Election 2020

Senate Hearing on Election 'Irregularities' Highlights Trump's Reckless Disregard for the Truth

Sen. Ron Johnson, a Trump ally, now concedes there is no credible evidence to support the president's fanciful conspiracy theory.

|

At the beginning of his hearing on election "irregularities" yesterday, Sen. Ron Johnson (R–Wis.) tried to lower expectations for Republicans who still think systematic fraud delivered a phony victory to President-elect Joe Biden. Johnson, who convened the hearing as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, was also responding to critics, including ranking committee member Gary Peters (D–Mich.), who warned that Johnson was lending credence to that fanciful conspiracy theory.

"We will hear testimony on how election laws in some cases were not enforced and how fraudulent voting did occur, as it always does," Johnson said. "The question that follows is whether the level of fraud would alter the outcome of the election this year. In dozens of court cases, through the certification process in each state and by the Electoral College vote, the conclusion has collectively been reached that it would not."

That position represents quite a turnaround for Johnson, a steadfast Trump ally who as recently as last week was suggesting that he might support an electoral vote challenge aimed at preventing Biden from taking office. "It depends," he told reporters last Thursday. "I need more information. The American people need more information. I'm not ready to just close and slam the book on this thing and go 'OK, let's walk away from it.'"

Johnson is now ready to close the book on the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, although he still has concerns about some of the ways in which it was conducted. Those concerns were detailed by several witnesses at the hearing, only one of whom alleged fraud sufficient to give Biden electoral votes that Trump should have received. That witness, Trump campaign lawyer Jesse Binnall, relied on evidence that was decisively rejected by Nevada courts.

Former Solicitor General Kenneth Starr, who oversaw the Whitewater investigation as an independent counsel during the Clinton administration, aired a couple of familiar complaints about the election in Pennsylvania. "One Pennsylvania judge concluded that state law required poll watchers to be present (within six feet) in order to meaningfully to observe the ballot-counting process," he noted. "In Philadelphia, election officials had indisputably violated this pro-integrity measure." He also noted a much-criticized Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that extended the deadline for absentee ballots.

Republicans may have a legitimate beef about those practices, especially the second one. But even valid complaints about election procedures do not necessarily have outcome-changing implications. Keeping poll watchers farther than six feet away, while it may invite suspicion, does not prove that anything illegal was going on, and the number of late-arriving absentee ballots in Pennsylvania was too small to change the outcome in that state.

Francis Ryan, a Republican state representative from Pennsylvania, likewise complained about the extension of the mail-in voting deadline, along with two other decisions by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that authorized the use of drop boxes for absentee ballots and said ballots should not be rejected based on signature comparisons. Ryan also noted the state's policy of allowing voters to fix errors on their absentee ballots. The Trump campaign argued that uneven adoption of that policy violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause because it put Republicans at a disadvantage—a claim that was rejected in scathing terms by a federal judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.

Trump campaign attorney James Troupis highlighted disputes about election procedures in Wisconsin, including the treatment of absentee ballot witness certificates with incomplete addresses and the question of which voters qualified as "indefinitely confined" (meaning they did not have to submit copies of their IDs when they applied for absentee ballots) in light of the COVID-19 epidemic. Those issues, along with the controversy over Wisconsin's use of drop boxes, hinge on reasonable disagreements about statutory interpretation. But last Saturday, a Trump-appointed federal judge in Wisconsin rejected the president's argument that the Wisconsin Elections Commission's decisions on these matters flouted state law and therefore violated the Constitution.

The only witness who actually alleged decisive election fraud was Binnall, who claimed that comparisons of Nevada voter lists with commercially available databases had identified "over 130,000 unique instances of voter fraud." According to Binnall, that total included 42,000 people who voted more than once, "more than 19,000 people" who "voted even though they did not live in Nevada," "over 15,000 votes" that "were cast from commercial or vacant addresses," "about 8,000 people" who "voted from non-existent addresses," "at least 1,500 dead people" who were "recorded as voting," and "almost 4,000 non-citizens who also voted."

If 130,000 people really did vote illegally in Nevada, that would be more than enough to swing the contest for that state's six electoral votes, which Biden won by a margin of about 33,600. Yet in response to a question from Sen. James Lankford (R–Okla.), Binnall conceded that the rampant voter fraud he described has not led to a single prosecution:

Lankford: In my state, when someone votes twice—and we do have that occasionally, about 50 times a year, that that actually occurs in our state—we prosecute individuals that vote twice. Of [these] 130,000 instances that you have identified from the 2020 election in Nevada, do you know of any prosecutions currently going on in Nevada for any voter fraud?

Binnall: Not yet, senator.

When the Trump campaign asked a Nevada judge to overturn the state's election results based on these fraud claims, he concluded that its evidence was not credible. To back up its allegations, the Trump campaign submitted a deposition of Jesse Kamzol, formerly the Republican National Committee's chief data officer. "The Court questions Mr. Kamzol's methodology because he had little to no information about or supervision over the origins of his data, the manner in which it had been matched, and what the rate of false positives would be," Carson City District Judge James Russell wrote. "Additionally, there was little or no verification of his numbers."

The defense's expert witnesses, whom Russell deemed more credible, said the Trump campaign's methodology was dubious and described its claims as highly implausible in light of historical experience and academic research on voter fraud. Russell also noted that one of the campaign's experts "testified that he has no personal knowledge that any voting fraud occurred" in Nevada's election. "Based on this testimony," the judge said, "the Court finds that there is no credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 General Election in Nevada was affected by fraud."

On December 4, Russell dismissed the Trump campaign's lawsuit with prejudice, and the Nevada Supreme Court unanimously upheld that decision four days later. "The district court's order thoroughly addressed the grounds asserted in the statement of contest filed by appellants and considered the evidence offered by appellants even when that evidence did not meet the requirements under Nevada law for expert testimony…or for admissibility," the court said. "Despite our earlier order asking appellants to identify specific findings with which they take issue, appellants have not pointed to any unsupported factual findings, and we have identified none."

According to Trump's conspiracy theory, Democratic election officials across the country resorted to manufacturing phony absentee ballots after their original plan, which involved switching Trump votes to Biden votes with nefarious election software, did not work as expected. Christopher Krebs, who ran the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) until Trump fired him in a fit of pique on November 17, addressed the plausibility of that claim in his testimony before Johnson's committee.

Krebs described the steps that CISA had taken to improve election security prior to this year's vote and reiterated the CISA-endorsed conclusion that the 2020 election was "the most secure in U.S. history." He noted that CISA had repeatedly tried to correct misinformation about machine-facilitated voting fraud.

"As we moved on from Election Day, we began to see wild and baseless domestic
claims of hackers and malicious algorithms that flipped the vote in states across the country, singling out election equipment vendors for allegedly having ties to deceased foreign dictators," Krebs said. "None of these claims matched up with what we knew about the facts. The allegations being thrown around about manipulation of the equipment used in the election are baseless. These claims are not only inaccurate and 'technically incoherent,' according to 59 election security experts, but they are also dangerous and only serve to confuse, scare, and ultimately undermine confidence in the election. All authorities and elected officials in positions of power or influence have a duty to reinforce to the American people that these claims are false."

The most powerful and influential promoter of these "wild and baseless" claims, of course, is Krebs' former boss, the president of the United States. Yet Johnson, even while worrying that "a large percentage of the American public does not believe the November election results are legitimate," conspicuously failed to mention Trump's tireless efforts to foster and reinforce that distrust.

"There are many reasons for this high level of skepticism," Johnson said. "It starts with today's climate of hyper-partisanship, which was only exacerbated by the persistent efforts to delegitimize the results of the 2016 election. The corrupt investigation and media coverage of the Russian collusion hoax reduced faith in our institutions. And the ongoing suppression and censorship of conservative perspectives by biased news media and social media adds fuel to the flames."

Whatever role those factors may have played, they pale by comparison with Trump's constant and continuing promotion of the claim that the presidential election was stolen through a vast criminal conspiracy involving tricky voting software and wholesale paper ballot fraud. Johnson now admits there is no credible evidence to support that story, which means the president has been utterly reckless in loudly and relentlessly endorsing it. The fact that Johnson could not spare a word to acknowledge that reality shows the extent to which the Republican Party has been corrupted by its mindless fealty to a man who has no principles and no respect for the truth.

NEXT: Determined To Kill Businesses That Survived Lockdowns, New York Plans Minimum Wage Hike Later This Month

Election 2020 Campaigns/Elections Voting Fraud Conspiracy Theories Donald Trump Joe Biden Senate

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.

Please to post comments

363 responses to “Senate Hearing on Election 'Irregularities' Highlights Trump's Reckless Disregard for the Truth

  1. According to Trump’s conspiracy theory

    It’s not a conspiracy theory if you believe it!

    1. This is your daily reminder that Jacob Sullum is obviously practicing brown envelope journalism. I’m going to post this in every article he writes on this topic.

      Jacob, you’ve now written a whopping 29 articles screaming about this single topic in just one month. Twenty-nine in just one fucking month.

      How many articles did you, or Reason as a whole, ever write about the Uighur holocaust? Literal honest-to-goodness fucking slaves are making Disney toys and NBA jerseys?

      Or pay for play, the Biden laptop, and the China connection and the 10 million?

      Or the Obama spy scandal? Even Nixon never used the FBI, CIA, the Director of National Intelligence, and members of the Justice Department and the State Department to gather dirt on the opposition political party.

      Or the the 126 congressmen who supported the Texas lawsuit?

      Or the Abraham Accords + Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan? Peace between the Jews and Arabs got how many articles? (And no White Knight you cheap DNC politruk. None of those nations were basically at peace two years ago. In fact one had being in a “state of war with the zionist entity” enshrined in law.)

      Or the Serbia-Kosovo deal?
      Was it 29?

      How many articles did Reason publish on the First Step Act? Prison reform is incredibly important to libertarians. It got a handful of mentions, but nowhere near 29.

      Or the obvious superiority of the USMCA over NAFTA? Or even about the USMCA?

      Or about North Korean rapprochement?

      Did Reason write 29 articles about the Taliban peace agreement? It was the end of a 20 year American war.
      15 articles? 10? 5? 1? or maybe fucking zero?

      There were shitloads of articles about Trump’s tarriffs, but how many about the massive deregulation that just took place?

      You and your pals have made it obvious, Jacob, as to what you really are, and it’s disgusting.

      1. lol

        1. Tell us more about trump russia sweetie.

          1. It’s all poor Comrade Politruk DOL has. He couldn’t find the proper canned response in his Media Matters talking points.

            1. “Sen. Ron Johnson, a Trump ally, now concedes there is no credible evidence to support the president’s fanciful conspiracy theory.”

              The Lizard People are taking over EVERYWHERE, now! LOOK OUT!!! Even YOU may be next, to be brainwashed away (by those same dastardly Lizard People) from The Truth, The Way, and The One True Trump!

              1. I always figured Sqrlsy would fall for the Reptilian conspiracy theory. He and David Icke seem to have lots in common.
                Strange how he thinks Trump is in on it, but hey, that’s Sqrlsy.

                1. I’ll bet he can’t wait to sample their excrement.

                  1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have receiveded $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earning are much better than regular office job and even a littl child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
                    on this page…..work92/7 online

                  2. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generated and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome. Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this link and visit tabs( Home, Media, Tech ) for more details thanks…… USA ONLINE JOBS

              2. Why is it controversial that Ron Jonson is a lizardman?

            2. December 17, 2020
              Why Democrats always hide their true agenda
              By Jack Hellner

              The media and Democrats’ playbook is always the same.

              Their radical big-government policies are not popular, so they hide the truth about them from the public.

              Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were essentially kept in the basement while the media and other Democrats repeatedly attacked Trump.

              While Twitter and Facebook executives were helping and contributing to Biden, they were censoring Trump and his supporters while burying negative stories on Biden. They never censored Biden, no matter how much he lied.

              Currently, Biden and Obama are telling their supporters to shut up about defunding the police, a standard trope coming from the left, because voters don’t like it. They say they can get to it later. Defunding police is rephrased to call it reimagining the police or some other intentionally misleading term. When Republicans want to slow down the increase or freeze education spending, food stamps, Medicaid, or Medicare, the media and other Democrats call them drastic cuts and say Republicans don’t care about health care, or children, and that they want people to starve. When Democrats want to drastically cut police budgets, it is called “reimagining.”

              In 2009, Obama, Biden, and the Democrats repeatedly lied to get Obamacare passed. They told everyone the known lies that Obamacare would allow you to keep your doctor and keep your plan and that your premiums would go down substantially. House speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democrats must pass the bill to see what was in it. The results of Obamacare showed that prices skyrocketed, and choice was taken away. Money was also taken from Medicare to fund Obamacare. Life expectancy unexpectedly dropped for three straight years. Through it all, the media cheer and want more government-run health care. Facts don’t matter.

              Obama and other Democrats have also always wanted single-payer (or rather, government-run) health care but know they have to hide what they want from the public, so they attack the private sector incrementally with the full support of the compliant media. They truly don’t care how many jobs they destroy in the private sector as they move toward socialism. They also try to hide the word “socialism” from the public as much as possible.

              Here’s just one example from the days of President Obama:

              Obama for Single-Payer Before He Was Against It

              In 2003, Obama said he supports a single-payer health care system, and that the only reason we “may not get there immiediately” [sic] is “because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House” — which, of course, we have:

              “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program…I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.” — Barack Obama, 2003

              When power-hungry greedy Democrats want more money, they talk about people paying their “fair” share. They claim that the people who like lower taxes and smaller government are “greedy.” Doesn’t “fair share” sound nice? But there is never enough money for the politicians and bureaucrats.

              Republicans are called anti-abortion and pro-life. Democrats are not called pro-abortion and pro-death. Nope, they are called pro-choice. That is so much more pleasant than pro-death. Democrats who say women have freedom of choice don’t think they should have freedom of choice on what health care to buy.

              Democrats claim that their lockdown policies are based on science, but the statistical data do not support that. They do not determine who is essential or non-essential and what businesses to destroy, based on science. Why do they close churches but keep liquor and marijuana stores open? Could it be the tax revenue? There were no data to ever support closing schools, yet many children are still suffering.

              Biden and Harris both said in debates that they would ban fracking, but in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, Biden lied and called Trump a liar for telling the truth. Twitter and Facebook never blocked Biden’s lies.

              The Democrats claim that their policies to get rid of oil are based on science, but there are no scientific data that show a direct link among temperatures, storm activity, sea levels, and oil consumption. They just repeat the talking point that the science is settled to intentionally mislead the public. No matter how wrong the previous dire predictions of the last 100 years have been, they just act like as if they were telling the truth. People who tell the scientific truth, which is that the climate has always changed cyclically and naturally, are called liars, anti-science, climate change deniers, and stupid to beat them into submission.

              The Democrat big government programs are called the Great Society programs and anti-poverty programs. They are neither. They are programs to move towards socialism and are meant to keep more people poor and dependent on government. They encouraged the breakup of the family which is the greatest indicator of who will end up in poverty.

              Trump’s economic programs took unemployment levels of people of all races and educations levels to record lows, substantially raised stagnant wages for those at the bottom and reduced poverty levels to record lows at the end of 2019. And most of the media and other Democrats show how little they cared about minorities and the poor by rooting against and seeking to reverse those policies. They intentionally lie when they say Trump’s policies only benefit the rich. They claim that the phrase “Make America Great Again” is racist and bad. But somehow an idiotic phrase “Build Back Better” is fine.

              The media and other Democrats claim that they have always peacefully supported an incoming president, but that is a bald-faced lie. Many Democrats didn’t attend Trump’s inauguration. They started calling for his impeachment, based on the lies about Russian collusion before Trump took office. The Obama/Biden team was so helpful during the transition that they spent their time using their time unmasking, spying on, and targeting people like then-president-elect Trump’s National Security Advisor, Gen. Michael Flynn.

              Democrats claim they believe in the law, the Constitution and that no one is above the law, but their actions and policies show they don’t care. They support sanctuary cities and states, don’t care that election officials violated their constitution and laws, and cheered wildly as Obama dictatorially and unconstitutionally changed immigration laws. Hillary Clinton, James Clapper, John Brennan, Eric Holder, and others were all above the law. Other Democrats let looters and arsonists go but you better not keep your restaurant or gym open in defiance of your masters.

              If anybody wants to see the where the tactics of the media and other Democrats comes from just refer to Saul Alinsky’s Rules for radicals.

              RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

              RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

              Most of the people pretending to be journalists are worthless and dangerous to our prosperity, freedom, democracy, and survival as a great country. They are the existential threat because they have spent decades campaigning for Democrats and their leftist policies. They truly ramped up their baseless attacks the last four years.
              Why Democrats always hide their true agenda

              1. Democrats, Big Tech, the MSM, Hollywood, the publishing industry, the fashion industry, the music industry, the university elites, and now sadly the FBI and the CIA are all on the “cool team” that makes fun of everyday Americans while lining their pockets with money from the labor of those very same people. As for voter fraud, if you don’t think this election was rigged, you’re as dumb as Biden. And Biden KNOWS it was rigged. A judge asking one lawyer if he has been able to “get anybody prosecuted” for voter fraud in a three week period in which that lawyer is up against tech oligarchs and Soros and the CCP says all you need to know about that judge.

                1. They are rolling out the climate change playbook, if you are not at a full on panic about climate change than you are a denier and a conspiracy theorist. In this case if you have reasonable doubts about the operations at certain polling centers, or the way mail in votes were tabulated then you believe the election was stolen, are a conspiracy nut and should be ridiculed. If you want the multiple accusations of impropriety, intimidation and outright lawlessness investigated, again you must be ridiculed and called every derogatory name in the book. In my view the fact that some are so against any investigations should make a reasonable person even more interested in these questions but again as with climate change any attempt at inquiry is met with personal attacks and miss-direction, “You think the election was stolen” etc. when all I am asking for is a genuine deep dive into what occurred in these states where the counts didn’t just change but wildly swung from one candidate to the other with obvious irregularities. Is that too much to ask?

                  1. The response from the msm, especially Reason, and tech, courts, etc is highly suspicious.
                    They are either covering up more than they’re letting on, or they’re working really hard to create/increase distrust in elections.
                    What they are not doing, in any sort of rational manner, is inspiring confidence in the legitimacy of our systems.

                    1. Trump has so seriously deranged their minds that they cannot get out of their derangement; it’s like an addiction. Even when there is solid, irrefutable evidence of leftist rioting, assaults, vandalism, looting, and arson, they gloss over the facts due to their derangment. The media and most of the tech behemoths stoke the derangement and are in fact the most deranged of all.

                      One would hope that Reason, that purports to be rational, cool-headed, and unbiased in their pursuit of free minds and free markets, would be better. But, sadly, they are awful as well.

                      I’ve listened to hundreds of Reason podcasts of various types from the Roundtable to Interviews to Fifth Column, and hardly a podcast goes by without one or more repeating, for no apparent reason, how awful Trump is. Nick at least occasionally pushes back, but Welch, Stupidman, and KMW are like zombies.

                  2. In the absence of actual evidence of fraud, that is indeed too much to ask. Your candidate lost. Get over it.

                    1. Except for all the actual evidence of fraud.
                      You want evidence? https://hereistheevidence.com/

                    2. ML, that’s not evidence, that’s hearsay and rumor. I’m sorry to say it, but they lack evidence.

                      Not surprising, though. The mail-in ballots where the ability to verify any ballot is lost when the envelopes are discarded, makes it impossible to determine if there was fraud or not. This is the real crime.

                    3. Destruction of possible evidence counts as evidence, T.

                    4. Not when it is part of the state’s voting process, there to protect the voter’s privacy.

                      There’s no way to go back and match polling book sign-ins to individual in-person ballots, either, but CACLLs don’t care about that.

                    5. Except it wasn’t, it was contrary to law, and your life doesn’t matter

                    6. Let me know what you would need to see to stop claiming an “absence of fraud.” So far we have: affidavits, live video, expert testimony, missing thumb drives, erased hard drives, stonewalling, lying by a Dominion exec about internet connectivity, impossible vote irregularities, 800,000 mail in ballots that were never folded in an envelope, and numerous experts testifying to data breaches/error rates/and illegal ballots. There is one million times more evidence of fraud than there was for Russia Russia Russia and we had four years of that being accepted as FACT by people just like you. Oh, John Roberts was on Epstein’s island. Soros has him locked in. I hope that story gets covered somewhere.

              2. Now do the Republicans ol’ great SCOTUS Whisperer!

              3. Yeah, nobody is gonna read that word salad.

              4. Great post, loveconstitution1789. The Democrats and their allies, the media, have indeed mastered Alinsky’s tactics. This subversion has been going on since the early 70’s and the left has gained control of virtually all of our major institutions.

              5. The best way to solve the democrat problem is to get rid of the democrats. There are too many of them to tolerate their continued existence.

                The democrat herd must be thinned.

        2. In other words, you and your ilk are either stupid or FOS.

        3. Let’s talk about John Roberts on Epstein’s flight records. THAT EXPLAINS A LOT. Or better yet: Let’s talk about the Soros speech where he says John Roberts will deliver a “surprise.” Why does Soros know John Roberts? Why does Soros own a voting equipment company used in 37 states? And biggest question: Why does the MSM not cover any of that? This country is turning into a joke, led by the lunatics on the left who are exactly like the lunatics of every generation: Believe they know what’s best for people while they silence anyone who disagrees with them. I have no desire to silence the NYT or WaPo DNC crap. But none of them would let America know about Hunter and 10% for the Big Guy until after the election. History will not look back at this time period and think of the left as wise, good, or fair.

      2. Yawn!

        POTUS is trying to undermine confidence in democracy and steal an election, but nothing to see here according to our resident Canadian wanna-be Republican: “Why won’t Sullum stop talking about it!”

        (Never mind that Trump won’t stop talking about it.)

        1. If there is no fraud, why did the well-prepared Dominion exec lie about whether the machines connect to the internet” He answered “I don’t know” or “I can’t recall” or some other vague crap just like Comey did when asked about the fraudulent FISA warrants. Dominion machines easily connect to the internet and that was all the rage among Democrats until it was used to get a senile child sniffer into the White House.
          https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/online-vulnerable-experts-find-nearly-three-dozen-u-s-voting-n1112436

          1. There’s a lot to unpack in your comment:

            First, my position is not that there was no fraud. My position is that no fraud significant enough to have caused Biden to win instead of Trump has been demonstrated.

            Second, Trump’s position isn’t just “hey, I think there may have been some fraud”. It is “I won despite corruption”. That is a Trump quote from Twitter from just two days ago.

            Third, I personally think that it’s a bad idea for voting machines to be running anything but open source software that can be examined by anyone.

            Fourth, Dominion voting machines are sometimes attached to the Internet or updated with flash drives, or Dominion voting machines can conceivably be doctored to run corrupt algorithms isn’t much proof of anything — it’s a general truth about any modern computing device.

            1. Hey MJaneKelly, did you notice how he didn’t really answer your question, but spent a lot of time pretending he was.

              1. WK just confirmed MJ’s statement, and completely ignored the question that the Dominion CEO repeatedly lied about it.

            2. Fourth, Dominion voting machines are sometimes attached to the Internet or updated with flash drives, or Dominion voting machines can conceivably be doctored to run corrupt algorithms isn’t much proof of anything — it’s a general truth about any modern computing device.
              True enough. And yet state after state has refused to allow their machines to be examined or claimed it was impossible or that it would delay the next election. It may be true that fraud was not enough to swing the election but it’s impossible to reach that conclusion without investigating the matter.

              1. The results of the Antrim County Dominion voting machine audit was released today. Showed no fraud, and also showed that right-wing sources claiming “leaked” audit results proving evidence of fraud were lies.

                1. Looked like fraud to me. Interference or that voting machine was a piece of shit. Fucking Robots!

                2. Whitey Night, your link fell off.

        2. Whenever the comment section’s self-appointed politruk writes “Yawn”, you know he’s seriously pissed off.

          He doesn’t really have a response so he has to bitch about my nationality instead. Good thing I’ve never mentioned my ethnicity or he’d probably get himself in serious trouble.

          1. Don’t tell me you’re one of Them.

            1. Shhh, don’t tell White Knight.

          2. Yep serious trouble is something you can bring down.

            From Canada.

            1. ???
              Are you being retarded on purpose? What does geographic location have to do with WK’ potential response to my ethnicity?

              1. Echospinner gets a bit bitchy when seeing people won’t bow to leftist tyranny

              2. You’re an iceback?

                1. Syrupback, please.

              3. It’s an cheap way WK, Echospinner, and others use to run from an argument – blame your nationality for why you shouldn’t care and therefore others shouldn’t either. i just call them xenophobes and move on 🙂

      3. “How many articles did you, or Reason as a whole, ever write about the Uighur holocaust?”

        At least a dozen I’ve found with a quick Google search. Have you tried that?

        1. Also, several pages of Google results on Reason posts about Hunter Biden.

          1. Oh I get it.
            Your trying to pretend that the Google results for “Reason + Hunter Biden” all indicate Reason articles on Hunter Biden’s laptop.

            Your such an incredible piece of shit. We both know there’s been zero articles and just a few sentences in Roundups pretending it was a conspiracy.
            But here you are trying to insinuate that there actually were, with weaselly techniques a baby would see through.
            You’re so pathetic.

        2. “At least a dozen I’ve found”</i?

          It always amazes me how you think you can just fucking lie your ass off and nobody will call you on it.

          Charles Oliver wrote a one paragraph Brickbat about Chinese government officials practicing Droit du Seigneur, and there was a Reason TV episode.
          That's it for the Uighur holocaust. Two dedicated articles and a couple of sentences appearing in a few different roundups and other articles.

          Was there 29 articles on one of the biggest stories in the last twenty-five years?
          I can't tell you how much you revolt me for lying and running cover on this.

      4. “Or about North Korean rapprochement?”

        You’re joking right. That is not going well.

        1. The fact a President tried to make peace with the DPRK would be the story of the decade no matter how it turned out if it was anyone other than Trump.
          Reason only wrote two articles and a few blurbs in Roundups largely mocking the effort.

          But I’m sure that’s totes okay for a warmongering shitstain like you.

      5. Sullum is just getting sad. This is downright pathetic. I think he’s developed an OCD for Trump or something.

        1. I suspect his articles are [and have been] just excercises in trolling the anti-corruption right leaning commenters here in search of easy controversy to goose the clicks and\or comment numbers.

          1. Why do you think anyone at Reason cares about how many comments are written on a blog post? All evidence points to Reason completely neglecting the comments section, leaving the squirrels on auto-pilot.

            1. You know the answers and are being disingenuous, but for those new to the comments that might believe your horseshit:

              Every time a comment is posted it refreshes the page and counts as reader engagement.

      6. Reported as spam

        1. A thread of eunuchs defending the 1994 crime bill and mass corporate censorship. Thou shalt not dissent.

          https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1339638793389928450?s=19

          Instagram is Using False “Fact-Checking” to Protect Joe Biden’s Crime Record From Criticisms

          “The Facebook-owned platform’s denunciation of a well-established view about Biden” — a view voiced by Cory Booker, Bill Clinton, Kamala Harris and many others — “shows the dangers of internet censorship and the fraudulent use of ‘fact-checking.’”

          The only thing that is demonstrably “false” here is Instagram’s Biden-shielding assertion that there is a “fact-checking” consensus that this criticism of Biden’s 1994 crime bill is false. Don’t trust Silicon Valley giants to police our discourse:

          Look at what an absolute joke this Facebook/Instagram “fact-checking” is — to protect Biden.

          On the left: Instagram denouncing a random user for “disinformation”

          On the right: Cory Booker making the same point.

          Pleading with Silicon Valley to regulate our discourse is lunacy:

        2. Wow, Chipper’s really mad too. I love it.
          All the closet fascists get their panties in a knot when confronted with how they’ve ignored genocide and peace for the sake of orangemenbad.

      7. Appropriate since Jacob means deceiver, the delusions of godhood of the godless. Just because he spouts his groundless delusions he imagines they’re true, religiously closing his eyes to the reality that even many Dems can see. See hereistheevidence.com and The Epoch Times where they’re not as blind and deranged from Trump Derangement Syndrome as he is, though he’s right in sadly calling out the corrupt RINOs that have PRETENDED to be Trump’s allies.

        1. I’ll bet you’ve been talking to Esau.

    2. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job TYU to do and its earnings are much better than regular 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…. Visit Here

    3. Trump’s End Game

      January 6, 2021 is gonna be fun. Watch Lefties screech when McConnell doesnt do what he “promised” and the GOP contests Biden’s EC votes.

      1. From the article,

        “”Here’s the rub. It is likely to come down to the RINOs. “”

        Not a promising end game since many of those don’t like Trump.

        1. It’s going to come down to a bloody war in the streets.

      2. Senator McConnell and seventeen of his GOP colleagues have recognized Biden as President-elect. Democrats hold a majority of the House. Where are the votes to overcome the EC results?

    4. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job VFE to do and its earnings are much better than regular 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…. Visit Here

  2. “None of these claims matched up with what we knew about the facts.

    TRUMP DON’T NEED NO FACTS!

    1. RUSSIA COLLUZUN!

    2. *2020 and still believing Jacob Sullum*

    3. Lefties are scared that McConnell will still fight Biden’s EC votes as the Constitution allows.

      12th Amendment here we come!

    4. In the immortal words of the wise leader Joseph Biden “We believe in the Truth, not just facts!”
      Just following his lead, apparently.

    5. You’re the one with no facts. Those not so blind from Trump Derangement Syndrome sickness know better, e.g. hereistheevidence.com and The Epoch Times.

    6. Yeah, Trump goes with his gut rather than facts we all know that.

      But it doesn’t mean that no one should care about the facts. There is a big difference between Johnson saying “I need more information. The American people need more information. I’m not ready to just close and slam the book on this thing and go ‘OK, let’s walk away from it.'”, and contesting the electoral college certification.

      One can say ‘I accept that the electoral college has voted and certified it’s results’ and still want an election audit to find out exactly how many duplicate votes there were, how many signature mismatches on absentee ballots, and whether the total number of votes cast equals the in person voting and verified absentee ballots returned.

      At this point the election can’t be overturned, but it’s not too late to find out whether suspicions of widespread fraud can be confirmed or debunked.

      It doesn’t do anyone any good to let the suspicions just fester without an inquiry.

  3. Sullum continues to gloss over the 2.6 million+ presidential votes cast using mail in ballots, a balloting option not in the Pennsylvania constitution.

    1. Please quote the exact clause in the Pennsylvania state constitution that would prohibit it.

      1. “Please quote the exact clause in the Pennsylvania state constitution that would prohibit it.”

        There is none. It is illogical to take the position that a constitution’s description of procedurals, such as how electors vote, should also include an exhaustive list of how they are not permitted to vote. Since there is nothing in the federal constitution that prohibits a third house of Congress, does that mean Congress can pass a law and add one?

        Article 7.1.3 of the Constitution of 1873 specifies that electors offer to vote in the district in which they reside. There was no absentee balloting. If you wanted to vote, you showed up at your district’s polling place and voted in person, period.

        Article 7 was amended in 1957 to add absentee balloting, with para 7.19, specifying the four conditions under which one could vote absentee (illness, being away for work, etc). In 1967 another amendment renumbered this paragraph to 14.

        The Legislature recognized the need to pass an amendment to add a new class of electors, absentee balloting, which was on average used by roughly 3-4% of voters.

        Following the precedent of needing an amendment to add limited absentee balloting, does it not stand to reason that in order to add yet another class of electors, mail-in electors, the Legislature should have recognized that it would likewise need an amendment to do so? A class of electors much more significant than absentee if you judge significance by voting volume: typically around 3-4% for absentee vs 38.4% for the 2020 general election.

        1. He didnt actually want an answer you know.

        2. I thought the U.S. Constitutional standard, pointed out in the Texas case, is that the state legislature is primarily in charge of election laws in each state:

          From wikipedia:

          “On October 29, 2019, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed Act 77 by a vote of 138–61.[5] Later that day, the Pennsylvania State Senate passed Act 77 by a vote of 35–14.[6] Governor Tom Wolf signed Act 77 into law two days later.[7] The law enacted numerous changes to Pennsylvania’s election code. Voters were allowed to request a mail-in ballot without providing a reason.”

          1. Key word there is “request”.

            1. Are you referring to the few states (not Pennsylvania) that didn’t require any application to request a ballot?

              1. Sorry, I was misinformed that Pennsylvania had adopted mass mailing with no request.

                I don’t think Covid should have counted as a valid reason to request, but that’s a different matter entirely.

              2. Jesus fucking christ you’re retarded. I’ve explained this to you at least 10 times now.

                Act 77 still required signature verification, postmarking, and application and receiving by the dates set in previously existing election law.

                7 weeks before the election our secretary of state decided leftists were too retarded to figure out how to do that, so she illegally removed requirements for signature matching, postmark matching/deadlines, and illegally extended the deadline beyond election day. The legislature sued all the way to the USSC BEFORE THE ELECTION. It was 4-3 in favor of PA legislature until Robert’s decided to side with the leftards and punt it until after the election. But they issued a order to segregate all mail in ballots that did not meet the prior laws requirements of sig matching, postmark, and received by election day at 8pm. That is in Mike Kelley’s suit, the suit filed by PA legislature a few days ago, and was also in Texas lawsuit. And 2/3 of those are still pending at the USSC.

                Those are the unconstitutional changes we’re mostly focused on.

                Act 77 (Oct 2019) is a separate issue from the changes illegally made by our secretary of state, illegally bypassing the legislature, and illegally upheld by by the state SC cuz “muh covid” (September 2020) even though both issues are being contested in many of these lawsuits.

                It would help if you comprehend that if you wanna stop looking like a disingenuous retard whose ignorant of the facts.

        3. “does it not stand to reason”

          Maybe someone can file a suit challenging Act 77 _before_ the next election takes place:

          https://www.npr.org/sections/biden-transition-updates/2020/11/29/939859062/pennsylvania-supreme-court-rejects-republican-suit-to-throw-out-ballots

          1. Act 77 actually had a provision in it that required any lawsuit to be filed no later than 180 days after passage. That requirement is a constitutional can of worms in and of itself—how can a law have a provision in it that limits the people’s constitutional right to petition for a redress of grievances? If that’s OK, then every law should have a provision in it that says “This law has to be challenged within .03 seconds of passage or else nanny nanny boo boo, it can’t ever be challenged.”

            They say you should never see laws and sausage are made, in PA the saying should be “I’d rather see how scrapple is made than laws.”

            1. It’s a legitimate question. It is unusual (I think) to put such a limit into a law.

              As Dan_In_Philly points out below, though, the Pennsylvania Republicans voted for it, too:

              https://reason.com/2020/12/17/senate-hearing-on-election-irregularities-highlights-trumps-reckless-disregard-for-the-truth/#comment-8645448

            2. “how can a law have a provision in it that limits the people’s constitutional right to petition for a redress of grievances? ”

              in this case, i presume it is to prevent precisely the way this challenge was attempted to abuse the change…… to wait until an election does not go your way and THEN suddenly pretend you have some problem with it.

        4. how is mail in ballots a “new class of electors?” absentee ballots are already explicitly in the constitution, and the allowance for reasons is much more broad than you want to believe…… they didn’t create anything new.

          second question…. why was it OK for the primaries? this law change predated the pandemic. this is not the first time these rules were used. nobody tried to challenge it until Trump lost the election. why is that? (hint…. it is because this argument is garbage, and it was only ever an excuse to try and throw out legally cast ballots.)

          1. Not sure why I have to look this up for you but here goes:

            This says absentees and mail-ins are NOT THE SAME:
            (z.6) The words “qualified mail-in elector” shall mean a qualified elector who is not a qualified absentee elector.

            This adds a third class of elector (in-person being one and absentee being the other):
            ARTICLE XIII-D
            VOTING BY QUALIFIED MAIL-IN ELECTORS
            Section 1301-D. Qualified mail-in electors.
            (a) General rule.–The following individuals shall be entitled to vote by an official mail-in ballot in any primary or election held in this Commonwealth in the manner provided under this article:
            (1) Any qualified elector who is not eligible to be a qualified absentee elector under Article XIII.

            You could argue that mail-in elector is a subset of the qualified electors mentioned in original, unamended Article 7 of the constitution, but that would only hold water if the text of the constitution did not say they had to offer to vote in the district they are registered in, which has always meant, show up at the polling place.

            1. you got a twisted mind, desperate to find a difference….. PA does not separate absentee and mail in ballots….. they are the same thing….. they just stopped requiring a reason….

              why are you not answering my second question? if the strained BS you are attempting to push has any legitimacy, why did literally nobody care until Trump lost? why did it last through two elections before anyone felt this challenge was needed?

              1. If quoting the black and white text of the law that says in the definitions section that absentee is not mail-in is not good enough for you, then I don’t know what else to do.

                “why are you not answering my second question?”

                Let’s walk thru this.

                There was no challenge between passage in October 2019 and June 2, 2020 (the first election under the new law, the primary). Why? Since there was no election, there would be no parties with standing to sue–no one would have alleged they were wronged by the use of mail-in ballots. (Even though my personal opinion is that for a constitutional challenge, any PA citizen has standing at any time without limit, but that’s just me.) There was no challenge between the primary and the general because no parties felt that they had been wronged by the use of mail-in ballots—most elections of note were uncontested or totally lopsided. There was a challenge after the general election because two of the petitioners, candidates who claimed they would have won if mail-in ballots had not been counted, felt they were wronged by mail in ballots. Other petitioners claimed their votes were diluted by the inclusion of mail-in ballots.

                It does sound very self-serving to only sue if you lose, but the only time you have a reason to sue and standing to sue is WHEN YOU LOSE.

                1. you don’t have to lose an election to have standing…. that is just horseshit. your strained logic is this imaginary “new class of electors,” meaning that any registered voter in the state of PA would have had standing to sue at any time….. nobody had to lose anything…. there did not even need to be an election to bring that case. this case was brought for one reason and one reason only….. to change the outcome of the election. pretending anything else is a lie. nice try.

                  1. you don’t have to lose an election to have standing

                    Yes you do. You have to have an ‘injury’ for which you are seeking to get fixed in order to sue anyone for any reason.

        5. You don’t get to invalidate hundreds of thousands of votes cast in good faith on a technicality, especially one that’s already been adjudicated.

          Take your African dictatorship BS, go sit in a corner, and think about what you’ve done.

          1. “You don’t get to invalidate hundreds of thousands of votes cast in good faith on a technicality, especially one that’s already been adjudicated.”

            The PA Supremes (5Dems, 2Reps) did NOT rule on the question of whether or not Act 77 is constitutional. They tossed the suit 7-0 on standing and laches.

            If your point is that no politician (PA Supreme Court Justices are politicians, elected/retained every 10 years) anywhere would have the courage to follow their oath to support and defend the constitution (in this case the PA constitution) if it would mean rendering an unpopular decision, well you won’t get an argument from me.

            1. In a system of laws, you have to accept law that you don’t like, even if it’s made by courts, even if you believe it is obviously wrong. And if you don’t like it and act against it then you get put in a cage for a while like so many weed dealers. You can then either shut up and accept reality or go on a civil rights protest of some sort. Then 60% of America or so has to agree with your cause and care enough about it to base their vote on it, then by the requisite legislative or judicial means you may get your way, some day. Maybe even in time to vote for Barron Trump as president.

              1. Laws are not made by courts.

                1. Kind of a nitpick.

                  1. It isn’t. Except to a leftist like you.

              2. I’m sure you’ll feel the same way if the “cousin fuckers” in Oklahoma ever pass a law making gay acts illegal, eh Tony?

                You have no obligation to accept unconstitutional laws. It might be prudent to follow them, but that doesn’t mean you have to (or should) accept them.

              3. Tony, you don’t accept anything your progressive masters tel, you not to. So stop with your hypocrisy.

            2. Okay, let’s say you’re right about all of that. The law was passed in a shady way.

              But it’s still establishes neutral rules that doesn’t allow for any candidate to have an unfair advantage. Are you saying that if this law had been passed in the proper manner you would have no problem with the results of the election?

              While your process concerns might be valid, the results are still that more people voted for Biden than voted for Trump. The result would be no different had the law been passed in a way you approve of.

              Maybe the people who went about it the wrong way should be exposed and punished somehow. But it doesn’t seem like the obvious remedy to the issue is to throw out votes cast in good faith given what the law was at the time.

              Those voters didn’t do anything wrong. And Biden didn’t do anything wrong either. So I don’t see how the objectively just result is to instill a President that the people didn’t elect.

              I suppose if the law needs to be invalidated now because it was passed in an inappropriate way then repeal the law going forward.

              This might not be the best analogy, but let’s say a state legalizes weed for everyone, so I go out and buy weed openly without bothering to get a perspiration for my bad back (although I could have, but don’t bother because now it’s less of a hassle). Then someone realizes they passed that law in an unconstitutional way, so they repeal the law. Now should I go to jail or be punished in any way for openly buying weed when it was legal?

              If they hadn’t passed that law I would have gotten my weed a different way. But I bought it this way in good faith. I did nothing wrong.

              Those people who voted by mail because it was more convenient would have gotten an absantee ballot some other way or voted in person. Whatever. But we can still assume that they still would have voted for Biden.

              I don’t see why they should now not get to vote just because some politicians passed the law in a bad way. It was still the law at the time.

              1. *perscription not perspiration.

                Damn autocorrect.

                But I’m pretty sure you could figure what I meant.

              2. You make the assumption that all of those mailed-in ballots were actually sent in by legitimate voters, and not from printing presses and LieCheatSteal party operatives, filling them out in the back of a van.
                Don’t forget the truckload that a driver testified he brought from New York, and then the whole trailer vanished. Ballots mailed in PA, to go to an address in PA somehow ended up in NY?
                In the words of Illegitimate Joe; “C’mon man.”

              3. Before we start, remember that the Supremes never adjudicated the constitutionality of Act 77’s creation of mail in balloting. They threw out the suit on standing and laches.

                If they did rule on the suit, the petitioners proposed two solutions: invalidating all of the mail-in (but not absentee) ballots, or, ignoring the balloting results entirely and having the Legislature decide how to award the electoral votes.

                There was a LOT of hand-wringing over the first choice: the people who mailed-in did nothing wrong, they would be disenfranchised, will of the people, yada yada yada. The first choice does have conceptual precedent though, say when an obviously guilty criminal suspect has a decisive piece of evidence thrown out by a judge due to it being the fruit of an illegal search, and the prosecution’s case collapses. The People and the victim did nothing wrong yet their interests have been abandoned in favor of the courts enforcing the constitution. The blame and fault is not on the court for letting the guilty suspect go, the blame and fault is on whomever conducted the bad search. Likewise, in the balloting case, if the court were to throw out all mail-in ballots due to the Legislature’s unconstitutional passage of the mail-in ballot law, resulting in some 2.6 million mail-in ballots being scrapped, then the fault and blame should be on the Legislature.

                The second option, having the Legislature pick the electors, is a small-r republican option but I don’t think there is any basis in any law or the PA constitution to support a court directive. They could of course make one up if they wanted to.

                A third option that I don; think I read anything about is the “do-over” option—the court could rule that the mail-in ballots were unconstitutional, so the election would need a do-over under the old rules without mail-in ballots. I don’t know if this has any more basis in law or the constitution than does the appointment-by-legislature option, but it does have the advantage of being an election where everyone’s vote can count. The logistics will likely keep the winners from being know until after national deadlines (for the US House and for Pres/VP), so Pennsylvania is just going to have to announce, “Hey, we really fucked this up bad, our shit’s gonna be hella late, but we’re fixing it. We gotta do what we gotta do, and we’ll let you know what we come up with as soon as we can.” I can’t imagine that seating US Reps would be an issue because the House decides that….and whether PA’s electoral votes being a couple of weeks or months late makes a difference or not, well that will shake out at the federal level. If PA’s electoral votes don’t make a difference, then it’s moot; but if they do, the federal Supremes will have a shitshow on their hands!

          2. You don’t get to invalidate hundreds of thousands of votes cast in good faith on a technicality, especially one that’s already been adjudicated.

            All laws are technicalities. Are you suggesting all laws can be ignored? That’s a rather stupid position.

      2. The Penn constitution states that only the legislator can make or change election law. The recent changes were not approved by the legislator but were instead put into place by the Gov and OK’d by the state supreme court.

        1. Mail-in balloting was added by Act 77 of 2019.

          It was overwhelmingly voted for by the Republican majority in the PA House and Senate. Republicans loved it because in return for giving Democrats what they wanted, mail-in balloting, Democrats gave Republicans what they wanted, removal of the option voters had of voting a straight party ticket.

          PA Republicans picked up House and Senate seats as well as two statewide row offices, a pretty good haul. They don’t seem to be concerned that their Presidential candidate lost.

          1. Your citations fell off.

              1. unreason is NOT a citation. they are liars.

                1. It’s not really an “unreason” link. It’s a link to a comment I made above, which has the citation you asked for. But, here, I’ll copy and paste it here:

                  I thought the U.S. Constitutional standard, pointed out in the Texas case, is that the state legislature is primarily in charge of election laws in each state:

                  From wikipedia:

                  “On October 29, 2019, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed Act 77 by a vote of 138–61.[5] Later that day, the Pennsylvania State Senate passed Act 77 by a vote of 35–14.[6] Governor Tom Wolf signed Act 77 into law two days later.[7] The law enacted numerous changes to Pennsylvania’s election code. Voters were allowed to request a mail-in ballot without providing a reason.”

        2. The extension of absentee voting to anyone, without providing a reason, was enacted by the Pennsylvania state legislature.

          1. your citation fell off.

            PA state legislature is suing because those changes were NOT authorized.

            Biden is gonna lose. HAHAHA

            1. Say what? The PA Legislature is going to sue itself because it passed Act 77, which established mail in voting?

            2. The Pennsylvania is not suing to invalidate its own enactment. Don´t be silly.

          2. Negative. Act 77 did not extend absentee voting, absentee voting is still a class of electors and is unchanged by Act 77. Act 77 ADDED a third class of electors, mail-in electors. That’s why it’s unconstitutional.

            From a practical standpoint, if there are mail-in electors then you don’t really need absentee electors, but that’s not the issue at hand.

            1. oh, now i see how you are broken…… you don’t understand that mail in and absentee are the same fucking thing…… they didn’t create mail in balloting, they removed the need to provide a reason for absentee voting…..

              1. Don’t absentee ballots require you to actually request them vs. the state just mass sending out ballots to every breathing (and sometimes not so much breathing) eligible voter?

                1. Why would that be? What is it about you people always making the assumption that it’s good when it’s hard (for certain people) to vote?

                  Why do I ask questions with obvious answers? You’re in a fucked up situation where your political party can’t win when all the voters vote, so you come up with fairy tales about why it’s good to disenfranchise them. Same Jim Crow different decade.

                  1. “”Why do I ask questions with obvious answers?””

                    Because you don’t know of any other kind?

                  2. “…your political party can’t win when all the voters vote…”
                    Problem is that you LieCheatSteal party clowns think dead people, illegal aliens, operatives filling out thousands of “mailed-in” ballots, printing presses and all the others, who can’t legally do so, are “voters”.
                    When only legal votes are the ones counted, we win.

                2. yes, you do have to ask for it in PA…… and everyone who received one did ask for it. only a few states mailed them to all registered voters, and PA was not one of them.

                3. The exact legal meaning of “absentee ballot” and “mail-in ballot” varies from state to state.

              2. Going forward (assuming mail in ballots are here to stay) there is really no reason for an absentee ballot. But that is beside the point.

                The point is, the Legislature passed a law that added a third class of voters=uncnstitutional.

                If you want to look at it your way, then the law is still unconstitutional because how can the law take the four conditions for absentee voting out of Article 7.14 of the constitution?

                1. I’m not “looking at it my way,” that is what they fucking did. they removed the need to provide a reason…… that is all. they “created” nothing. it already existed. and they had two elections where nobody had any problem with it. the law also included a 180 day limit on challenges to prevent just this kind of BS……. people having no legitimate problem with it who will try to suddenly pitch a fit when they lose an election….. because your entire argument is BS, and you would not even be making it if you were not looking for an excuse to throw out ballots legally cast in good faith to steal the election from the rightful winner.

                  1. “Removing” a requirement, that is in the PA constitution, has to be done through a constitutional amendment. Not through simple legislation.
                    That’s why what the legislature did was unconstitutional.

                    1. it is a pure election process law. once again, the “requirements” section is far more broad than you are pretending. it basically amounts to “anything you think will keep you from going to the polls.” and there is absolutely nothing anywhere requiring you give your reason to the government. there is nothing that says the government must know why you are requesting an absentee ballot.

                  2. Foo_dd
                    December.18.2020 at 2:09 pm
                    it is a pure election process law. once again, the “requirements” section is far more broad than you are pretending. it basically amounts to “anything you think will keep you from going to the polls.” and there is absolutely nothing anywhere requiring you give your reason to the government. there is nothing that says the government must know why you are requesting an absentee ballot.

                    If there’s nothing that says the gov’t must know why you are requesting an absentee ballot, then why does the gov’t. have sections 6, 6a and 6b on the request form linked below? Schooled.
                    https://files7.philadelphiavotes.com/absentee-ballot/Absentee_Ballot_Application.pdf#_ga=2.122344843.16553003.1608525391-533645244.1608525391

    2. So really, you’re concerned with ONLY the states Trump lost (as others did mail in too) and ONLY because of what you perceive as a worthwhile technicality?

      So it’s not fraud- you just don’t like it because your guy lost.

      Guess what- get fucked. Fuck your feelings snowflake. Biden 2020

      1. Don’t you mean Harris 2020, comrade?

      2. Most of us are fine with auditing every state sweetie.

      3. I did not vote for Trump this time or the last time.

        I say nothing about fraud.

        I am pointing out that the author does not appear to have done any research or put any thought into into the details of Pennsylvania’s 2020 election

        I find it hilarious that Act 77 of 2019, the law that established mail-in voting in PA, which was disastrous for the Trump campaign, was overwhelmingly passed by a Republican House and Senate.

        1. Your citations fell off.

          1. Numerous lawmakers on both sides of the aisle joined the governor in applauding the new law.

            “This bill was not written to benefit one party or the other, or any one candidate or single election,” said House Majority Leader Bryan Cutler, a Republican who represents the 100th District. “It was developed over a multi-year period with input of people from different backgrounds and regions of Pennsylvania.”

            https://patch.com/pennsylvania/newtown-pa/7-big-changes-voting-pa-just-signed-law

            Will you shut the fuck up now?

            1. Politician: “No, we didn’t pass this to benefit us.”

              The People: “Bend over, here it comes again.” BOHICA

        2. Is “overwhelmingly passed” a substitute for “constitutional amendment”?
          Because changing the absentee balloting requirement to allow anyone to cast one, required more than simple legislation.

          1. Very true. In PA constitutional amendments follow this procedure:
            1. A resolution for an amendment passes each House by simple majority in a session.
            2. Same resolution has to pass again, in the following session.
            3. Same resolution goes on a future ballot for the people to decide.

            If any failure, it’s tabled for at least 5 years before it can be tried again.

      4. A precedent set by Trump when he complained about mail-in voting endlessly on Twitter, but made an exception for mail-in voting in Florida — in Florida, mail-in voting was A-OK.

        1. Feel free to sue Florida unreason.

          All mail-in ballots are getting tossed and were heading to 12th Amendment vote.

          1. The remedy requested is part of a federal court´s standing analysis.
            Who will have standing to request that all mail-in ballots get tossed? What concrete and particularized injury would be redressed by such a drastic remedy? Please be specific.

            1. Legal voters.

              Soap box
              Ballot box
              Jury box
              Ammo box

              1. By legal voters do you mean those who voted in person were victimized by those who voted by mail?

                The people who voted by mail were also legal voters, voting in good faith according to the law
                at the time.

                If the law was passed in a shady way, then by all means repeal the law going forward and punish those who did something wrong… if that’s even possible.

                But I don’t get why the people who voted by mail, because they were told that they could vote by mail, should be punished by having their votes tossed.

                I’m no fan of Biden, and if it can be proven that the will of the voting majority was to elect Trump, in enough states to achieve that, then by all means make Trump the President elect.

                But I’m not following the overall justice of tossing votes made by legal voters in good faith according to the law as everyone understood it at the time.

                I’ve never heard of anyone being punished for acting according to the law, even if the law is later changed on technical grounds based on how it was passed.

                1. I mean legal voters, according to the constitution.
                  Voting isn’t a fucking participation trophy.

                2. There you go, again.
                  Assuming all those mailed-in ballots were actually cast by legitimate, registered voters from PA.
                  Truckloads of ballots from NY don’t fit that bill.
                  But your disinformation tactic sounds good to the low-infos.

                3. I neglected to reply on the “shady law passage” in my other comment above.

                  The law was not passed in a shady way, as in dirty dealings under the table shady. It was bipartisan, with pretty much an all-hands-on-deck Yea response from the Republicans. White Knight posted a vote total in one of his/her responses if you’re interested in the numbers. It was lauded by the Gov as modernizing the 80+ year old voting system.

                  The dirty dealing that NO ONE seems to want to mention is that the PA Legislature DOES KNOW that mail-in balloting needs a constitutional amendment, and lookie-lookie, here it is:
                  https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2019&sessInd=0&billBody=S&billTyp=B&billNbr=0413&pn=1653

                  If the cite falls off, here’s the text:
                  (2) THAT SECTION 14 OF ARTICLE VII BE AMENDED TO READ:
                  § 14. ABSENTEE VOTING.
                  (A) THE LEGISLATURE SHALL, BY GENERAL LAW, PROVIDE A MANNER IN WHICH, AND THE TIME AND PLACE AT WHICH, QUALIFIED ELECTORS [begin strike-thru WHO MAY, ON THE OCCURRENCE OF ANY ELECTION, BE ABSENT FROM THE MUNICIPALITY OF THEIR RESIDENCE, BECAUSE THEIR DUTIES, OCCUPATION OR BUSINESS REQUIRE THEM TO BE ELSEWHERE OR WHO, ON THE OCCURRENCE OF ANY ELECTION, ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND AT THEIR PROPER POLLING PLACES BECAUSE OF ILLNESS OR PHYSICAL DISABILITY OR WHO WILL NOT ATTEND A POLLING PLACE BECAUSE OF THE OBSERVANCE OF A RELIGIOUS HOLIDAY OR WHO CANNOT VOTE BECAUSE OF ELECTION DAY DUTIES, IN THE CASE OF A COUNTY EMPLOYEE,end strike-thru] MAY VOTE, AND FOR THE RETURN AND CANVASS OF THEIR VOTES IN THE ELECTION DISTRICT IN WHICH THEY RESPECTIVELY RESIDE. A LAW UNDER THIS SUBSECTION MAY NOT REQUIRE A QUALIFIED ELECTOR TO PHYSICALLY APPEAR AT A DESIGNATED POLLING PLACE ON THE DAY OF THE ELECTION.

                  The text basically says there is no longer a requirement to appear at a polling place to vote, which removes the roadblock to mail-in balloting.

                  So the question is, if mail-in balloting is already constitutional, why do we need a constitutional amendment to make it constitutional?

                  1. BTW that’s SB 413 printer’s #1653. Earlier editions of SB 413 just dealt with the retention of judges. The tacked on the “absentee” part after they realized that Act 77 was a farce and hoped no one noticed.

      5. You sick fucks legalized voter fraud. But since the courts provided precedent for cheating, it means Republicans can engage in the same kind of thievery next cycle. So now all future elections will be determined by who cheats better.

        You guys have more experience with cheating, but now that it’s legal, the Republicans are going to learn from you real quick. Get ready because KARMA’S A BITCH.

        1. They have a multiple decade head start and zero qualms about further polarizing state and federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies towards political partisanship.

          I do not think your hypothetical attempts by the Republicans (or whoever, since Republican leadership appears fine with how all of this shook out) to commit voter fraud in the future, will go any better than some of the previous times they did grossly illegal things against the other party. Like Watergate.

          1. Yup, I agree…I’m not saying that the fraud of the future will be a good thing, but it will screw over the Democrats. And I’m at least gloating over that…but all future elections will be a joke that no one will take seriously, and that is an absolute travesty, which was legalized by Democrats.

            1. It’s bullets or bust.
              The Dems showed the way.

              1. Go for it bro, every minute you spend here commenting is a wasted minute. Get to work. You are the chosen alpha male. Your MyPillow will render you immune to returned fire.

                1. We can meet up in person if you’d like.

              2. Nardz, who will raise, arm, train, command and pay an insurrectionary force? The regular armed forces will be under the command of the new commander in-chief.

                1. I do hope Americans follow in the founding fathers’ footsteps, because we’re lost to totalitarianism otherwise.
                  And if we embark upon what’s needed, I’ll do my part.

                  Jomo and not guilty, you’re hivemind leftists and your lives don’t matter.

        2. Problem is, it is the LieCheatSteal party that runs the election offices in the cities, where the counting takes place.
          The number of conservative workers, needed to cover for the fraudulent ballots, are few, and far between in those cesspools.

          They follow their idol, Stalin’s mantra: “It doesn’t matter who votes, it matters who counts the votes”.

          1. Republicans can just as easily follow the Democrats lead and chaat from rural counties. It won’t matter if Republicans forge more ballots than residents of a county; the courts already said they’ll turn a blind eye.

    3. You are completely full of shit

    4. Report details how Zuckerberg’s $500M donation was part of wider effort to undermine electoral system by injecting private money, causing chaos and lawlessness

      I would suggest watching the Amistad Project about Zuckerberg’s $500 million donations to certain cities to boost the mail-in ballots numbers after the friendly lawsuits against Democrat Governors and mayors change election laws.

      Its a bit long and these folks are more nerds than public speakers but the point is made on HOW Democrats used Zuckerberg’s $500M donation to steal this election.

      Do you wonder how so many swing states had so many election law changes between 2018 and 2020? This explain how.

      Local governments took Zuckerberg’s donations instead of using available federal money for elections during COVID19. They bound their cities and counties to contracts with Zuckerberg non-profits to do the dirty work and avoid election FOIA laws.

      1. I am not a religious guy but THANK GOD for people who count the beans like these people.

        They have been using the courts to try to stop the undermining of election laws by Executive officials in MI, PA, WI, MN, GA, NC… for over a year.

    5. He isnalso ignoring the high levels of adjudication with their legally required logs of vote changes being somehow deleted. He ignores the Antrim audit completely. He ignored the abnormal pass rate of near 0 percent (usually 3%) of signature matching. Ignored the 100k voters on wisconsin who claimed they couldn’t show and ID because they were infirm. Missed the nursing homes with amazing application and return timeliness.

      Sullum thinks government is infallible.

      1. “Ignored the 100k voters on wisconsin who claimed they couldn’t show and ID because they were infirm”

        Mentioned: “and the question of which voters qualified as “indefinitely confined” (meaning they did not have to submit copies of their IDs when they applied for absentee ballots) in light of the COVID-19 epidemic”

        1. It’s ~215,000 illegal “indefinitely confined” ballots that will be tossed.

          Plenty for a Trump win with in-person voting.

      2. You’re kinda pathetic

    6. & that’s only a tiny part of the MASSIVE evidence of fraud, e.g. hereistheevidence.com and The Epoch Times.

  4. Ron-Johnson-hearing-12-16-20
    ELECTION 2020

    Senate Hearing on Election ‘Irregularities’ Highlights Trump’s Reckless Disregard for the Truth
    Sen. Ron Johnson, a Trump ally, now concedes there is no credible evidence to support the president’s fanciful conspiracy theory.

    JACOB SULLUM | 12.17.2020 1:20 PM

    Mo-Brooks-Newscom
    ELECTION 2020

    Trump Promotes a Doomed Electoral Vote Challenge As Even Diehard Supporters Admit He Lost
    The strategy of lodging objections under the Electoral Count Act has been tried before, but it has never succeeded.

    JACOB SULLUM | 12.16.2020 1:20 PM

    Trump-as-Bullwinkle-cropped
    ELECTION 2020

    Trump’s Election Conspiracy Theory Requires Followers To Join Him in an Alternate Universe
    Given the conspicuous lack of credible evidence, the president’s charges can be accepted only as a matter of faith.

    JACOB SULLUM | 12.16.2020 12:01 AM

    Mitch-McConnell-Senate-floor-12-15-20
    ELECTION 2020

    Mitch McConnell and Several Other GOP Senators Finally Acknowledge Biden’s Victory
    The president and his diehard allies in Congress continue to insist the election was stolen.

    JACOB SULLUM | 12.15.2020 2:50 PM

    Trump-waving-WH-2
    ELECTION 2020

    A Trump Appointee Rejects Election Complaints Similar to the Ones SCOTUS Declined to Hear
    Although the president says the justices “chickened out,” other courts have considered and rejected the merits of his legal arguments.

    JACOB SULLUM | 12.14.2020 1:00 PM

    Ted-Cruz-12-8-20-Newscom
    ELECTION 2020

    Ted Cruz’s Eagerness To Fight Trump’s Legal Battles Epitomizes the GOP’s Complete Lack of Principles
    By his own account, the Texas senator is committed to defending a dishonest, amoral, narcissistic bully.

    JACOB SULLUM | 12.13.2020 3:15 PM

    Trump’s Lawyers Claim the Conspiracy To Steal the Election Is Both ‘Easily Provable’ and Impossible to Prove
    Seeking to join a last-ditch effort to overturn Joe Biden’s victory, the president’s attorney says “it is not necessary…to prove that fraud occurred.”

    JACOB SULLUM | 12.10.2020 1:50 PM

    Trump’s Lawyers Claim the Conspiracy To Steal the Election Is Both ‘Easily Provable’ and Impossible to Prove
    Seeking to join a last-ditch effort to overturn Joe Biden’s victory, the president’s attorney says “it is not necessary…to prove that fraud occurred.”

    JACOB SULLUM | 12.10.2020 1:50 PM

    1. Oh, and fuck off and die, Reason.

      1. BratFart.com wants you. You’ll fit right in there.

        1. No such website.

          1. Buttplug’s humor isn’t very well developed.

        2. Sounds more like a website he would be interested in. Sicko

        3. Bratfart sounds like a sick pedo site.

          1. I take it you have experience in pedo sites then?

            1. Why are leftists so often child molesters?

    2. Looks like he’s been pretty thorough and staying up to date. So terrible.

      1. The last gasp of the fanatic is to attack the messenger.

        1. Your “messenger” is deliberately omitting 75% of the message.

        2. Not always. Messengers knowingly spreading propaganda should be attacked. Messengers ‘interpreting’ the message in a biased manner should be attacked.

          After all, haven’t the news media et al been attacking Trump for 5 non-stop years now? It was not ALL illegitimate, allthough much was.

      2. What you call thorough is ignoring the actual arguments being made. Something youre good at.

      3. I’d say it’s a little more obsessive, but tomato watermelon.

    3. I am really interested to see what happens to numerous media outlets when Trump is finally gone. Talk about a man who singlehandedly saved corporate media in this country.

      I’m not sure how the constant outrage machine will function without someone giving them kernels of substance to go crazy about.

      1. If you recall when Obama was president, everything bad that happened was blamed on Bush.

        1. Oh yeah, I expect that kind of news will continue. But it won’t be enough to keep alive the bloated newsrooms across the country.

          1. I dunno, the rabble are pretty roused. Trump will still tweet, and Biden’s Miracle Vaccine will make protesting just fine right about the time the weather turns warm.

            Lots of stuff for them to cover. Mayor Pete’s plans for a bunch of California-style high speed trains will certainly be enough to keep everyone employed and still not need to cast an eye at the Hunter stuff.

      2. It’s a symbiotic relationship – or co-dependency if you prefer – where Trump needs the media and the media needs Trump, they won’t be talking about him any less just because he’s no longer President.

        1. I assume they will continue to push the Trump narrative as long as possible. And I assume they will pivot to report more on his supporters to keep the Trump money train rolling.

          But let’s face it, our society has the attention span of a gnat. And after Trump is gone, news about him will immediately be “so last week” that people will start turning away from it in droves.

    4. And you read and commented on every single one lmao

      1. Actually, with such over-the-top reporting by a writer whereby it’s clear there is a significant personal animus going on, it’s kind of refreshing for someone to document and point out the lunacy.

        1. Having any sort of animus against a would-be strongman is perfectly natural.

          This is the most important story regarding liberty, even if the outcome is all but assured.

          1. Someone seeking legal challenges by following the exact processes established by the founding documents of this country is not “the most important story regarding liberty.” That’s just horrendous hyperbole. But, horrendous hyperbole has been an awful byproduct of the age of Trump.

            And having any sort of animus against someone you are reporting about is immediately a red flag concerning the credibility of the reporting. This is the most important part of the whole exercise.

  5. Imagine how pathetic and immature you need to be to question the legitimacy of a United States Presidential election just because it didn’t go your way.

    Of course Hillary Clinton called this over 4 years ago.

    #StillWithHer

    1. Hillary pointed out that Trump plainly said he’d never accept defeat, and she conceded the night of the election. Sorry she’s right all the time?

      1. “”Sorry she’s right all the time?””

        It’s hard to be wrong when you say you don’t recall a lot.

    2. Fuck you and your Reptilian candidate.

  6. Basically the Trump team is claiming allegation proves fraud. There is evidence, but it’s not validated evidence. It’s just hearsay. 130, 000 cases of fraud in Nevada, but not one of them has led to the start of a prosecution? That number is based on commercially available databases, but which ones? How were they collected? How have they been verified as accurate and legally sound?

    Just saying “I checked these numbers against those numbers” isn’t good enough. It sufficient to start a process to check those numbers, but not enough to claim fraud in court.

    While suspicion is sufficient to fuel a conspiracy theory, it’s not sufficient to use as evidence in a court of law. What is the providence of that data? Has it been validated? Who collected it?

    Because 130,000 cases of individual fraud in a state with a total voter registration of 2,062,466 is huge! THAT’S SIX PERCENT RATE OF FRAUD! That’s claiming that one out of eighteen votes was fraudulent! You can’t hide numbers like that. Yet apparently only one person was able to mine the data to discover it. Crazy. Extraordinary claims require proofs. There are no proofs. Just allegations.

    1. Trump lost. That’s all the proof his supporters fanatics need.

      1. True. The natural state of humans is to start with the conclusion and then maybe, just maybe, work backward to the premise. That was primitive man in the cave, that was barbarian man in his raids, that was “civilized” man with his god emperors.

        But then we got science, and logic, and the enlightenment. The same enlightenment that lead to classic liberalism and freedom of religion and due process and all that stuff. We learned to start at premises and work forward to conclusions using verifiable evidence.

        But we got too full of ourselves, and forget the primitives and barbarians and god-king worshipers among us. And they ALMOST won an election for the most powerful position in the history of the planet. They know that Trump actually won the election simply because it was Trump. So they start with the conclusion that Trump won and work backward to figure out how the God King’s throne was stolen.

        1. He definitely brings out the worst in his followers.

          1. Biden conceded today. He died. HAHAHA.

            Remember when I said RBG would die and be replaced by Trump… HAHAHA.

            1. What is your factual basis?

              1. More throat clearing than speaking intelligible words. Gurgle.

        2. This is 90% of the problem with the internet. We are not, by our nature, critical thinkers. And the Internet is chock full of writers willing to provide you exactly the evidence you are looking for.

          1. Yes. The weirdo at the work water cooler or your one uncle at Thanksgiving talking about chem trails or lizard people would be rapidly mocked and humbled by the people around them. Now they can find entire communities of weirdos who reinforce their insane worldviews.

            1. First, they prefer to be called “Reptilian”; lizard people is considered racist now for some reason. Second, it’s been firmly documented that Hillary Clinton has Reptilian ancestry so we know you, literal monsters, are out there throughout the Democrat party.

            2. Sqrlsy was just barking about Reptilians too. I’m sensing a theme among all the proggy sockpuppets.

          2. So comrade overt is asserting there’s no cause for suspicion?
            That The Party, government, and corporate mass media are infallible…
            Odd position for a “libertarian” to take, but so is promoting racist marxism.

    2. poor unreason and its apologists.

      Jan 6, 2021 is gonna be so fun where Biden’s EC votes are challenged.

      Constitution Strikes Again!

      1. January 6 will indeed be fun, as will January 20 when Biden is sworn in. Schadenfreude is the best of all kinds of freude.

        1. So when will the honeymoon end? When Mrs Whore Harris is sworn in to replace Spongy-brain Biden?

    3. Basically you and sarcasmic rely on strawman arguments because you are borderline retards.

      1. The apologists crack me up. Democrats and unreason lied before this election and they are still lying.

        Maybe that is why they are doubling down on lies. The have nothing to lose since nobody believes anything they say anyway.

    4. Who would prosecute this fraud? The state of Nevada maybe? Will the state investigate the matter? What are their political incentives? This issue is a total red herring. This information is a few weeks old and Trump’s lawyers aren’t Nevada prosecutors.

  7. Maybe Hillary can release a revised edition of What Happened.

  8. Lot of words for Sullum to say nah nah I can’t hear you.

    Also fuck off skreech.

    1. Cry more

      1. No, he’s right. Fuck off skreech.

  9. At this point, it takes a lot of nerve to plug one’s ears and insist that the election wasn’t stolen. People like Sullum need to listen to the likes of Robert Barnes, Richard Baris, Ron Coleman, and Matt Braynard and quit playing dumb.

    Of course, if that pre-election piece is any indication, Reason’s totally fine with a Biden presidency.

    1. Why assume they are “playing” dumb?

      1. Paging Ken.

        ^ This is your guys’ fault.

        These people really believe this. I thought you cared about national identity and culture? The common value of democratic elections is a huge part of our national identity. It’s what makes us who we are. It is part of our mythos of an early democratic republic founded on the idea that all men are born equal.

        Think about what it means if we lose that. Where is national identity going to come from? What is our common bond?

        If you are an accelerationist, then say so. But don’t call yourself patriot then.

        1. Do not blame me for recognizing that the Dems stole the election. I am going to resist his fraudulency as fervently as possible. Fuck this whole “Unite” bullshit. I had four years of being called a Nazi for voting Trump.

          1. Strange, I was called a fascist for being libertarian.

            It’s like the left has nothing but insults.

            1. And all you guys do is invite leftists over for tea and crumpets.

        2. Nationalism is so hot right now.

    2. Sullim, brandy, sarcasmic, et al are globalist. They like the fact that biden won.

    3. You think you can sustain another in an unbroken series of attempts to delegitimize a Democratic president with a sleazy internet conspiracy theory? I suppose when you did it to Obama, you believed the lies even after he showed his birth certificate, didn’t you?

      1. “attempts to delegitimize a Democratic president”

        When the attempt succeeds, it’s no longer an “attempt.” We have successfully delegitimized Biden. He is a thieving swamp creature that eats ass while committing fraud.

        Tony, how many times did YOU vote? (we know it was more than once, so don’t lie, again)

        1. Do you think you come across as anything but a diapered baby in all this?

          1. To the half of Americans that agree with me? Yes, I come across as correct.

    4. Jacob is afraid those guys are outside normal parameters and he’s terrified to go there.

  10. Perhaps Mr. Sullum is a hippophage, and wants to make sure the dead horse is properly aged and tenderized by beating it every day for a month.

    1. It’s not even an actual horse he’s beating at this point, but one made out of straw and TDS.

    2. Answer this: Has Trump stopped tweeting about his really having won the election? Have Trump and his allies stopped trying to overturn the election?

      1. One should never stop trying to correct a crime.

        1. Why, then, if Trump has not stopped, is it wrong for Sullum to comment on it?

          1. “Why is it wrong for Sullum to act as a Party propagandist?”

            How dare peasants doubt their lords.

          2. Did you apply to be the politruk here, WK, or are you self-appointed?

    3. “hippophage”

      The word of the day!

  11. I watched part of the hearing yesterday. The only witness with any credibility was Krebs. It hard to say who was the worst, but Ken Starr stood out as a once credible person who was now ready for a rest home. Perhaps Rudy and Ken could get rooms at a nice facility that handle dementia patients.

    As for Ron Johnson, he is up for election in two years. Last election he said he would not run again in 2022, but he appears to have changed his mind. Republican have lost the last 6 state-wide elections (Governor, AG, S.Tres, SEd, Senator and President) in Wisconsin and Ron is likely rethinking his approach. He need the Trump voters but he need more. Look for him to do some real fence straddling in the next two years.

    1. Ken Starr stood out as a once credible person

      ?

    2. “Credibility” expert Moderation4ever, everyone. I think we’re all familiar with his work here.

      Maybe if you keep claiming it, you’ll eventually believe it, huh.

      1. Go home. You do not even have a libertarian voice in Canada.

        It is not your purpose here either.

        1. Fuck leftists and their collaborators

        2. Piss off, White Knight. Choose a sockpuppet and stick with it.

    3. poor Lefties. This is what real evidence looks like unlike your fever dreams of Mueller.

      Trump’s second term is shaping up. More RINOs out themselves and lefties will never stop screeching about how they sear they didnt cheat with Election 2020.

    4. The guy saying he did a perfect job is the most credible? Lol.

      1. Isn’t that what you’ve been telling us for the last 4 years?

    5. I’m guessing the Moderation in your name refers to Jannies.

  12. RESIST!
    Not my president
    #neverBiden
    Impeach!

  13. Is your wife OK with Biden being your new bae?

  14. Thank God. Thought sullum had died. It had been almost 12 hours since his last bitch fest.

    1. Rich Uncle Charles was late with his last brown envelope.

    2. Sullum knows what’s coming. Jan 6 Joint Session of Congress is gonna be a sad day for Lefties.

    3. “Guh. What are these guys whining about? He only tried to steal the election. He didn’t actually do it! Jeeeez!!”

      1. You have to be a parody account. No one can be that fucking stupid.

        1. Tony is holding his beer for him. Better stand back.

    4. i say keep them coming….. fun to watch you guys meltdown because someone is daring to tell you the truth….

  15. FUCK YOU SULLUM!!!

    Find a new trick, jackwad, but stop wasting space by repeating the same fucking thing over and over and over again.

    Fucking one-trick pony.

    1. Gotta write something, and certainly cannot write about anything that might upset his overlords.

  16. This is all so much worse than when the democrats obsessed about “election irregularities” when they lost elections.

  17. Hey, remember that Hunter Biden thing that we spent two months insisting was a debunked conspiracy theory? Turns out it wasn’t debunked and it wasn’t a conspiracy theory, it was an active investigation by DOJ and we knew about it but decided to lie about it to help get Biden elected.

    Oh and by the way, the election was completely clean and pure and perfect and any claim to the contrary is a debunked conspiracy theory.

    -Media

    1. 60 losses.

      1. Good think the 1 win will be with the 5-4 SCOTUS with newly seated Barrett.

        or Biden’s EC votes being contested Jan 6 during Joint Session of Congress.

        Funny that Democrats are forcing the hand of squishy RINOs to support 12th Amendment vote for President. Nobody wants lunatic Democrats in office, especially when they got caught cheating election 2020.

        1. Trump´s appointees to SCOTUS have not supported him thus far. I´d say you are trusting hope over experience.

          SCOTUS has declined to exercise original jurisdiction. Which case is in the pipeline for appellate jurisdiction weighty enough to make a difference in the outcome? Please be specific.

          SCOTUS wants no part of this clusterfuck.

    2. Trump’s DOJ is investigating Trump’s pet attack on his opponent, the same one he bribed Ukraine over, the one that he failed to weaponize in time for 2020. You say national security threat, I say political fuckery. You people are going to destroy a man’s life because you’re too stupid and infantile to handle losing an election. Does the psychopathy never end?

      1. Trump held $1B unless they fired somebody?

        I mean, SOMEBODY in power did that. Pretty sure it was not Trump.

        1. You’re describing one of Biden’s successful attempts at American diplomacy. It didn’t happen in secret you dumb fuck.

          You people know so much about so little. That indicates that your heads have room for the facts if only you were interested.

          1. At the time Joe “Big Guy” Biden offered the Ukraine government 1 billion to fire a prosecutor it was in the news and public knowledge? It was a secret and not public knowledge. I don’t think the public knew about it until he made a usual gaff and bragged about it on video and a year or so later someone found it. Apparently President Trump was doing his job when asking about investigations into the Biden’s financial dealings in Ukraine. The IRS and FBI is now investigating Hunter Biden and his Ukraine income is part of it.
            President Trump’s interest in it came from a Ukraine prosecutor that had been investigating Burisma who met with and talked to Giuliani about the prosecutor Biden paid 1 billion to have fired. It wasn’t as if they suddenly just made it all up.

            1. I’m frankly disappointed that you can’t see Republican ratfucking when it’s so obvious. The Biden-Ukraine thing was Biden executing American foreign policy. It’s utterly conjured outrage over something that isn’t remotely controversial.

              They were looking for something to “but her emails” him with and they came up with fuck all. With his son being an addict and having a job.

              It’s all cynical Republican fuckery, almost certainly including whatever sham Benghazi 2.0 they have cooking with Hunter, and you should be able to spot it by now considering that’s all they ever do in lieu of governing well.

              1. Piss poor job of running cover for Biden, freakshow. You barely even understand what you’re talking about.
                Oh, and the only actual ratfucking going on was when your parents met.

              2. “The Biden-Ukraine thing was Biden executing American foreign policy.”

                Can you explain how this was American foreign policy in the first place? How $1B, which Biden and Obama had no power to refuse to hand over, to fire a prosecutor was an American issue in any way, shape, or form?

                And, again, people like you said the executive has exactly zero ability to refuse to use funds approved by Congress yet Biden intended to.

                And the investigation went from active to stopped cold a month after the change. Weird. The oligarch RETURNED to Ukraine at that point and then left again for Monaco after it was reopened thanks to Trump.

          2. “”You’re describing one of Biden’s successful attempts at American diplomacy.””

            So now threatening to withhold money is American diplomacy?

            1. Maybe not diplomacy per se. Still Biden was executing American foreign policy. Wtf? You think he used government money as leverage for settling a personal score? And Obama OKed it?

              Government leaders doing government leader stuff. I realize we’re not used to that lately. But you certainly didn’t hear me agreeing with you that presidents should only be tweeting obscenities and infecting people with disease or whatever it is you so love about Donald Trump, sleazy 80s tabloid figure.

              1. Obama CANNOT OK it. It is 100% not his decision.

                And, again, how was this America’s business at all? Especially when all it did was completely protect the head of Burisma who employed his son…the same son who sent funds to his dad.

      2. Sorry. The investigation started in Comey’s FBI back when impeachment was still only Nancy’s masturbatory fantasy. And Trump was bitching last week because nobody told him it was even going on.

  18. Yeah it`s Possible…Anybody can earn 250$+ daily… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good
    eaning opportunity.. Here is More information.

  19. Sullum, did you hear that general election absentee ballots from Cobb County, Georgia are being tossed because of signature problems?

    Biden’s vote count keeps going down the more times they look at the legal ballot count.

    1. Cite?

        1. Sites

          (We’re doing a free association exercise?)

        2. Nardz, why are you wasting time? You need to be in the streets post haste serving justice to non-believers.
          America needs you. Donald Trump needs you.

          Get to work.

    2. Biden has won three separate counts in Georgia, the votes have been duly certified, and Georgia´s electors have voted for Biden. What are you kvetching about?

  20. For election irregularities I have a few questions
    1. did the Dnc us the judiciary to remove political rivals from the ballot?
    2. Did states use executive, or judicial powers to change election law?

    If the answer is yes to eighter of these questions then regardless of fraud it was not a valid election

    1. Will you be sobbing this much when you finally pull the trigger?

      1. I assume that means you know the answer is yes to both questions

        1. You’ll be the only one crying for him then…

          1. I have noticed the Democrats defense of the election has went from there was no fraud to there was not enough fraud to change the results. How much fraud is not ok?

            1. Oh, it looks like we’ve moved past “not enough fraud to win” to “we don’t want to hurt feelz by taking away votes that might cast in good faith” and are on the verge of “but we already paid the caterer!”

              1. Basically, Daddy Gov is looking at The People and saying “Yea. What you gonna do about it?”

            2. First: “No evidence of fraud.” Then:
              “No widespread evidence of fraud.” Then:
              “No systemic evidence of fraud.” Then:
              “Well, it wouldn’t make any difference.”
              Next..? “Well, it’s too late now!”

              1. First: load the round. Then: cock the chamber. Then: rest againt temple. Then: kill yourself. Then: we will forget you

  21. Republicans want illegitimate power to impose all their bad ideas on us. That they rely on religious fundamentalists, white supremacists, and semi-literate hill people for this is not a point in their favor. Neither is their reckless willingness to reject scientific fact if it contradicts their theories or goals.

    You don’t have to like what Democrats are doing to recognize a toxic stew of proto-fascism when it goosesteps all over your TV.

    Against the will of the people they stuck us with a no-account clown show as president and suffered the electoral consequences. They’ve gerrymandered themselves into a situation where they are not incentivized into fixing their problems but to continued radicalization. They don’t believe in the principle of democracy. Ask them and they’ll tell you if the electoral college nonsense and various disenfranchisement efforts aren’t enough evidence.

    Maybe if they had good ideas. But not a single good policy has come from Republicans in twice my lifetime. Just you try and name one. Not a single tax cut for the rich has achieved a single thing but more wealth concentration. Even their wars were based on lies. The Trump thing that has enthralled so many of the dregs of society was four years of little else but mental illness. A proper American would see the unending supply of evil horseshit and turn away in disgust.

    Sorry if that means risking the dystopian future where rich people have to pay 5% more taxes and you are socially pressured to be polite to trans people. By acquiescing to the spread of this cancer rather than working to cut it out, you have no one to blame but yourselves.

    1. DUDE YOU ARE A FUCKING BIGOT (like most of those ass eating liberals).

      1. It’s okay though because you guys insist on not being anyone’s victim. You want a non-PC social milieu where we can make fun of the downtrodden and not look like assholes. So what’s your problem, snowflake?

        1. Since when do you give a shit about the downtrodden. Half of the time you write like a sociopathic serial killer.

        2. “where we can make fun of the downtrodden”

          We Republicans ARE the downtrodden. Look at how your BLM/Antifa brownshirts assaulted old guys for wearing MAGA hats. Harassed peaceful diners at restaurants because, you know “white silence IS violence.” You deplatform us, create ENEMIES LISTS of us for future extermination, try to get people fired just for supporting Trump. And you cap it all off by legalizing fraud.

          Tony, as a liberal you need to have an honest conversation with your friends and ask “are WE the baddies”? I don’t think you’ll like the answer.

  22. Fuck you Jacob. You used every shred of influence you might have to put the War Party back in power. You ignored people like Raimondo and Greenwald and instead aligned yourself with the neocons. Your vote for Jorgensen does not absolve you. The outcome is the same. And after 4 years of schilling for statists you are beyond redemption. This is worth a 2nd read. Not that you bothered to read it the first time.
    https://original.antiwar.com/justin/2019/02/13/why-i-got-trump-right/

    1. Trump is not a statist if you ignore all the textbook authoritarianism. Also not a warmonger if you simply ignore all the overseas bombing he did. Or the war he made on his own people.

      Is it non-statist to build a giant wall along the border and target states for harm that didn’t vote for you?

      1. From the link above.
        “As riven with factions and characters of dubious reputation as it is, the Trump administration is the good guys: at least, this White House, this President, is our champion. And his enemies are our traditional enemies – the neoconservatives, who have now returned to the national scene as the leaders of the anti-Trump “Resistance.” Behind the backs of the American people, the national security bureaucracy, the managers and guardians of the American empire, seek to oust this President because his presidency threatens their very existence.”
        It has been obvious to anyone paying attention that Trump was a major threat to the neocons, deep statists and their media enablers like Jacob Sullum. They are the bipartisan War Party that had been in power from Bush 1 thru Obama and would have had at least another four years with an HRC white house. Why do you suppose the War Party was united across all party and ideological lines in their rabid hatred for Trump and their support for Clinton and Biden? Because he built a wall on the southern border? Something that Hilary also supported until she didn’t? Because he’s “authoritarian”? Compared to who? Andrew Cuomo? Gavin Newsome?
        Trump has attempted on every foreign policy front to extract the U.S. from the military entanglements inherited from his predecessors. He has been opposed by the entire establishment including his own administration. It is a process that is continuing even in the final days of his presidency. But you and Jacob got your boy Biden by whatever means necessary. Their will be wars. The right people will get paid. The right contractors be there to clean up the blood. NATO will continue to suckle on our collective tit. All within normal parameters.

      2. So Obama was a statist and warmonger.

        1. The Syrians may have something to say about that last part.

  23. Binnall gave them 130,000 cases of voter fraud and the counter was “are any of these people being prosecuted”? How would Binnall know who is being investigated or prosecuted? The idea of fraud is to do it secretly. Is anyone in Nevada investigating it? Instead of dismissing the data and evidence he submitted should anyone take a look at it and see if 20% is real? Since when does a whistleblower become responsible for the prosecution and not just the message? It seems the argument has shifted from fraud is rare to it is ok because it was not enough to change the results. A fraudulent vote suppresses a legal vote. Democrats are all about voter suppression until of course it benefits them apparently.
    What happened in Antrim County, Michigan would not have been caught if not for it being a small red county and someone question the results. How many Democrat counties had similar results that were not questioned? The excuse was Antrim County failed to run an update. We were assured all election systems are tested and verified before the election and updates are not ran afterwards.
    If you believe the results of this election with no questions it is because you want to or believe the end justifies the means.

    1. It’s just that there would have had to be systematic cheating in multiple states to change the outcome of the election. Barring evidence of that, what’s the point of wasting anymore public resources on the question? To make sure Trump’s very large popular vote loss was tallied accurately?

      Of course we’re sitting here pretending that these claims haven’t been brought to every single court possible by the best lawyers Trump’s Patreon supporters could afford.

  24. Same problem as always. You say something is rejected, yet every single state court case was rejected on procedural grounds. Courts are not investigators. There are no full audits or signature matches. Nobody is running the info to figure out who was dead. Nobody is even addressing the arguments because they think that legitimizes them. It’s the same antiquated cosmopolitanism from the elites who think they determine what is legitimate. Hate to break it to you, but most of the country already legitimized Trump’s election challenge. Either address the claims or you’ll be responsible for whatever happens next.

  25. President Trump was put at a real disadvantage contesting the results of the election. He had to even resort to Giuliani who has not been in court in decades arguing cases because the high powered lawyers he initially had dropped out due to threats to their lives and lively hood. The Democrats had high priced high power lawyers arguing against every case the President attempted to bring and blocked audits and subpoenas for evidence.
    During the Senate hearing Binnall testified to evidence of 130,000 cases of illegal or fraudulent votes and was discredited when he answered he did not know if any of the people were being prosecuted. How does that make any sense? It would seem someone in the state should possibly look at the evidence and at least investigate before passing judgement on it being valid. If a whistleblower exposes someone for illegal activity is he dismissed because they are not being prosecuted?

    1. ¨The Democrats had high priced high power lawyers arguing against every case the President attempted to bring and blocked audits and subpoenas for evidence.¨

      I don´t think so. Assistant or deputy state attorneys general litigated election challenges that were brought against various state officials. Competent, but hardly high priced high powered lawyers.

    2. I went to bed and Trump was destroying Corn Pop..then the key states all stopped counting and massive votes poured in for Corn Pop…sure..doesn’t occur like that. Most likely the Dems knew the mailing lists and the names/addresses of folks who don’t vote and stopped by their house..enouraged them to “vote” correctly and then sat on the ballots until they needed them. Need a revote…and you have to show up in person unless you are deployed in the military. America was stabbed in the back by big tech, wall street, and the media..and everyone knows it.

      1. Courts and Republican party too

  26. The 17 bellwether counties have correctly predicted the winner since 1984 but this time Trump lost despite winning 16 of the 17. Trump won Florida and Ohio which predicts the winner since 1960. Trump got more votes this time which predicts the winner. The Reps crushed the down ticket races but Trump still lost. Biden had ZERO coattails which is unheard of. Six states stopped counting on election day which is unprecedented. Trump was winning all those states at midnight. The odds of Biden winning all of them is in the quadrillions. Yeah nothing to see here. I don’t like Trump but at least he’s a crony capitalist while Biden, or his handlers, are straight up commies.

    1. Is that supposed to be evidence to overturn an election?

      You gonna need a bigger boat.

      1. Corn Pop couldn’t win an election for dog catcher…

    2. It’s filled with statistical anomalies that make no sense.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEU6owG2Gjo&feature=emb_title

      Are endless testimonies like these to be swatted away?

      Come on man!

      1. how can you trust someone who isn’t an anonymous swamp critter?

    3. We had the first election where:

      – everyone is literally inundated with politics in their news feed and every site they go on; before you wouldn’t see this stuff if you didnt read daily papers…the amount of people entrenched in politics has increased exponentially, and its all team warfare
      – social media has exploded in the last decade, much more significantly in the last presidential term
      – the president tweets non stop for all to see…good or bad (or embarrassing)
      – said tweets are at the level of an elementary school child, and his main political philosophy is “troll the libs”
      – the country still has some adults, and they seem to be voting to end the nonsense
      – dems decided to triple down on getting out the vote and helping would be dems fill out their ballots and mail them (or drop them off for them)
      – there are a lot more dems than repubs, and they voted this time

      Sorry, you backed a reality show loser, and you lost. All the conspiracies you can make up will not fix this.

      1. Troll the libs? ROFL. The libs carried the Russia hoax forn4 years. They fucking impeached Trump over it! Troll the libs. GFY.

        1. It’s amazing how little is lost in translation when a brain fart originates on the president’s Twitter feed and filters down into barely coherent half-sentences on comments boards. You don’t even need to know a single detail of the impeachment. You have “Russia hoax.” Not the concept of anything real, nope just the two words there.

          1. As usual Tony has nothing.
            But if you’re up for a challenge, making sense of his ranty word salad about mean tweets and the Ruskies, ought to be a unique effort.

  27. ట్రంప్ కామి ఓటర్లు మరియు పసుపు కుక్క బాధితులు

    1. నేను గూగుల్ ట్రాన్స్‌లేట్‌ను కూడా ఉపయోగించగలను.

      1. కానీ మన తెలుగు పాఠకులందరూ గూగుల్‌ను యాక్సెస్ చేయలేరు

  28. I never thought I’d be grateful the US military-industrial complex would be more powerful than the president. Good luck having a coup when the military won’t even do what he wants and he’s their legal boss!

    That bench is so deep. So many undersecretaries. So much chain of command. He tried to decapitate the pentagon and a thousand other whack-a-moles in uniform popped up. And he wants to do a coup. Ha!

    Trump ran his 2016 campaign on bombing terrorists harder. He said he was going to target their families. And he did! He did do that! And he had them stop counting the dead. One of his first acts was to explode the largest non-nuclear bomb in the arsenal.

    He spent weeks crying that he wasn’t allowed to send troops to murder BLM protesters.

    The neocons may hate him but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t destroyed a lot of shit with bombs.

    1. I never thought I’d be grateful the US military-industrial complex would be more powerful than the president.

      Yes, we want the people with all the guns to answer to no one. Do you ever listen to yourself?

      1. In this specific instance the military is preventing Trump from executing a successful coup, precisely because of the bureaucratic molasses he can’t penetrate. Maybe bad in all other contexts, good in this one.

        He went to war against the swamp and the swamp won, thank god.

        1. It’s funny how you’re admitting to being a fascist, but accusing everyone else.

          1. Killing fascists is what America the US armed forces does, son.

  29. Cuties strikes again. Seriously there is something not quite right with many Reason writers…not really libertarian (never read about monetary policy..perhaps the worst institution in destroying liberty, deficits, govt inferring with voluntary exchanges…but Trump Trump Trump…not how cultural marxists have infected America in all levels..and need to be extracted and deported. Trump was a bully but a bully than protected you from the mob…

    Perhaps Sullum can write a series of articles on the Ukraine Holocaust and who were the leaders and why this has all been whitewashed. It really is insightful as you can explain the rise of socialism and cultural marxism in American institutions like the meda, academia, wall street and now big tech when you start with the Bolsheviks.

    1. Dude it’s Chanukah, tone down the antisemitic conspiracy theories.

      1. This is coming from the guy who was screaming for de Blasio to shut down the synagogues and Torah schools last month, and is pissy about the Abraham Accords.

        1. Stop saying Abraham Accords it sounds embarrassing.

    2. No you can’t start with the Bolsheviks. You have to start with the Mongols.

    3. Right. The President of the United States is trying to undermine American democracy — why is Sullum so obsessed with that.

      1. You.
        You are destroying democracy, white knight.

      2. Pretty sure propagandizing demagogues like you and Sullum are a far bigger threat to democracy than Trump’s court cases.

        1. What about the fact that Trump’s incompetence and willing disregard of cybersecurity let Russia hack the entire US government for an unknown but long duration?

          1. Right because the President personally secures every computer owned by the federal government. Oh look Obama got hacked too.
            https://observer.com/2018/01/obama-administration-knew-about-russian-hacking-as-it-was-happening/

  30. slot online terpercaya di indonesia v88

  31. The Wood Duck is probably the most amazingly colorful waterfowl in the world. The Wood Duck male bird has a metallic, purple-green head and ridge. His abdomen is white and his chest is dark red. Along the neck, they have attractive, narrow white stripes. Their wings are colored in blue and black.

    Female ducks are not as colorful as males. They have a gray-brown head, white belly, and a white chest. The male bird uses its colorful plumage to attract females during the breeding season.

    These ducks live in swamps, wooded swamps, and streams throughout North America. With unique colors and shapes, these ducks are also one of the most easily recognizable birds in North America. Unlike other poultry, they nest in tree holes and form groups.
    The Wood Duck is probably the most amazingly colorful waterfowl in the world.

  32. https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status/1339806143061909504?s=19

    I contributed 20,000. He contributed $500 million. I served eight months in overnight confinement. What would be a fitting sentence for him?

    1. Local story.

      Nobody at Reason is going to cover this.

      Cocktail party invites matter.

  33. https://twitter.com/CBS4Local/status/1339318113653960706?s=19

    It turns out, five nurses in El Paso, did not receive the COVID-19 vaccine Tuesday at University Medical Center. CBS4 noticed a discrepancy when the second nurse went to be vaccinated. ????The syringe used was empty.
    SEE VIDEO

  34. No biggie, just a continuous pattern of initial denial then changing the story along the way…

    https://twitter.com/RichardGrenell/status/1339756118445322240?s=19

    . @joebiden went from-
    I know nothing and never spoke to Hunter about his foreign business.
    To-
    I know all about it and there’s “kind of foul play” in these allegations.

  35. https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1339761285404258304?s=19

    California has an extreme lockdown and a mask mandate. California had 52,000 new cases of COVID today. That’s what the whole country averaged daily in October. Forced lockdowns & masking are a total failure. It was always about control of people, not control of a virus.

  36. Pattern

    https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1339801446800351232?s=19

    BREAKING: New York City establishments with a Liquor License, only allowed to operate outdoors, are now also banned from allowing customers to use the restroom or pick-up food indoors. Other restrictions also added.

  37. My rigorous and exhaustive analysis of the 2020 election leads me to propose that Mr. Trump failed to win because he is generally popular in places that have fewer people, and he is generally unpopular in places that have more people.

    Submitted for peer review.

  38. Kaya Scodelario was brought into the world on 13 March 1992 in the town named Haywards Heath, West Sussex. She was conceived Kaya Rose Humphrey to Roger Humphrey (father) and Katia Scodelario (mother). Roger was British, though Katia was from Brazil, who had moved to England in 1990, two years before Kaya was conceived. Her folks were isolated when she was a youngster, and her mom brought her up in London. Kaya received her mom’s last name, which comes from her mom’s Italian granddad. She was the lone kid to her folks. 

    https://fameandname.com/kaya-scodelario/

  39. “…there is no credible evidence to support the president’s fanciful conspiracy theory.”
    That still leaves room for the people to see the credible evidence of the factual conspiracy theory.

  40. Trump lost the election because of his malfeasance regarding the COVID 19 pandemic and his total incompetence at doing his job. His behavior following the election has further demonstrated that he is unfit for office.
    Those Republicans who continue to spout his lies and excuses are no better.

    1. Where in the Constitution does it say the President’s job is to keep us from getting sick?

  41. JAKE the FAKE jes keep on hittin dat PROPAGANDA PIPE like the cocksucking crack whore he is

  42. It does not matter if there is any credible evidence of voter fraud. In 2016 roughly a quarter to half of the electorate believed that there was voter fraud for President Trump to be elected. Now in 2020 there are roughly quarter to half of the electorate that believe that there was voter fraud for Joe Biden to become the next President.

    The reality is that there has been declining confidence in our elections. There should be Senate and House hearings on election fraud and how to restore confidence. This lack of confidence is not a new and has absolutely nothing to do with President Trump.

    This does have a lot to do with the disfunction of the two major political parties and the how they have tilted elections against third parties and their opposition. The media also has been guilty of driving wedges through coverage or lack of coverage.

    1. I think it’s mostly due to Republicans disenfranchising people in broad daylight then bitching about fake election fraud every time they lose.

      Have a hearing about them.

      1. You mean like Hillary and Stacey Abrams?

  43. Just over one month left for all the fake libertarians of Reason to get the last remaining vestiges of TDS out of their systems, like an alcoholic on his last wild bender before hitting rock bottom and dragging himself to that first A.A. meeting in shame and embarrassment.

  44. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight hours a day and start getting paid in the range of 7,000-14,000 dollars a month…
    Weekly payments….. Here Is More Info.

  45. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight hours a day and start getting paid in the range of 7,000-14,000 dollars a month…
    Weekly payments….. Here Is More Info.

  46. I get paid over $90 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Here’s what I’ve been doing….. ☛…Usa Online Jobs

  47. I get paid over $90 per hour working from home with my kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Here’s what I’ve been doing….. ☛…Usa Online Jobs

  48. Nice artikel for me..
    V88 adalah slot online terpercaya dan mudah mendapatkan jackpot dalam bermain
    Download aplikasi di v88

Comments are closed.