to start WWIV.

  14. Trump still has his sycophants at Fox, Maria Bartiromo for example. But I have noticed that the Fox News has moved on and the Biden transition seems to get much more time. What President Trump fails to realize is that the obsession with the election is making his final days irrelevant. Grievance will not make for a successful 2024 campaign. People get sick of whiners quickly. Interest in Trump is falling fast and will likely be gone by January 21, 2021.

    1. Republicans will forget about Trump when they realize it is far easier to win state and local elections without him.

    2. Your bubble of friends are not following what Republican state legislatures are doing right now.

      They are challenging the Democrat election fraud scheme. As a backup, the SCOTUS is tossing millions of ballots. Notice Thomas is not retiring? Trump vs Biden is gonna be hilarious.

      12th Amendment here we come.

      1. In what lawsuit is SCOTUS tossing millions of ballots? Trump´s lawsuits are being dismissed at the pleading stage without evidence having been received. The most SCOTUS can do would be to remand to district courts for an evidentiary hearing.

        1. The SCoTUS can do whatever they want with this dispute. Likely it will go to the house under the 12 th amendment.

          Lefties getting nervous about Trump winning is the right reaction.

          1. You are a fool. SCOTUS jurisdiction here is appellate only.

  15. Sullum does his schtick where he pretends President Trump has never done this before. Reason Koch is five years mentally retarded and going strong on fumes and weed.

  16. You started on unsubstantiated on day one and used it as an excuse to never examine what happened and turn a blind eye to everything everyone else found.

    Anything will always be unsubstantiated when you do that.

    1. ^^^ exactly

      Has there yet been an article or analysis of “How Biden’s campaign strategy succeeded?” or a similar assessment of his historic win? Because the vote totals are nothing short of astounding. This election broke every indicator and record we have, but yet no one wants to talk about how that came to pass.

      1. Hiding in the basement turns out the vote in record-shattering numbers.

        Black folks love Biden a lot more than they liked Obama — in only 5-6 cities exclusively in swing states, in other states Biden lost ground with black voters. It’s the most amazing thing.

        At least we don’t have to pretend Biden defenders have any integrity.

        1. This is why when the SCoTUS hands Trump a victory in Trump vs Biden, the democrats wont dwell on election specifics much. They know they got caught.

          They will move on to impeaching Trump in the house again in 2021 and whine when the lose the house due to census 2020 changes in 2021.

    2. Funny thing is, most of the media started with “unsubstantiated” and most of the water-carriers here started with “definitely fraud”. While neither of those is good, there is a large pile of thrown-out (laughed out?) court cases from the “definitely fraud” side, and the BIBLICAL KRAKEN RELEASE from the clown team seems to have also been a dud.

      So ya, its started unsubstantiated, and now its significantly MORE unsubstantiated than it was then.

      How many more times does the Trump legal team need to get laughed out of court before you realize he is doing the same thing he used to try on the contractors he stiffed? Conman gotta con

      1. Makes getting to the SCOtUS quicker.

        How many times do democrats keep going when they get laughed out of court?

        1. SCOTUS does not consider claims which were not litigated in the lower courts.

      2. The end result is loss of credibility in the nation’s voting schemes. Loss of credibility in the nation’s courts. Loss of credibility in our elected officials.

        Now when it comes time to convince people to take the vaccine, (or convince the public of anything else), there’s going to be A LOT of people who are skeptical of anything coming from the government. That’s a really bad thing. But now you own it, how you gonna fix it?

  17. Here is a quote from a guy who Reason has often uses as a reliable source of American politics and culture, Francis Fukuyama:

    “Over the past several years, a legion of explanations for the Trump phenomenon have been put forward…All of these factors are probably true to some extent, but none of them adequately explains the fear and loathing evident on the right in America today.”

    And as Will Wilkinson, forever editor at Cato and now at libertarian Niskanen Center said:

    “It’s easy enough to explain why negative partisanship can get vitriolic, but I suspect Fukuyama’s right that this sort of thing doesn’t capture how deranged and degraded the right became.”


    At some point you stop trying to answer “degraded” accusations with math and facts, because none of that ultimately matters to the “deranged.” If Donald Trump says it’s so, it’s so. And you just have to read so many of the comments here to appreciate how many have become deranged through a cult of personality.

    Wilkinson’s article is worth a read. He nails it.

    1. Oops. Former editor, not forever editor. He’s not there anymore.

    2. At some point you stop trying to answer “degraded” accusations with math and facts, because none of that ultimately matters to the “deranged.”

      He is not doing anything different than he has ever done in his whole life.

      Big difference here is, he is basically fighting against a side with unlimited money (US / state court systems). His M.O. every single time in the past was…shady deal, reneg on his side, fuck the other guy over, bury said guy in lawsuits if he tries to get his money back or say anything publicly. This works on most small/medium fish as the headache of the court battle isnt worth it to them, and they know it would be nothing for Trump to continue to put out BS lawsuits from his “legal team”.

      Now he is fighting against a side that demands he actually prove his case, and will fight him tooth and nail until he does because they have nothing but time and money on their hands. He’s never tried his grift on that kind of opponent. Spoiler alert: it doesnt work out well for the fat cheetoh, whether his deranged fans like it or not

      1. I read the article. Interesting. I think something is to be gained by looking at Trump through the lens of religiosity. Nearly 80 percent of Americans believe in angels. America has always been a religious country and has a long antipathy towards science. Less than 40 percent accept the theory of evolution. Trumpism is basically a religion without the Judaeo-Christian finger-wagging about sins. No one is going to confuse a Trump rally with the sermon on the mount. And hey, a religion that makes it OK to commit adulatory with porn stars is going to appeal to some folks. In a hundred (or few hundred) years (if the species avoid destroying itself), I think we’ll figure out that the human brain is prewired for nonrational beliefs based on some evolutionary quirk of survival. As noted elsewhere on this thread, it isn’t just the right. The left has some equally nonrational faiths. The thing about faith… it makes perfect sense to the faithful.

    3. none of that ultimately matters to the “deranged.”

      Project much?

      1. On you? Never.

    1. Because some TV lackey entered the wrong numbers into a computer for a TV show, doesn’t necessarily mean the actual votes were “switched”.

      1. Holy shit, that’s a painful amount of cognitive dissonance. Do you imagine a bank of stenographers typing furiously while some chain-smoking network executive reads the ticker tape aloud? Local affiliates tapping in corrections to the head office using a telegraph? It’s not like the numbers in the clip were off by place multiples, as would be expected for typos or transpositions, and it’s not like the desk pogues at the network are summing all the precincts in the Trump column and accidentally switched one of the precincts for Biden. Again, fraud aside, if that were a market data feed, the network would be right in shitcanning whoever signed them up for it and finding a different source.

        1. Again, fraud aside, if that were a market data feed, the network would be right in shitcanning whoever signed them up for it and finding a different source.

          And, as a matter of journalistic integrity (but who am I kidding?), issue some sort of statement justifying or explaining.

  18. The headline makes no sense. Obviously the President has standing to challenge the results in court — there are numerous court cases proceeding right now. He also has the burden to provide proof for any claims, which so far has been lacking.

    1. Add in that various Republican controlled state legislatures are challenging the massive Democrat election fraud results.

      The MSM is not covering these events in the hopes that they dont happen.

      Its like what they did when the House wanted to impeach Trump. The media refused to address any alternatives to Trump being removed from office. The MSM was wrong.

    2. Part of the standing analysis involved whether a remedy that the court can grant will redress the harms of which the plaintiff complains. It is not only proof that is lacking — the Trump team´s pleadings lack a nexus between the factual averments and the requested relief. Hence, no standing.

      1. “We cheated and the courts won’t call us on it.”

        There’s a 4th box, dumbass.

        1. Yup. Numerous court opinions said that they thought throwing out hundreds of thousands of ballots was outrageous. The Trump claims are supported but the judges dont want to be responsible for throwing out that many illegal ballots and take heat for it.

          We had judges like these before the election that refused to do their jobs and make hard decisions. If a side cheats in an election their needs to be consequences and throwing out illegal ballots is a tried and true punishm,ent.

          1. Yep, the blue cities didn’t follow election law. Then mixed all the ballots together fraudulent and legal and said here you go. They restricted poll observance so that they could do their thing. If you can’t see what they are doing its not “poll observance”.

            The batch is spoiled. Sorry, you cant reward that. Moral of the story, next time follow the law.

            To the voters, DON’T Elect dumbass partisan political hacks to run your election next time.

          2. When a lawsuit is dismissed at the pleading stage, that is the opposite of claims being supported.

  19. AZ state legislature holding hearings.

    PA state legislature held hearings the other day.

    Georgia preparing to hold hearings too.

    Poor Democrats. Elections have consequences and Republicans control more state legislatures.

  20. You know what we need? A whole new federal prison where we can put all those enemies of the state who submitted affidavits claiming there was something irregular or fishy about the elections in various places.

    1. We should just ban affidavits altogether and rely on twitter.

    2. Can we put the FBI/DOJ officials who signed affidavits to the FISA court to spy on the Trunp campaign there too? At least in that case we have the judge admitting they were straight lied to (not that knowing of a criminal act and the perpetrator did anything in those cases).

  21. There was obviously massive fraud in the election. The statistical improbabilities, alone, make claims to the contrary, implausible.
    If Biden is coronated, Trump should run again and announce he is running at a big rally in a warm place on Jan 20. It would draw far more people than whatever Biden does.

    Trump is not a good president. I didn’t vote for him. But someone needs to weaken the next administration in order to prevent the craziness of Tony Blinken and Michelle Flournoy from starting a war with Russia that would most certainly involve the unthinkable.

    1. If massive fraud in the election was obvious, why hasn´t it been pled in the Trump team´s lawsuits, which are being dismissed left and right?

      1. Link the decisions to find out.

        Its the quickest way to Trumps victory in the SCoTUS.

        1. The decisions are clear that no claim upon which relief can be granted has been pleaded. Have you read the opinions out of Pennsylvania?

  22. So I go on vacation in a small town thinking I could get away from some of the bullshit, and get this – the cops are enforcing mask mandates out-fucking-side!

    Putting on a mask before entering a business is a pain, but here you gotta wear on on the fucking sidewalk!

    Fuck the restaurants and shit. No. Not walking around with a fucking mask.

    Anyway, time to drive around and look for a good spot for some fishing. Later y’all.

  23. Trump’s own Department of Homeland Security called the 2020 election “the most secure in American history,”

    Bigly! Yuuge even!

    But it wasn’t actually the DHS that said that, it was the head of one agency within the DHS whose job it was to make sure them damn Rooskies didn’t hack the election again like they did in 2016 and therefore had no basis whatsoever for making that claim.

  24. Old wine in new bottles. Change a few key words and the Trump fringe are making the same arguments that come from other fanatics of faith. I’m an equal opportunity critic. It’s not very different from how environmentalism (or “wokeness”) became religions of the left. There is no room for principled disagreement, only “the Truth” and heresy.

    I think Biden won the election. I haven’t seen credible evidence to the contrary, nor it seems has any court of competent jurisdiction. I’m no fan of the U.S. legal system, but it has some semblance of rules. Faith isn’t evidence.

    TDS seems less “derangement” than “devotion.” A religion rarely seems silly to its adherents, but try explaining transubstantiation to a Buddhist. The cult of Trump doesn’t make much sense to me, but in candor, no religions do.

    1. This is probably the clearest explanation of where I see myself.

      However… having come from the religious right and having natural affinities for it… I am defensive of the right when I know from experience that claims against it are unfounded. Same with the GOP, my former home. I work with a group of 3 other guys… all very left, one very progressive. I constantly defend Trump to them, not because I like him but because they repeat things they hear in an echo chamber that just aren’t true. They always ask me why I like Trump so much… and my reply is, “I don’t… but I think it is wrong and dangerous to call people Hitler when that is completely an unhinged thing to say, be it against Trump or not. If you complained about things that made sense… like his trade policies, his bluster, or any actual policy then fine… we can talk about it. But to freak out about a manchild talking on twitter like that is the same as a WH policy that says the POTUS can execute an American citizen without a trial seems rather disingenuous.”

    2. TDS seems less “derangement” than “devotion.” A religion rarely seems silly to its adherents, but try explaining transubstantiation to a Buddhist. The cult of Trump doesn’t make much sense to me, but in candor, no religions do.

      Again, I say; Lots of the people who like to tout their rationality and regard religiosity as a flaw are pretty overt about the fact that if the 2020 election were between a Jesus promising to answer everyone’s prayers and a Jesus saying that even some racists are still good people, they’d regard the former as the only rational choice.

  25. Trump’s own Department of Homeland Security called the 2020 election “the most secure in American history,” saying, “There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.”

    Both of these claims are completely ludicrous and irresponsible. There are always votes that are lost or compromised and ballots tossed for one reasons or another. Usually, this is not enough to change the results of an election, so we let it go.

  26. “…Unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud…”, are you kidding me? Seriously, have you not read any of the affidavits of sworn testimony, not read the multiple in-depth statistical analyses, examined rolls of thousands of deceased voters who are logged as casting ballots?

    To be kind, the depth of this article is intellectually fleeting.

  27. Sullum eats so much ass.

  28. “Standing” is an artificial construct of the Supreme Court, designed to justify their decision not to consider certain types of challenges. This justification is often used to protect the Court from having to uphold and defend the Constitution. If no one can show “particularized harm,” then no one has the right to ask the courts to uphold the constitution. Although his claims “on the merits” do seem to lack evidentiary support, Trump is right – all elections are conducted fraudulently, beginning with the fraudulent promises of the candidates for office. Elections are designed to serve as part of an ongoing massive fraud on the public, but these are frauds in which too many people willingly join, in hopes of getting something they have not earned. In that sense, those who participate have no right to complain.

  29. Why is everything written about the election at reason done from the point of view of backing up an opinion? Instead of exploring the issues raised, we keep just arguing that the Democrats are right. We really don’t need anybody else running around penning propaganda for that machine.

    That’s not to say that Trump is right. But proving that you can repeat back things that MSNBC and CNN told you to say is not exactly compelling journalism either. And good lord, if you keep citing that horrifically bad opinion by the judge on standing without any critical thinking involved at all you are going to pull a mental muscle. That one is actually a great example of the craziness that is going on in government these days.

    In that case they ruled that nobody had standing to sue until they had been injured, so nobody could sue before the election. And then after the election it is a moot point because the votes have already been cast and they’re not going to disenfranchise millions of voters. Joseph Heller would be proud.

    I have been surfing around looking for decent analysis on all of this, and all I get is assertion from first principles. There is no evidence!

    How about we look at the real issues? There is no evidence because there isn’t a single location that is allowed anyone to look at the evidence yet. They haven’t Investigated anything yet. How could you know there’s no evidence?

    I know that it’s fashionable to proclaim that Trump is behind all of these suits, but so far he’s really only got the one. The rest are all various citizen groups. And the actual going theory isn’t Sydney Powell’s kraken, it is the one that was obvious all summer. It is the mail in ballots. You know, the ones that nobody will look at the eligibility criteria for? You know, the ones that Pennsylvania went completely against state law and the state constitution in allowing? As far as I can tell, nobody has ever validated a single signature on these things. And for some reason, every locale is fighting tooth and nail to prevent that from happening. I wonder why that is?

    Well, one reason could be that even if there was no funny business, and honest canvas will throw at least three of these states into limbo. If history is anything to go by, and honest canvas of those ballots would invalidate more than the margin of victory. And then? Good Lord what a mess.

    But I suppose it’s easier just to repeat what the talking heads on CNN say. Asserted without evidence! Baseless claims! Experts say!

    I love the one where the guy in charge of making sure there’s no foreign interference proclaims that this election was secured from foreign interference and everyone in the media runs around proclaiming that that means that nobody got up to any shenanigans anywhere in the country. The lack of critical thinking skills in our media is maddening. Apples and oranges are compared all the time. One plus one equals three every time you turn around.

    The only thing that anybody has right is the institutional people who say that if Trump keeps on digging it will be bad for the country. Well, I don’t know if it will actually be net bad, but definitely it will be a mess.

    But you wouldn’t know that from reading any of the writers here. And they may be right. It certainly looks like the establishment is lined up behind shutting this down. They don’t want anything to do with invalidating an election. Even if the rules clearly call for that. and the way to avoid that is to make sure that nobody gets a look at those mailing envelopes.

    1. It’ll be bad.
      Letting things stand as is would be far worse.

      The Ds moved heaven and earth, and ruined tens of millions of people’s lives, to do everything they could think of to make fraud easier and getting solid evidence of it harder.
      But they totes wouldn’t use those changes to their advantage, as Reason has been and continues assuring us.

      Remember this moment – letting this stand is when the USA becomes the USSA, because getting away with it will be an implicit mandate to do whatever they want and go full totalitarian.

    2. Its only a mess because democrats cheated and then hate the constitutional alternative – the 12th amendment house vote.

      I guarantee democrats wont try this type of massive election fraud once Trump wins by 12A. They will have to try something else since this scheme didnt work.

    3. :: Instead of exploring the issues raised, we keep just arguing that
      :: the Democrats are right.

      Sober journalism, fully in step with prevailing vote results: All evidence points to a very specific electoral vote winner. Reason has been whacking that very mole, and that move could be difficult not to catch.

  30. The argument that “there is only evidence of isolated cases of fraud and other irregularities” has been used for accepting the official results. But there is a counter to it: for every roach you see, there can be 1000 you don’t see.

    1. +100000000000

      WI, MI, PA, GA, AZ, and NV all had switched votes, misplaced ballots, election fraud, and voter fraud but the one exposed are the only ones?

      Bullshit. Those were the sacrificial lambs so the other examples of election fraud can be covered up. When you play in the election fraud game you know the rules to keep things to yourself. Its a felony in most locations.

  31. If the accusations of fraud were against Trump, you can bet the courts would be all over that throwing out votes left and right.

    The swamp creature has many tentacles throughout our rotten system. Democrats are evil…never trust a Democrat or anyone that “votes” Democrat, no matter how many ballots they cast.

  32. “Statistical anomalies in vote counts are evidence of vote fraud. Witness testimony of rampant lawbreaking at counting centers is evidence. Tampering and destruction of election records is evidence. The idea that Team Trump has no evidence of a stolen election is far more groundless than the subject of that idea could ever be.”

    Yep and now Dominion won’t allow their SW to be audited? WTF how the hell did anyone ever buy their machines if that is he case. Then you can’t use them , period.

  33. Lets look at the sequence of events. Five swing states in concert stop vote counting on election night. Then resume in the dead of night with large virtual step changes in votes favoring Biden. All basically prohibiting poll observance. Many using partisan courts to make up new election laws regarding ballots on the fly.

    The Dominion machines can be audited. But nobody is allowing the machines to be examined. Note I have read the users manual you can absolutely do what Sidney Powell claims. Did they? Well supposedly the machines have activity logs to record such transactions. Lets see the machines before they erase them.

    Also, PA threw away the mail-in envelopes., also against state law, and GA wants to erase the voting machines. Wow, I mean baseless, I say BASELESS claims!

    What a bunch of dopes.

    1. But Blasey-Ford was totally credible.

  34. Whether or not you think that the argument has merits, you should be concerned that this is being resolved on issues of standing. The courts have taken to creating situations where effectively no one has standing to challenge laws or policies.

    Even if a candidate is HELPED by problematic election regulations or requirements, they should have standing because bad election law undermines their authority.

  35. This is about far more than Trump and this election, but sullum knows this, he just can’t write a legitimate piece of journalism.

  36. “Fox News interviewer Maria Bartiromo uncritically accepts Trump’s outlandish conspiracy theory.”

    Has Sullum paid any attention at all to all of the things that are uncritically accepted by left-wing media? Or by Jacob Sullum?

    But I repeat myself.

  37. Trump lies so much it is not worth debating if what he says is true.
    Here are just a few… I grouped them in categories. These are fun!

    Obama lies. Obama faked his birth certificate, he was born in Kenya.
    Obama is a secret Muslim. Obama literally started ISIS.
    2016 election lies. More people attended Trumps 2016 inauguration than any other election, no matter what the photos show. If you take the “illegal” votes out from the Democratic States, then Trump won the popular vote in 2016.
    Lots of lies in 2017 to 2019 that I can’t recall cuz there are so many. A blur!
    Covid lies. Covid is a hoax and is a plot by the Democrats to steal the election. In any case, Covid will disappear like a miracle by Easter. Doctors get money for lying on death certificates, claiming Covid, to boost the fake death toll.

    Really, why is anyone surprised? I’ve known plenty of people like this. Liars are a dime a dozen in this world. What amazes me is how many suckers there are. I guess if they stop believing they would have to admit that they were conned, and that would be upsetting. Obviously, pointing out orange man’s lies is proof that I am an agent of the deep state. I do agree that I suffer from TDS.

  38. Fairness of this vote: Every influence has been thrown at it that can be (except time). No one has come forward with credible evidence of tampering (of syndromatic persuasion that can swing this election) anywhere in the nation. If vote tampering were a vampire, a storm of holy water must surely be downpouring from the White House as we breathed these very words over this meronym …

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.