Election 2020

Ted Cruz Recycles Election Fraud Claims Already Rejected by the Courts

He and other GOP senators supporting his bid to reject certification of the 2020 election result ignore the fact that courts have already addressed the issues they raise.


Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas).


Senator Ted Cruz and a group of ten other GOP senators have issued a statement calling on Congress to refuse to certify  the 2020 election results unless Congress first creates a commission to investigate President Trump's unsubstantiated allegations of "voter fraud, violations and lax enforcement of election law, and other voting irregularities." The statement claims that the commission is needed because courts have supposedly failed to address these claims: "Ideally, the courts would have heard evidence and resolved these claims of serious election fraud. Twice, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to do so; twice, the Court declined."

It's true that the Supreme Court has declined to hear these claims on the merits, instead dismissing them on procedural grounds. But, as GOP Senator Pat Toomey points out, Cruz and his allies "fail to acknowledge that these allegations have been adjudicated in courtrooms across America and were found to be unsupported by evidence."

Toomey is right. The Trump campaign and its supporters have had numerous opportunities to adjudicate these issues in both state and federal court. And they have repeatedly either failed to present any evidence of fraud or other illegality, or—as in the case of Sidney Powell's "kraken" lawsuits—the "evidence" was so risible that it was quickly laughed out of court.

Consider this ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where Trump-appointed Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote an opinion for a unanimous panel emphasizing that "calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here." Bibas also noted the Trump campaign's failure to present any evidence or even allegations of fraud, when they had the opportunity to do so. Or consider this more recent ruling, by the Seventh Circuit, in which Judge Michael Scudder, another Trump appointee, reached similar conclusions (again on behalf of a unanimous panel). And there are many more examples of the Trump campaign, the "kraken" lawyers, and other Trump allies filing these types of cases in a variety of courts, and losing on the merits.

Conservative legal commentator Andrew McCarthy—who has supported the Trump administration on many legal issues throughout the president's term—points out that the campaign has repeatedly passed up opportunities to present evidence of voter fraud in court, most likely because they don't actually have any. As he puts it in an article describing a case Trump filed seeking to overturn the results in Wisconsin:

There was no there there. Despite telling the country for weeks that this was the most rigged election in history, the campaign didn't think it was worth calling a single witness. Despite having the opportunity of a hearing before a Trump appointee who was willing to give the campaign ample opportunity to prove its case, the campaign said, "Never mind."

The Cruz statement tries to give the impression that, just because the Supreme Court did not address these issues, that means no court has. That simply isn't true. The Trump campaign has had ample opportunity to litigate its voter fraud and other election claims on the merits. To the extent it failed to do so, it is because they failed to present any evidence of fraud when given the chance.

The overwhelming majority of cases—including the overwhelming majority of election disputes—never reach the Supreme Court. They are instead decided by lower federal courts or by state courts. Election disputes involving state law (like many of the Trump filings) are usually resolved by the latter.

I can understand how someone who knows little about the legal system might assume that only the  Supreme Court can adjudicate election claims. But Ted Cruz is a Harvard Law School graduate, and the former solicitor general of Texas. He knows better. Indeed, any US senator should know better.

Either Cruz is remarkably ignorant about the history of the litigation over the 2020 election (and thereby somehow unaware of the many lower court rulings considering Trump's claims) or he's trying to mislead the public. Neither possibility speaks well for him.

There are many other flaws in Cruz's proposal for an investigative commission. But perhaps the most significant is that the courts have already considered the issues it would investigate. And, as Cruz himself admits, the judiciary is in fact the right forum to adjudicate such questions. Once you recognize that the Supreme Court is not the only court in the land capable of adjudicating election disputes, the logic behind Cruz's proposal collapses.


NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: January 3, 1911

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

    1. Lol. The article itself says that the video is not new. Also debunked. GA did three recounts, so if this really happened it would have be caught.

      1. Not if you count fake ballots.

        1. Um, you can’t have it both ways. Either there were fake ballots or there were real ones counted multiple times. If both were the case, then the counts wouldn’t match.

          Also, you have to understand that Jim Hoft — Gateway Pundit — is literally known as the dumbest person on the Internet.

          1. Really? Dumber than some of the posters here? Can’t be.

            1. I’m not sure it’s possible for there to be a dumbest person on the internet. It’s like saying there is a star furthest from the center of the universe.

              1. You’re not familiar with Jim Hoft, then.

          2. Before, the strongest proof that voting fraud is virtually nonexistent was Trump’s own Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. He created it to find voting fraud, stocked it with voting fraud fanatic members and headed it with an über fanatic, Kris Kobach. It found nothing except the same already-known few-score examples spread over decades, then collapsed in humiliating chaos.

            Now we have even stronger proof voting fraud is a microscopic phenomena (if that). Two months of frenzied effort by the Right to find any fraud whatsoever, and what do we see? IceTrey peddling drivel from an internet crank & the President of the United States throwing out random conspiracy charges to see if they’ll stick – like a monkey hurling feces at the zoo.

            1. “It found nothing except” that Democrat run states were unwilling to provide any of the requested data, so proceeding any further was impossible.

              1. So fraud isn’t happening in Republican run states? Because that’s some bad news for Trump and Cruz’s anti-democratic crusade.

                1. So it’s only anti-Democratic when Republicans say there was voter fraud but it’s perfectly fine for Democrats to do so or open a two-year fraudulent “Russian collusion” investigation in a coup attempt against a sitting President. Gotcha – what a leftist tool you are.

                  1. In 2016 Hillary conceded quite quickly and there was an orderly transition of power from Obama.

                  2. WTF does one have to do with the other?

                    And no, the Mueller investigation was not “fraudulent.” Stop lying.

                    1. I believe the logic is that if Democrats got two years with subpoenas, etc, to pursue their ultimately baseless conspiracy theory, Republicans should also get two years to pursue theirs.

                      I don’t believe there was widespread fraud, but this actually makes sense to me, in that it seems “fair”.

                      The real problem for Republicans is that investigations take time. If you attempt to rush them, questionable evidence presented prematurely without adequate vetting can cast doubt on the whole enterprise (e.g., the Steele dossier). I’m sure with a few years they could dig up something more substantial than they’ve presented so far, albeit ultimately disappointing and far short of what they’re hoping for. Unfortunately they have a self-imposed deadline of Jan 20, 2021 if their goal is to overturn an election.

                      However, I feel confident in predicting that there will be some form of ongoing investigation that will, if nothing else, provide material for Fox News for months and years to come.

              2. After the 2016 election, Republicans held the governorship in 33 states. They controlled both chambers of the legislature in 32 states. They held the governor’s office and both chambers of the state legislature in 24 states.

                Given that. surely Korbach’s commission had the opportunity to find at least a little voting fraud, right? Let’s take the states that Trump has targeted after his loss : Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. After 2016, the GOP controlled the executive & legislative branches in the first two, and the legislature in the third. Why didn’t Korbach find any corruption there? Why couldn’t he find any new voting fraud anywhere ?!? Why did he find nothing?

                But why bother pointing this out? When Trump shoots a random stranger on Fifth Avenue you’ll be the first in line with some bizarre tale to excuse the crime, Brett. Kinda guy you are…..

                1. Not just those three states.

                  In Wisconsin, the GOP had all three branches: gerrymandered legislature, Governor Scott Walker, the elected Attorney General and Walker appointees on the Supreme Court. They still have the first, but lost the second and third in the 2018 election (taking effect at the start of 2019) and the last in the April primary during the pandemic shutdown (taking effect in the summer).

                  Arizona also had a Republican governor and legislature at that time.

              3. Look at the bright side, Brett. This gives you more time for resumption of your quest to find former Pres. Obama’s birth certificate.

                1. You may live in some bizarre alternate universe where I’m a birther, but I live in the main timeline, the one where you’re the loon.

                  1. You’re still trying to dance that silly ‘I was birther-curious, but not a confirmed birther’ line, Brett? Ask someone without autism to help you understand why that fails.

                    1. Touche!

              4. Brett, stop with your bullshit:

                From Wikipedia:

                2017 request for voter information
                First request

                On June 28, 2017, Kris Kobach, in his capacity as vice chair of the Commission, wrote a letter along with the Department of Justice to the top election official in every state requesting they turn over voter data ostensibly to aid a countrywide search for evidence of election irregularities. Besides information such as the names, addresses and party affiliations of all registered voters, Kobach sought birth dates, felony conviction records, voting histories for the past decade and the last four digits of all voters’ Social Security numbers. Many states’ election officials claim they never received the request and some said they only forward the request from another state’s secretary of state.


                Kobach provided an e-mail address and a website for the election official to electronically submit the personal voter data. The e-mail address lacked basic encryption technology and was found to be insecure.

                The request may have violated the federal Paperwork Reduction Act because it was not submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) prior to being made to the states. The submission to the OIRA would have required a justification and an explanation of how the data would be used and protected. Additionally, the request did not come with an estimate of how many hours it would take the states to respond. Regulatory experts opined that the consequence of a violation would be that states would not be required to respond.

                In January 2018, it was reported that the Commission had, in its requests for Texas voter data, specifically asked for data that identifies voters with Hispanic surnames.

                Second request

                On July 25, Kobach told the Kansas City Star that he intended to send another request for voter data, after receiving a favorable ruling in a lawsuit filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center. ….The California Secretary of State announced that it would refuse to comply with the second request.[67]

                State responses

                There was an immediate bipartisan backlash and rejection of the inquiries with a majority of states quickly rejecting the requests.[6][7][8][68] Notably, commissioners Kobach, Dunlap, and Lawson (who also serve as the secretaries of state for Kansas, Maine, and Indiana respectively, with Indiana being Mike Pence’s home state) indicated that their state laws forbade them from complying. Some states offered to only provide information that is already made public or available for purchase. No state has said they will fully comply with the list of demands. In response, President Trump made a statement on Twitter, “Numerous states are refusing to give information to the very distinguished VOTER FRAUD PANEL. What are they trying to hide?”

                So your characterization is, as usual, misleading and false.

                Besides there have been numerous other investigations, some by Republicans, which also turned up nothing.

                Not that any of that will convince you that the Democrats haven’t masterminded some massive plot to undermine election, but the rest of us don’t have to accept your delusions as valid.

        1. That literally doesn’t say anything at all.

          Also, your star witness is a loon.


          1. You’re committing the genetic fallacy which states that just because he made it up doesn’t mean it’s not true.

    2. GP-the ultimate fake news site

  1. One can only guess the degree of intimidation by threat of social vilification and/or outright physical retribution that’s been foisted upon the psyche of our judiciary. I weep for our country.

    1. Don’t cry too fast.
      Our judges have held steadfast. That is why they have for-life appointments.

      1. Well, Federal judges do anyway. We’ll see what consequences the Wisconsin “judges”, for example, will suffer when they have to run for re-election.

  2. Isn’t the issue the Elections Clause? My understanding is courts refused to reach the merits on laches grounds (correctly in my opinion). But why is Congress bound by laches? I think the election results should be respected, but isn’t it a bit disingenuous to assert the Elections Clause issues were all resolved on the merits. Of course, I have a day job, so I acknowledge I may be mistaken on what the Courts ruled.

    1. The suits were thrown out on just about every issue, including laches, and some one the merits. Congress is bound by federal law that says that they must accept all state certifications that happened before the safe harbor date, and 49 states met that.

    2. EXACTLY — throwing out cases on technicalities is NOT hearing them on their merits.

  3. Neither possibility speaks well for [Cruz].

    There is absolutely nothing that speaks well for Cruz. I wonder if Eugene still thinks we need more like Cruz in the Senate.

    1. Again something all sides should be able to agree on: There’s nothing good about Cruz from any perspective except, maybe, Cruz’ own.

      1. Will Trump return Cruz’s testicles on the way out?

    2. Cruz was on Fox Sunday morning explaining how dissappointed he is that the Texas lawsuit (the Paxton one) before the SC was rejected and he wouldn’t get the chance to argue it. I’ve thought that when the suit was rejected that Cruz was the biggest winner in that he was denied another chance to make a horse’s ass of himself.

  4. Courts didn’t investigate thoroughly and mostly punted. Court opinions so far are noted. No one needs to agree that any court ruling (let alone the preliminary ones we’ve seen so far) is the last word on any subject.

    Ilya Somin recycles Muslim Ban legal theories already rejected by courts.

    1. In this country it is not the job of courts to investigate. They must rule on the evidence submitted and the law on the books. It is the role of the plaintiffs to investigate.

      1. Therefore court rulings so far don’t argue against investigation.

      2. The primary problem here is that, while there was little proof of fraud, there was plenty of proof election laws were violated, often in ways that would have allowed fraud to go undetected.

        But the courts typically didn’t care if election laws were violated. Or, once or twice, rationalized that being assigned the job of election administration made anything you decided to do legal, regardless of what the law actually directed you to do.

        1. there was plenty of proof election laws were violated, (in your opinion,) which is far from dispositive, often in ways that would have allowed fraud to go undetected.

          You keep saying that. You’ve never demonstrated it. I haven’t seen your cite to Hunter Biden’s lawyer either. Did I miss it?

          1. I’ve said it, and I’ve demonstrated it. The PA supreme court was quite open about the fact that election law established an election day deadline for receiving absentee ballots, that the deadline was constitutional, and the legislature was entitled to set that deadline.

            Then they ordered the deadline violated.

            There’s no ambiguity here, the very court that ordered the law violated admitted that law was perfectly clear and constitutional.

            1. That’s the one and only instance where a court held that a state constitutional provision took precedence over a statutory restriction. And yet, there were only 10,000 such late-arriving ballots while Biden won the state by more than 80,000 votes. Moreover, the certified results don’t include the late-arriving ballots.

              1. Brett’s rule: never let the facts get in the way of a stupid argument.

              2. And what constitutional provision would that be? Don’t forget to link 🙂

            2. You have had many on here explain to you how this is not what the decision says.

              You’ve also used this logic when commenting on other courts’ decisions, as though they said the same thing.

              At this point it’s like a cargo cult.

              1. Nah. Cargo cults were based on empirical evidence. The interpretations were off, but the methods were better than the ones Trump’s acolytes bring to court.

              2. “You have had many on here explain to you how this is not what the decision says.”

                Yep, who am I to believe, you or my lying eyes? I’ve read the decision, and it literally says that the law was unambiguous, that it was constitutional, (They had to say that, because the whole law would be void if any part were struck down, and they didn’t WANT the whole law void.) and within the authority of the state legislature to enact.

                Then ordered it violated.

                1. Feel free to lay out the quotes you think make your case.

                  I get the impression you haven’t revisited it much after it first came out.

                  (I expect a busy day of nonsense at work tomorrow, so don’t take silence as consent!)

                  1. I’ve done it before, I really don’t see any need to do it again, because you ignored it the first time.

                    1. You might find it a useful exercise to revisit.

                    2. Nor have you explained why the rulings made fraud undetectable.

                2. I’ve read the decision,

                  But you don’t understand it. And you’re not educated enough to understand that you don’t understand it. Which is why you think that they “ordered it violated,” which is not a thing.

            3. Then the Supreme Court ordered the ballots received after Election Day to be set aside, and they were, and they weren’t included in the count, which Trump lost.

              Sorry, what’s your complaint, exactly?

              1. What, are you confusing “an example of an election law being violated” with “the only election law that was violated”? There were multiple election law violations in Pennsylvania, and it wasn’t the only state where that happened. All I was doing was pointing out one unambiguous example of the problem.

                Anyway, Supreme Court Rules Pennsylvania Can Count Ballots Received After Election Day

                So you were saying about how they weren’t included in the count?

                1. All of the other examples of alleged election law violations were based on state courts interpreting statutes. And yes, the PA vote doesn’t include the late-arriving ballots.

                  1. “And yes, the PA vote doesn’t include the late-arriving ballots.”

                    Now you’re not playing fair. It’s not nice to confuse Brett with facts.

                    1. Well, that’s interesting. Did another court ruling overturn the Supreme court ruling I cited above, and was going by?

                    2. Well, that’s interesting. Did another court ruling overturn the Supreme court ruling I cited above, and was going by?

                      You didn’t cite a Supreme Court ruling above. You cited an NPR article that mistakenly claimed that a decision not to hear a case was a ruling.

                2. What, are you confusing “an example of an election law being violated” with “the only election law that was violated”?

                  Because it’s the only such “example” you’ve ever identified.

                  Anyway, Supreme Court Rules Pennsylvania Can Count Ballots Received After Election Day

                  That’s a terrible headline and story by an editor and reporter who don’t understand our courts. The Supreme Court did no such thing. The Supreme Court did not rule anything. As the article correctly notes:

                  “The court declined without comment to take up one of the highest-profile election law cases in the final stretch before Election Day.”

                  “Declined without comment to take up” a case is 100% not ruling on it.

                  So you were saying about how they weren’t included in the count?

                  They weren’t included in the count. You might note that the date of the article is two weeks before Election Day, and therefore even if the article were correct it could shed no light on what actually happened after Election Day.

                  1. “Because it’s the only such “example” you’ve ever identified.”

                    Because if I can’t get you to accept an open and shut case where the court admitted the law was constitutional before ordering it violated, it’s certainly futile to bring up all the cases where the state courts didn’t literally admit what they were doing.

                    1. How about you get us to accept something that actually happened, first, instead of something that didn’t, like late-arriving ballots in Pennsylvania being included in the count?

            4. PA law also says that ballots (including mail) cast by 8 pm on election day count. The court had two conflicting laws and made a judgment that resolves the conflict. You may not like it, but it was both reasonable and legal.

              1. It’s pretty straightforward: Ballots have to both be cast, AND arrive, by election day. There’s no contradiction at all.

                I don’t particularly care if the court was being ‘reasonable’, if they were reasonably ordering the law violated.

                1. Who needs citation to legal authority when you have autism?

                2. No. There were two parts of the law that was in conflict. One part of the law explicitly said that mail ballots cast on Election day were valid. You may disagree, but it was still a reasonable ruling and in no way violates the constitution or made the ballots illegal.

                3. They weren’t ordering the law violated.

                  Note further that this — your sole example — is not even relevant to the topic. Even if the SCOPA made an incorrect ruling — something you aren’t actually qualified to decide about Pennsylvania law even if you were a legal expert (which you’re not) — this

                  A) would not be an example of “fraud”;
                  B) would not be something unfair to the GOP, since a voter from any party could take advantage of it; and
                  C) would most certainly not be an example of something which changed the outcome of the election. We know that with 100% certainty, because Biden won without any of those votes.

                  So it’s pretty sad that you keep harping on this trivial point which is based on your inability to understand legal topics and which doesn’t have anything to do with the discussion.

                  1. The idea is that any ballot not cast in strict interpretation of the law is illegal and thus invalid. Since more Ds votes by mail then Rs, and mail ballots have more rules, they would discard more D votes then R.

                    1. Yes, I think that about sums it up: Ballots not cast in compliance with the law are illegal to count, and most of the election law violations were enabling sorts of voting that Democrats predominate in.

                      This is NOT a claim of fraud. Not all crimes are fraud, and it wasn’t the voters breaking the law, it was the elections officials.

                    2. Why are ballots “not cast in compliance with law” illegal to count, if the voter was qualified to vote, had every reason to believe he was voting in compliance, and if there was no evidence of fraud?

                      Not only is it unreasonable to penalize voters for administrative errors, it also opens a giant loophole for dishonest election officials, or even campaigns, to fool voters by announcing, for example, that ballots received after election day will count.

                    3. Ballots not cast in compliance with the law are illegal to count,

                      But that’s one of your many problems: that’s generally not an accurate statement of the law, though it may be true in some jurisdictions for some forms of noncompliance.

                      Your problem is that you confuse it for a game or sport where the goal is to accomplish a feat by satisfying a specific set of tasks, such that failure to complete those tasks means you don’t get the points. The wide receiver can’t just throw the ball he just caught into the end zone and then run and jump on it and say that he scored because he got the ball in the end zone; if he didn’t get the ball in the right way, it doesn’t count because the objective is to do it a certain way. The rules are the game.

                      In voting, the goal is to cast the vote. The rules are just ways to help administer that, not ends in themselves. Some of them exist to help prevent fraud, but others are just bureaucratic. If a particular rule isn’t necessary to ensure that the vote isn’t fraudulent or cast by an ineligible person, then failure to comply with it should not invalidate the vote.

                  2. I am not arguing fraud. The furthest I go in that direction is to state that some of the election law violations would have enabled fraud. They threw open the door, but it’s possible nobody walked through it.

                    1. Which violations enabled fraud?

            5. But the talking point is that it didn’t happen. So expect that to continue to be repeated tomorrow or ten minutes from now.

              1. What didn’t happen, Ben?

            6. I’ve demonstrated it.

              I don’t think you’ve demonstrated that whatever happened in PA “allowed fraud to go undetected.”

              Neither have you provided any reason to think there was some sort of giant fraud.

            7. No, they did not order anything violated. Nor did they admit it was constitutional.

              1. This is getting really tiresome.

                “Unlike other provisions of Act 77 currently before this Court, we are not asked to interpret the statutory language establishing the received-by deadline for mail-in ballots. Indeed, there is no ambiguity regarding the deadline set by the General Assembly:”

                “Moreover, we are not asked to declare the language facially
                unconstitutional as there is nothing constitutionally infirm about a deadline of 8:00 p.m. on Election Day for the receipt of ballots.

                “We are fully cognizant that a balance must be struck between providing voters ample time to request mail-in ballots, while also building enough flexibility into the election timeline to guarantee that ballot has time to travel through the USPS delivery system to
                ensure that the completed ballot can be counted in the election. Moreover, we recognize that the determination of that balance is fully enshrined within the authority granted to the Legislature under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions.

                “We conclude that this extension of the received-by deadline protects voters’ rights while being least at variance with Pennsylvania’s permanent election calendar, which we respect and do not alter lightly, even temporarily.”

                They ordered the deadline changed, which is to say, violated.

                1. Reread last paragraph on page 27 of the opinion, and page 28. Also, the legislature enacted 25 PS 3046, and the Legislature had no power to violate PA’s constitution.

                2. Still unclear on the distinction between facial unconstitutionality and unconstitutionality as applied to a particular set of facts, Brett?

  5. Oi vey! The jews doth protest. Take note that the people are the sovereigns of the nation. Who cares what judges say? Really, in the final accounting it is the government of the people, for the people and by the people. If the elected representatives piss on the opinion of judges, so be it. Only a fool could believe the results of Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Arizona is sketchy as well. Anybody who was around in Illinois in 1960 knows how it is done, electronic voting machines, reckless absentee balloting, only makes it easier. Give it up Ilya, your argument is pointless. Checks and balances exist in places other than your rigged court system with retard lawyers and purchased judges. If the voted does not make it past the sniff test on Capitol Hill, your ‘effing judges have little to say about it. Only jews think that the talmudic courts have the final say in all matters….so jooish, so un-American!

    Guess you missed that part in ‘law school’…..moron!!

    1. These periodic reminders of the terrible anti-Semitism on the left are really helpful.

      1. I don’t think this ignorant anti-semitic person is “on the left.”

        1. Well, I think this person is not trying to appear “on the left” anyway.

          Looks like somebody’s trying to parody a Russian troll.

      2. Cry more, bigot.

    2. Take the parody and antisemitism out of this and understand that Joe Sixpack doesn’t care about fancy lawyer talk. He just knows that there hasn’t been an actual trial yet on any of this fraud.

      We may somehow manage to avoid a shooting civil war, but at best we are in for four years of French-style national strikes, except this will be the private sector opposing Bite Her Arse. Even if it were just truckers, I don’t think people realize just how vulnerable this country is to that.

      Or DC may burn flat next Wednesday. Nothing would surprise me.

      1. There have been lawsuits dismissed on the merits. What “trial” do you think decides the election?

  6. I guess the point is that senators are bad for doing the incredibly bad thing of … checks notes … investigating something, regardless of the fact that the senator’s constituents want such an investigation.

    Dumb too, for doing something to serve his constituents that a law professor somehow disagrees with. What’s the world coming to when investigations can be asked to happen just because millions upon millions of people want to know more?

    1. What’s the world coming to when investigations can be asked to happen just because millions upon millions of people want to know more?

      The only reason they want to know more is because Trump, and people like Cruz, have been feeding them BS for two months.

      The whole argument is circular.

      1. Allegations or scenarios without proof are BS. There’s not enough proof so we shouldn’t investigate to try to learn more.

        The whole argument is circular.

        1. Naw, independent investigations are a thing that exists, and many have already occurred regarding this election.

          It’s your side that’s circular.

          GOP politicians – “the election was stolen!”

          Later, GOP politicians – “Look at all these questions people who listened to us have about the election – we need to endless investigations on whether the election was stolen!”

          1. Ok. Thanks for today’s episode of my partisan argument is good and others are bad, because… I said so .

            1. I provided evidence of asymmetry right there in my comment.

              So many on the right are taking refuge in postmodernist ‘neither side can know what’s true’ nonsense.

              It’s as much an admission they know and don’t care as anything I’ve seen.

              1. The news media lies routinely for reasons of partisan advantage or anti-American enmity and we can’t understand the extreme skepticism we see in the general population. It’s all so very hard to fathom.

                1. You’re not evincing skepticism, you’re arguing a complete alternate narrative that disagrees with both primary and secondary sources.

                  1. What story do you think I told you?

                    I merely replied to Ilya’s complaining about Cruz asking for an investigation.

            2. Trump, six months before the election (smirking) : I’m going to claim voting fraud.

              Trump, three months before the election (smirking) : I’m going to claim voting fraud

              Trump, one months before the election (smirking) : I’m going to claim voting fraud

              Trump after the election : Voting fraud……
              Trump supporters : That’s horrible!

              Is there anyone more gullible than a Trump supporter?

                1. Melania scored a solution to her sketchy immigration situation, chain migration for her parents, and a nice meal ticket in exchange for squandering her (relative) youth on a flabby, womanizing old dude.

                  All Trump voters get is derision from their betters.

                  1. You’re completely leaving out the $200+ million the Trump-supporting morons have donated to his slush fund, um, his something something PAC that totally won’t be funneling tons of that loot to Trump himself and/or his family.

                    They should donate even more. Some people are too stupid to be trusted with money.

                    1. A couple weeks ago, there were reports that about half of Trump campaign expenditures were made to a single contractor that may have been controlled by the Trump family. Half a billion, or so, with no clear accountability.

                      Should we really think that Trump lost money being president?

        2. “The whole argument is circular.”

          Speaking of circular shapes . . . open wider, clingers. Pelosi has won and Trump is a lame, weak, impotent loser.

          1. Pyrrhic Victory.

            1. The losers peck at the dimensions of their betters’ victory.

              I am content.

              You will comply, clingers.

        3. Trump has had two months and any number of court cases to present proof. He hasn’t done it.

          He’s full of shit and you shouldn’t believe him.

    2. We should all denounce the elected leaders and listen to the babble of a law professor….that is what the founding fathers wanted, the people to listen to law professors rather than deal with issues thru their own governmental due processes. Law professors…..lawyers who can’t find their way to a courtroom….better yet, pathetic lawyers with no clients.

      1. Pavel, are you okay? A complete post without your customary Russian ‘bot “anti-Jewish comment???” Did someone hack your account?

        1. When I read Pavel’s comments I hear them in the voice of Boris from the Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon. I fantasize about him writing “Moose and Squirrel.”

    3. “investigating something, regardless of the fact that the senator’s constituents want such an investigation.”

      Waaaaaaay less that half of Americans (and Texans, I live there) believe there’s anything to this other than Trump not being able to deal with losing.

      I don’t have a dog in this hunt. It wouldn’t have bothered me if Trump had been reelected. Hopefully Biden can resist the crazies.
      It would help if Trump wouldn’t help the Dems take the Senate, but you and Trump care more about him than you do the country.

      But do you have any idea how ridiculous it looks to non-partisans like me when I ask for something tangible and get back “somebody moved a bin early in the morning” or “somebody might have changed the software” or that stuff? Your side is utterly unconvincing. Probably because you don’t have anything.

      Even if something weird really happened and the election was somehow overturned, Trump won’t be able to govern any more. Since 70%+ of the country thinks he lost, he truly won’t be considered legitimate. This time it won’t be the whiny Democrats thinking that, it’ll be a large majority of the citizens.

      Stick a fork in him, he’s done.

      1. Investigations are bad and wrong when only a minority wants one?

        1. Y’all can investigate all you want, if you have the resources.

          You don’t get to use government resources on your partisan goosechases.

          And also investigations are a lie anyhow – you lot aren’t actually arguing for investigations, you’ve got your conclusions already decided, evidence bedamned.

          1. Personally, I want an investigation. I don’t think I have a “lot”.

            If Russia collusion can be investigated, then the integrity of voting can be investigated.

            You’re basically arguing that the millions of Americans who want more information about the election don’t deserve representation. Nor do they deserve transparency in election procedures or that election laws be followed. It’s the old Obama Administration playbook: government needn’t even think about serving all Americans when Democrats are in charge.

            1. They deserve scorn. Derision. Replacement.

      2. Not according to the polls I’ve seen. 40% of registered voters think there was enough fraud to influence the election outcome, 35% think there was fraud that fell short of that threshold.

        Even 59% of Biden supporters thought there was fraud. They were just convinced there wasn’t enough to have thrown the election.

        In fact, it’s pretty crazy to think there wasn’t any fraud, that would make elections the only 100% honest thing in America.

        But, you know what? It’s too late. It was too late when the Supreme court decided BEFORE the election that they weren’t going to require states to obey their own election laws.

        Now we’re just arguing over whether the NEXT election will be carried out lawfully, it’s too late for 2020, or even for the Georgia runoff.

        1. If the Dems get the Senate, there won’t BE any more elections… 🙁

        2. There cannot be an election in a country as big as ours without some “fraud”, however defined. But that isn’t unique to this election.

          1. Agreed, and I wouldn’t be surprised if elections are rigged on a fairly regular basis since Tammany Hall.

            1. Are you saying President Trump’s presidency was illegitimate?

        3. 40% of registered voters think there was enough fraud to influence the election outcome

          Almost entirely Trump supporters who have just been repeating the lies that have been told to them for the past few months.

          The problem is those lies are entirely contradicted by the evidence, there’s just too few honourable people left in the GOP who will contradict those lies so that an outrageous falsehood is now being treated as fact.

          Even 59% of Biden supporters thought there was fraud. They were just convinced there wasn’t enough to have thrown the election.

          As do I because there’s fraud in every election, just not enough to change the results in US elections.

          That number is almost meaningless. They really only have the “some fraud” and “none” options because people will characterize the tiny typically amount of fraud as either one.

        4. It’s pretty amazing that there is anybody who believes there was no fraud when there are documented cases of fraud for Trump in Pennsylvania. Any significant fraud? No, there is no good evidence of that.

          1. Well, sure, there isn’t a lot of good evidence. But that’s a result of our stupid election administration practically being designed to hide fraud, rather than expose it. You can’t see what you avoid looking at.

            The whole system needs redesigning from top to bottom. I’d create a nation-wide election administration corps, with local election administration being done by outsiders randomly assigned to avoid areas where one party dominates being run just by that party.

      3. Biden’s not going to be able to govern, either.

        1. We’ll have a better idea about that when the Georgia senate results are in. Probably by the weekend.

    4. I guess the point is that senators are bad for doing the incredibly bad thing of … checks notes … investigating something, regardless of the fact that the senator’s constituents want such an investigation.

      Where were the Senators the last two months?

      1. You could ask them. Not sure what your point is.

  7. I wonder if Ted Cruz is also going to investigate the elections of the Republican senators and congressmen who were just elected in the exact same election.

    1. Odd . . . that they’re claiming that votes for Biden cast on the same ballot were fraudulent. The sophisticated technology formulated by George Soros (now age 90) and Hugo Chavez (dead since 2013) must command our admiration.

    2. ‘Tired of winning yet, bigoted clingers?’
      — recently elected Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.)

  8. Fundraiser fundraises. Film at 11.

  9. “I just want to find 11,780 votes.”

    1. When I heard about the call, I was like “There is no way the Trumpers can spin that.” But they see it as nothing more then Trump asking GA to simply acknowledge and fix the massive fraud that they already know (well, lied to themselves) happened. Nothing to see there.

      1. Molly,

        There is absolutely nothing they won’t spin, including the 5th Ave. murder. Trump was right about that one.

        1. They didn’t get to be Trump voters with sound judgment, adequate education, strong intellect, sensible conduct, or admirable character.

          1. I wonder how many Trumpists have fallen for that old “Did you know the work ‘gullible’ is not in the dictionary” joke.

  10. Democrats are the adults in the real world. Republicans are children with fantasies. And in the end children depend on their parents. I’m not too worried, though I’m glad Ilya and Eugene and the rest know that they have children to take care of.

    1. I am a liberal and generally support Ds, but even I would not go as far at to call them the adults in the room. The Ds always have a tendency to disappoint and do stupid stuff.

      1. I didn’t say they’re perfect. Nobody is. But they’re adults.

    2. The legal profession is not going to come out of this well…

      1. Who are you, Dick the butcher?

  11. Trump literally says he’s looking to find votes.

    Rather demonstrates that there was no fraud, except in Trump’s wishes.

    And the GOP seems to be not just okay with it, but actively working this angle.

    I hope it takes them a long time to live this down. Just because you expect your attempt to subvert democracy won’t work doesn’t make it any less scurrilous.

  12. So Trump just called Brad Raffensperger and spent an hour berating, flattering, begging and threatening the Georgia Secretary of State. At one point Trump warned Raffensperger was taking “a big risk”, suggesting criminal consequences if he didn’t revise the vote results.

    Another time Trump said: “So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state.”…“There’s no way I lost Georgia,” Trump said, a phrase he repeated again and again on the call. “There’s no way. We won by hundreds of thousands of votes.”

    The secretary of state repeatedly pushed back, saying at one point, “Mr. President, the problem you have with social media, that — people can say anything.”

    “Oh this isn’t social media,” Trump retorted. “This is Trump media. It’s not social media. It’s really not. It’s not social media. I don’t care about social media. I couldn’t care less.” At another point, Trump claimed that votes were scanned three times: “Brad, why did they put the votes in three times? You know, they put ’em in three times.” Raffensperger responded: “Mr. President, they did not. We did an audit of that and we proved conclusively that they were not scanned three times.”

    Trump: “Do you think it’s possible that they shredded ballots in Fulton County? ’Cause that’s what the rumor is. And also that Dominion took out machines. That Dominion is really moving fast to get rid of their, uh, machinery. Do you know anything about that? Because that’s illegal.”

    He was answered by Ryan Germany : “No, Dominion has not moved any machinery out of Fulton County.”

    Trump: “But have they moved the inner parts of the machines and replaced them with other parts?”

    Germany: “No.”

    Trump: “Are you sure? Ryan?”

    Germany: “I’m sure. I’m sure, Mr. President.”

    The call was attended by White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and several aides & attorneys, including Washington lawyer Cleta Mitchell. It was recorded and the Washington Post has published a transcript & posted audio.

    All you dead-enders here still peddling vote fraud nonsense? This is the puerile nonsense you’re supporting, straight from the top…

    1. While it could be considered extortion, it actually is Solicitation of Election Fraud.

      A criminal offense in the State of Georgia.

      1. Probably not. Since Trump seems to sincerely believe he won, his intent isn’t to fraudulently change the numbers, but to get the dumbasses in Georgia to count the ballots right.

        Not saying that’s what I think, just pointing out it’s what he thinks. No mens rea, no crime.

        1. I dunno, ‘I just want to find 11,780 votes’ seems like he’s at lease muddy on what he believes and what he wants to make happen.

          Though I’ll admit I’ve got a narrative of Trump the wanna be dictator that I’m grooving pretty hard on at the moment.

          1. Yeah when I saw the 11,780 line I was like oooh, that’s damn close to the line. And maybe it crosses it. I dunno.

            The sadist in me would love to see the Georgia authorities come up with enough “lost” votes to put Trump up by, say, 5 votes. The magnitude of the explosion among the political zealotry would be indescribable.

          2. No, that’s not what he’s saying. What he’s saying is that the voices in his head are telling him that he won by hundreds of thousands of votes, but that it’s sufficient for him to identify 12k more votes for him (or, I guess, disqualify 12k Biden votes), so that’s all he needs to do.

            (Note that his number doesn’t even match the certified vote total.)

          3. 11,780 is the smoking gun.

            It’s the line that proves intent.

        2. That’s the only aspect of this that I’m unsure could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He’s either demented, or a criminal, or both.

          As Sarcastr0 said, the fact that he asked him (repeatedly) to “find” 11,780 votes strikes me as clearly criminal.

          On the other hand, the transcript demonstrates someone who is completely unhinged from reality. Claiming (among other insane things), that he won “every” State.

          Either way, he’s a disgrace of a President that rightfully deserves to be thrown out January 20th, if not sooner.

          1. In context I think what Trump is saying is that there are all sorts of categories of bad Biden votes that if all of them were thrown out Trump would win by a lot. All the dead voters, out of state voters, bad signature voters, provable fraud voters (18,000 ballots with only Biden votes run through the machine three times): Trump wins in a landslide. But, Georgia officials don’t have to investigate and rule on all those categories, all they have to do is investigate enough to find, roughly, 12000 Biden votes to throw out. Trump is clearly wrong and he’s not going to win this, but I don’t think that he is actually advocating that Georgians fraudulently throw out 12,000 Biden votes. I think he would find it totally acceptable to fraudulently change the results, but it’s not clear to me that that is what he is asking for.

            1. This goes back to Cohen’s testimony before Congress. Trump doesn’t ask you to find “12,000 fraudulent votes”, he asks you to find “12,000 votes”. He completely understands that you’d need to break the law to do so, but he figures he’s in the clear because he didn’t specifically say so.

              As for why that particular statement is so bad, it proves intent.

              Trump isn’t saying “I think there’s X bad Biden votes in county Y”, or “Z missing Trump votes in county W”.

              He’s asking for exactly the number of votes he needs to win. The fraud claims are window dressing, the only objective is he be declared winner.

        3. This is the corrected version of your otherwise perceptive post:

          Since dumbass Trump seems to sincerely believe he won, his intent isn’t to fraudulently change the numbers, but to get the officials dumbasses in Georgia to count the ballots right.

        4. I think it would be a great if Trump defend himself in court by saying he was so broken from reality that it was no crime.

          1. It’s not that big a stretch. Remember, a popular impeachment defense was Trump is too incompetent to successfully extort personal gain from a foreign government. That one was real popular over at the National Review after all the other excuses became untenable.

    2. It was a beautiful phone call

      1. thread-winner

        1. I have to agree….perfectly placed comment. 🙂

    3. And twitter posted this, but not the Hunter Biden story — and they purport to be objective?

      1. Leaks aren’t hacks

          1. Really – Twitter knew this was coming and set up their rules just for this eventuality!

          2. Whoever recorded it did so legally. Whoever released it to multiple news agencies likely did that legally as well.

            Clue for those who suggest that this was a privileged phone conversation: when conducting confidential settlement discussions, don’t include in the conversations multiple people who are not properly included in the confidential discussions and do not lose control over who is and is not allowed to legally monitor and record the conversation.

  13. Isn’t threatening an election official in an attempt to get him to change results a crime?

    1. Congress owes Nixon an apology for driving him out of office. What he did compared to what Trump has done was nothing. All Nixon did was participate in the cover up; Trump is an active participant in criminal acts.

      1. After Nixon lost the 1960 election (one of the closest in history), he had to preside over the congressional proceedings to declare Kennedy the winner (because he was the sitting Vice President). At the end, he made a brief speech. “I do not think we could have a more striking and eloquent example of the stability of our Constitutional system and of the proud tradition of the American people of developing, respecting and honoring institutions of self-government,” he said. “In our campaigns, no matter how hard-fought they may be, no matter how close the election may turn out to be, those who lose accept the verdict, and support those who win.”
        I remember how horrible I thought Nixon was when I was in college back in the 60’s and 70’s. If Nixon was one of our worst Presidents, then what is Trump? And what has happened to our country in the last 60 years?

  14. Ted Cruz apparently doesn’t need your approval, Prof. Somin, or a shred of respect from his wife, so long as he still has the endorsement of Eugene Volokh.

    1. Kirkland, bringing anyone’s wife into anything makes you an asshole. |/dev/null yourself…

      1. You walk into traps that aren’t even there until you create them.

        Do you think the same of Trump, bringing up that same anyone’s wife?

      2. I express sympathy for Ted Cruz’ wife. Being married to such an asshole is bad enough; watching your man become the supplicant of a guy who called you hideously ugly and a pig is . . . it’s what happens when you marry Ted Cruz.

  15. Since when does “truth” dictate politics?

    Remember all the fun we had over “hands up don’t shoot”, “just returning home with and iced tea and skittles”, other similar untruths?

    Also, maybe the political elite should have actually taken the time to address the concerns about elections fraud instead of censoring it and calling those who had this belief stupid bumpkin yahoo rednecks. Is anyone really surprised that none of this changed anyone’s mind?

    1. I don’t know about stupid bumpkin yahoo rednecks, but the only election fraud for which there’s actual evidence is Trump’s call to the Georgia Secretary if state. People who think the election was stolen deserve no more respect than people who believe anything else for which there’s no evidence.

      1. Funny because the D’s “found” a lot of ballots too….

        1. You mean the ones that were counted as normal. They were never lost.

          1. Oh yeah I forgot that Dem voter fraud is “normal”….

        2. Jimmy, was your proctologist able to find your head?

    2. Since when does “truth” dictate politics?

      Since a democracy that doesn’t care about truth isn’t a democracy for long.

      Also, maybe the political elite should have actually taken the time to address the concerns about elections fraud
      The political elite are the ones that created the concerns about election fraud, you’re just too much of a mark to realize it.

      1. “The political elite are the ones that created the concerns about election fraud, you’re just too much of a mark to realize it.”

        What didn’t you just type – “no your face is what is stupid!” It would have been more representative of your childlike response.

        1. Jimmy, Trump has made millions over the years by being a con artist who lies for a living to guillible people. So yes, I’d say “mark” is a fairly accurate description of anyone who believes him when he claims election fraud.

    3. “Also, maybe the political elite should have actually taken the time to address the concerns about elections fraud”

      You have the right to sit down, shut up, and comply. Anything else, your betters permit as a matter of grace.

      These delusional bigots do not deserve respect.

      1. Well you did prove my point…

    4. Exactly, Jimmy — and 40% of the country no longer cares what the elite says anymore.

      The Patriots only had 30% of the population on their side…

      Not good…

      1. And the same people who are alienating 40% of the country think that we ought to pay special attention on smaller percentage of the population and not only listen to them but confer special privileges on those demographics.

        And those people look at this example and what does the left expect them to think when this 40% gets censored and denounced as stupid?

      2. You’re saying that 70% of the population supported the purported Confederacy? They didn’t even get 70% of the southern West Point grads.

  16. While everyone is fixated on Wednesday the sixth, tomorrow is the day when they vote on the rules. If they simply adopt the usual rules (like they have just about every other time in my lifetime) it will say one thing. If they adopt some crazy Ted Cruz rules it will be like Calvinball on Wednesday.

    We’ll know a lot more tomorrow…

    1. It’s been reported that the usual rules have been adopted. So far, Pence appears unwilling to go full metal Kraken head. Let’s hope that he, as does the Dude, abides.

  17. Cruz was one of Bush’s lawyers in Florida in 2000. He knows a thing or two about elections, which means he knows better and this has to be a completely cynical move.

    1. When Cruz gets up in the morning and eats his Wheaties, it’s a completely cynical move, so why would this be different?

      1. What kind of move is it when Ted Cruz observes a guy calling his wife a hideously ugly pig — repeatedly — and responds by figuratively affixing his tongue to that guy’s scrotum for a few years?

        I still can’t believe Cruz’ conduct in that regard. He didn’t make an effort to defend his wife (or his father) or to demonstrate any character. Instead, he became their tormenters’ obsequious supplicant.

        #ConservativeFamily Values

        1. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland: “What kind of move is it when Ted Cruz observes a guy calling his wife a hideously ugly pig — repeatedly — and responds by figuratively affixing his tongue to that guy’s scrotum for a few years? I still can’t believe Cruz’ conduct in that regard. He didn’t make an effort to defend his wife…”

          Not true. I clearly remember Cruz getting very angry, scowling and jabbing his index finger toward the camera, calling Trump something like a sniveling coward, and threatening to do him serious harm if he ever said another word about Heidi.

          1. And as always, Cruz has proven himself to be a quisling and a poltroon.

          2. “Not true. I clearly remember Cruz getting very angry, scowling and jabbing his index finger toward the camera, calling Trump something like a sniveling coward, and threatening to do him serious harm if he ever said another word about Heidi.”

            After which Trump promptly added ‘hideous’ to his description of Heidi Cruz, then watched Cruz shrink into a corner.

  18. So, honest question to the forum.

    There are serious questions that many people have about the election. Wouldn’t having a Congressional commission actually ask these questions and investigate these issues properly be useful? Then it can put to rest the questions that people have. Right?

    1. No. Those people do not deserve the respect, the time, or the effort of their betters. They’re just inconsequential losers. You can’t reason with belligerent ignorance, superstition, or bigotry.

      1. But you can get a lot of pitchforks & torches if you don’t.

        1. All-talk bigots are about all the clingerverse has left.

    2. There are serious questions that many people have about the election.

      No, there are not.

      1. 34% of Americans think otherwise…

        1. Taking the republic hostage doesn’t require you to negotiate with the hostage-takers.

        2. 80% of Americans believe in angels. Where is the investigation? Are we sure there wasn’t cherubic election fraud?

    3. So, honest question to you, Armchair Lawyer:

      What serious questions about the election?

      1. There are many, many questions. I’ll give one example

        There was a recent lay analysis done in Pennsylvania that said there were 200,000 more votes than people who voted. That’s odd. Then Pennsylvania’s DoS said “No, that’s incorrect, that was based on incomplete data”. OK… But a few more questions follow.
        1. Why, more than 2 months after the election is this data incomplete?
        2. When will the data be complete? Will that data be released?
        3. Will there be a check then?

        These types of questions are the types of things a Congressional Panel can audit, investigate and fully explain. Because right now, all we have is a vague assurance from the DoS “No, our numbers are right, just trust us”. And there are enough questions that we would like more.

        1. Please provide a primary-source citation for the lay analysis and the reaction of Pennsylvania officials.

        2. “There was a recent lay analysis done in Pennsylvania that said there were 200,000 more votes than people who voted. That’s odd.“

          This is gobbledegook. If more votes were cast than voters, why would I need a lay (or otherwise) analysis to tell me so? There were around 7 million votes cast. The results were certified. Who is telling you there aren’t 7 million voters in PA?

          1. Apparently, there are two distinct tallies. PA election authorities report and certify election results. Add up all the votes reported and certified and you get a total. The PA DoS also has a total which is based on a distinct reporting scheme from, best I can tell, the counties. The total from that scheme appears to be significantly less and the DoS says that it is less because all of the counties (or whoever is responsible for submitting the data) haven’t finished submitting the data. So, you have the official, certified vote totals and the DoS count which is unofficial and incomplete. Therefore, massive voter fraud.

            1. One way to catch ballot stuffing is to match the poll books with the vote tally. If the vote tally is significantly higher that points to fraud.

              It seems that certain counties are still unable to produce data from the poll books two months after the election. Why not? What is preventing them from producing this data? A fair assumption has to be that they can’t reconcile it, and then another fair assumption is that there was ballot stuffing.

              1. “It seems that certain counties are still unable to produce data from the poll books two months after the election. ”

                Is that true? Which counties were unable to verify that poll books and vote tallies did match prior to certification?

                1. Phildelphia, Delaware, Cumberland, Allegheny.

              2. The data will be uploaded to PS’s DoS, probably this week. (Not that it matters, since DoS data doesn’t decide who wins.) But you won’t believe the data anyway. So what are you upset about, really?

                1. Why wouldn’t I believe the data? Why is it taking two months? There is no valid reason, none, that requires poll book data to remain unreconciled for two months. Even two days is a ridiculously long time. They have the tally because they certified it. They have the poll books, at least I assume they still do, so why is it hard to count the entries in the poll books? It isn’t.

                  Why is it that the same counties in the same states have this perennial problem? Wayne county (Detroit) precincts can never be audited because their poll books never reconcile. Ditto Fulton county in Georgia. Philadelphia same.

                  1. There are 1,692 voting divisions in Philadelphia, and each has two polling books (IIRC A-M and N-Z). So they do have their work cut out for them. But I do agree with your basic premise that they should assign the resources needed to get it done before the state certification deadline.

            2. Primary source citation, please.

          2. Your comment is gobbledegook.

    4. The facts of the elections in every state are known. What the heck is there to investigate?

      1. MoreCurious has become less curious.

    5. I think that, done right, it would settle down a bunch of the turmoil now and would hopefully keep this from happening every election going forward. But you’re not gonna delay Biden’s swearing in to do it because there’s not nearly enough evidence to justify that.

      And the “done right” part is pretty tough too. The Congresspersons who were on the panel would need to ask serious, probing questions rather than preen and pontificate and try to shut down witnesses they don’t agree with. The partisans out in the public would need to listen to the discussion with an open mind. And the media would need to cover it in a non-partisan way intending to inform rather than persuade.

      Who the fuck am I kidding? No way any of that happens. So, yeah, it’ll be a complete waste of time.

      1. Again, it wouldn’t delay the swearing in, but it would answer a lot of questions in the long term. And I think the panel would need to be empowered to employ independent investigators as a first step to comb through the data and all the questions, and issue a full report on all the issues

        1. There have been panels on voter fraud and election integrity before. When they say nothing has occurred, that does not change anything.

          And the GOP wants IDs without caring about those without IDs being disenfranchised, appealing to ‘well, I have an ID and everyone I know has one!’ which really was the first clue they’ve realized their viability requires discarding democratic values.

          1. Funny how when people point out Trump’s commission on voter fraud turned up only marginal irregularities, but the media fails to mention that every big city and 12 states refused to cooperate with the commission leaving it without the data to do its job. And coincidence might happen, but those were all states and cities where voter fraud common.

            1. Addressed above. Why didn’t they just look at the 38 states that did cooperate and find all the fraud there?

              1. Why didn’t the police just investigate all the innocent people and town then declare there were no crimes committed?

                1. You’re giving question begging a bad name.

                2. Are you saying that fraud only occurs in Democratic states?

                  (Because, if so, these attacks by Trumpkins on Georgia are misplaced.)

              2. Maybe because those states don’t include shitholes like Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia and NYC.

        2. “Again, it wouldn’t delay the swearing in, but it would answer a lot of questions in the long term. And I think the panel would need to be empowered to employ independent investigators as a first step to comb through the data and all the questions, and issue a full report on all the issues”

          Republicans control at least some of the relevant states. What is stopping them?

          You’re just a delusional, disaffected, bigoted loser, Armchair Lawyer. Accept your loss and inadequacy with more grace, or expect even more derision from your betters.

      2. I think that, done right, it would settle down a bunch of the turmoil now

        I don’t think so.

        The turmoil is based on manufactured nonsense. If that gets refuted then the Trumpists will just make up more BS.

        Plus, they will claim the whole investigation was fraudulent and dishonest and controlled by crooked democrats and the deep state and whatever.

        I can imagine Brett preparing his comments even now.

      3. The Congresspersons who were on the panel would need to ask serious, probing questions rather than preen and pontificate and try to shut down witnesses they don’t agree with.

        Are you serious?

    6. There are no serious questions about the election. Just lies that have been repeated many times till people believe them. Every allegation has bee debunked quickly. It is important that these lies never be given respect or credibility. Any isolated issues where evidence does exist can be investigated by the FBI, DoJ, or state officials using the normal procedure.

      Also, it wont’ matter. As we have seen over the last two months, those who believe the lies will just ignore the fact that they are debunked, or simply just say that it just shows everyone is in on the conspiracy.

      1. Molly, it may prevent an Impeachment in two years.

        1. Bullshit. If the Rs win in 2022 and initiate impeachment proceedings, it won’t be because Detroit was mean to Republican poll watchers (which they weren’t).

      2. “There are no serious questions about the election”

        Molly you’re one of the zealots I referred to above. There is NOTHING that could pop up that would convince you of a problem. If a video showed up showing Biden rolling a dolly with a bunch of boxes and asking someone “hey, where do you want the fabricated ballots?” you’d come up with some way to excuse it.

        Meanwhile Kirkland would blame it on the clingers.

    7. Each state has a process for resolving questions about the election. Each state in which the Trump campaign raised questions implemented that process. Each state found the election to be untainted by any significant fraud, and that there was no chance that any conceivable fraud could have altered the outcome of the election. In many of the battleground states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan) the critical officials were Republicans who had supported Trump. The Trump campaign has had every opportunity to litigate its claims of fraud in court, and its challenges have been uniformly rejected, in many cases by Judges appointed by Trump. When multi-judge federal appeals courts have reviewed the claims, they have rejected them without dissenting votes.
      No legitimate questions remain.

      1. The court can’t really do investigations though. That’s not the domain of the court.

        Enough questions are around that an independent authority with the power to look at the hard data, across multiple would be very valuable.

        1. The Supreme Court can’t do investigations. But lower courts have the ability to do so. If a party makes allegations sufficient to warrant it, the court can hold an evidentiary hearing at which the parties can subpoena witnesses to testify. And any prosecutor who thought the President’s claims of corruption in his or her jurisdiction had any credence whatsoever could have convened a grand jury to determine whether the allegations warranted an indictment. There’s a good reason why those things aren’t happening, and why even William Barr said there was no reason to appoint separate counsel to conduct an investigation: There’s nothing worth investigating. A Congressional investigation would give unwarranted credence to false allegations, thereby undermining the legitimacy of our democratic processes. As the editors of the National Review, surely no friends of Biden, said: “If the Cruz-led objectors somehow actually got their way, they’d trample federal law and state sovereignty and blow a hole in the hull of American democracy.”

    8. Where were they two months ago?

    9. What serious questions?

    10. The “serious questions” only exist because Trump and his allies have been lying about what happened.

      And those questions all have answers, people are just ignoring them because Trump and his allies are telling them to reject the answers.

      A congressional commission re-investigating and giving those same answers won’t change anything because Trump will reject the results. It will only provide credibility to the empty allegations.

      1. There are a lot of questions. Turnout was abnormally high. Really abnormally high. Lots of affidavits of fraud. Lots of absentee ballots, which are more prone to fraud.

        1. Turnout was really abnormally high because Trump was the most polarizing President of my lifetime — people love him or despise him. There were lots of absentee ballots, but the reason for that is obvious (COVID-19), and historically there has been very little absentee ballot fraud. Utah, for example, has a long history of voting by mail with no evidence of fraud. Your assertion that there are “lots of affidavits of fraud” is simply incorrect.
          While I see no need for further investigation, if there is to be an investigation there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. The commission proposed by conservative Senator Tom Cotton, which would study the election after the fact and propose reforms, is reasonable, and I’m not strenuously opposed. The same thing was done after the disputed 2000 election. But as Cotton points out, Cruz’s proposal is a direct attack on our democracy. Each state has certified its election results, consistent with its procedures, and the legal challenges to those procedures have been rejected. The electoral college has voted. It’s time to move on.

  19. What’s priceless is that the same people who have had tantrums about the simple fact of Trump being investigated over his collusion with Russia are now saying, “What’s the harm in investigating?”

    Of course, if there were any evidence of fraud, there should be an investigation. But the people calling for an investigation in this instance (a) do not have any evidence of fraud; (b) do not — except for Trump himself — believe there was any fraud; and (c) do not have a good faith investigation in mind. They don’t want an investigation; they want a finding of fraud. And they want Congress to investigate not because Congress is somehow better equipped to investigate, but because the actual appropriate bodies and agencies who already have investigated have refused to support their agenda.

    1. Indeed the sides do appear to be somewhat switched, and liberals are saying “Nope, nothing to see here. We don’t need any investigation. Go away”

      1. Or perhaps in both cases, the FBI conducted an investigation?

      2. The objection to Cruz et al’s “investigation” is bipartisan. The support for the “investigation” is comprised entirely of people opposed to the investigation into Russian cooperation with this President’s campaign. That is, all of the people in support of the “investigation” “appear to” have “switched” sides. But not all of the people opposed are guilty of same.

        1. I think that depends on the question asked. I don’t think you’ve asked the question “Should there be a Congressional Commission to investigate any irregularities in the 2020 Presidential Election?”

          If you asked that question alone, I’m willing to bet you’d get the entire Congressional Caucus (Minus a few odd members) on board.

  20. Cruz: ‘Donald Trump is unfit to be president’
    Trump: ‘Lyin’ Ted, Lyin’ Ted. His wife has a pig face where she should have a head.’
    Cruz: ‘Stop right there, Donald. You leave Heidi out of this.’
    Trump: ‘Or what, Ted? Or what, exactly?’
    Cruz: ‘You’re at a line you don’t want to cross, Donald. You don’t want to find out what happens when you mess with this Texan’s family.’
    Trump: ‘Lyin’ Ted, his wife is an ugly woman. Hideous, really.’
    Cruz: ‘That’s it, Donald, you crossed the line. Apologize.’
    Trump. ‘Here’s photographic evidence that Lyin’ Ted’s wife is hideously ugly, everybody. Look at this pig you married, Lyin’Ted. Just look at that face. Ouch. Oh, and your father was in on killing Kennedy, just like in that Stones song. Who killed the Kennedy’s? Lyin’ Ted’s father. You know, I had the Stones at Trump Casino once, everyone said it was their biggest show ever. Well, I had to run out of the room when Keith Richards threatened to kill me, but still, it was the Stones, how cool is that? Anyway, Lyin’ Ted, the point is, your wife is a ghastly pig.’
    Cruz: ‘Now you’ve done it. Apologize, Donald, or I’ll . . .’
    Trump: ‘You’ll what, Ted? Whimper some more?’
    Cruz: ‘Uh . . . er . . . I . . . uh’
    Trump: ‘Yeah, that’s what I thought. Call me back if you ever want to do something, Ted.’
    [months pass]
    Aide: ‘Mr. President, it’s Sen. Cruz on the phone.’
    Trump: ‘Aw, Jeez, this asshole. Tell him I’m unavailable.’
    Aide: ‘Sen. McConnell said you need to take this one, sir.’
    Trump: “Oh, Christ, OK, put him on.’
    Cruz: ‘Mr. President, sir. Great to speak with you, sir. It’s been quite a while . . .’
    Trump: ‘ Yeah, Ted . . . so, you finally ready to do something, or what?’
    Cruz: ‘Well, sir, yes I am, sir . . . I . . .‘
    Trump: ‘For the love of Christ, spit it out. I’m busy with president stuff, and I’m still shooting for a 3:30 tee time here, so . . .’
    Cruz: ‘Well, Donald, in light of everything that has happened . . . after considering everything, Donald, sir, I have decided . . . to invite you to come campaign for me, sir, down here in Texas, sir. At a rally, sir. It would be an honor, sir.’
    Trump: ‘Yeah, well, let me think . . . [grinning at aide] hey, would you promise to have that wife of yours with you to meet me at the airplane?’
    Cruz: ‘Of course, sir, we wouldn’t have it any other way. Heidi will be there. Absolutely, sir.’
    Trump: ‘OK, and . . . and . . .she has to be standing on stage while we’re together at that rally. I need both of you to be in the photographs.’
    Cruz: ‘Again, sir, it would be an honor. I can assure you Heidi wouldn’t miss this for the world.’
    Trump: ‘Really? [smirking to his aide] . . . OK, deal, Ted. Now if you want to discuss anything else, just call Hope — she’s a real stunner, by the way, Ted — or maybe Kelly. But don’t use this line again.’
    Cruz: ‘Yes, sir. Certainly, sir. And thank you, sir, for everything, sir.’

    1. Volokh: ‘That’s they guy I want for president!’

  21. When Cruz won Iowa in the 2016 primary, the President said it was fraud. What a loser, Cruz is, to chase this dog shit.

    1. Ted Cruz deserves everything he gets.

      Heidi Cruz, however, deserves better. Thinking of Donald Trump whenever Ted gets frisky may be the only way she can cope.

  22. I’d be far more worked up about this political stunt had the Democrats not dragged out their Russia hoax for so many years.

    The right has historically taken the high road, and it hasn’t paid off. The gloves are off, and really the only folks you can blame for the fact that more than a third of the voting public believes the election was stolen are the state legislatures who (likely unconstitutionally) delegated their lawmaking powers to the executive branch.

    1. The right has historically taken the high road

      Which version of history is that?

  23. Did anyone figure out yet why they were shredding ballots in GA?


    1. They weren’t shedding ballots. You’ve placed your faith in a woman filming shredding trucks. She has no basis for believing they are ballots being shredded. (She even asks “what are they shredding” in the video.)

      Your confirmation bias is leading you to strange places. The alleged conspiracy is interstate, to disenfranchise millions of votes. It involves republicans and democrats in at least a half dozen states. And the entire thing was exposed by this idiot woman, with her dumpy video in a parking lot.

      There is a fraud here. The question is why are so many people blasting this woman’s stupid video all over the internet? You’re the reason.

      1. I guess you didn’t watch the clip. The documents being shredded read “OFFICIAL BALLOT.”

        GA lawmakers posited that (a) perhaps they were just empty ballot envelopes being shredded even though those too are supposed to kept 22 months it appears, and (b) perhaps they were 2-year old ballots being shredded at the building that was just being used for the current election.

        Your response is unhelpful and non-responsive.

        I’ve not placed any faith anywhere. I’ve seen no proof of major voter fraud. Just a lot of circumstantial speculation and suspicions. There was a video of a ballot harvester who claimed he was paying people for their ballots, which isn’t the same thing as fraud I think. But I haven’t seen any proof that this happened in any meaningful amount. I don’t have faith in our election systems either, though, and I’ve very little reason to believe that all such kinds of cheating aren’t widespread. But I’d like to believe that with reforms, we can have systems that make cheating so difficult as to basically preclude it. And maybe that in some cases we already do.

        Your claim seems to be that voter fraud would require a vast conspiracy across many states. I don’t see how that is the case, but I would like to see it. Regardless, I agree that whenever you have some conspiracy theory that would require many participants, it becomes less and less plausible, if there exists a means by which it might possibly be uncovered with negative consequences to the participants. I don’t know what various types of conceivable fraud/election rigging, depending on the particular systems and processes, would require how many participants, but I would think this objection holds a lot of weight for many theories of fraud.

        1. Give me the time stamp of the part of the video with “OFFICIAL BALLOT” in it. The question at ~ 8:00 addresses this. She says: “don’t you see offici— ballots?” No, it says ballot should be enclosed. That’s an envelope. Not a ballot. You don’t enclose a ballot in a ballot.

          1. Around the time you mentioned, they all seem to agree that the images show materials with the words “official ballot.” However, as I already mentioned, a question is raised by a lawmaker who asserts that the images appear to be of envelopes (ballot envelopes also include the words “official ballot”). As I already mentioned, the lawmaker posits that perhaps only envelopes were being shredded and not ballots. Yet ballot envelopes are presumably also supposed to kept for 22 months under GA law. I appreciate your attempts to break this down for me but you haven’t illuminated anything.

        2. I agree that it’s unlikely that any of this swayed the outcome, but it’s concerning that the left is so unconcerned with these irregularities.

  24. Did anyone figure out the suitcase video thing yet? Republican monitors were sent home, then this skeleton crew pulled out cases of ballots and counted without observers and without telling the observers that they were going to keep counting after having just told them they were done counting for the night. That’s in violation of the law, as I understand it. And then it turned out the ballots counted at that time included a huge number of Biden votes in much higher margins. I saw that the GA sec of state claimed the video showed nothing wrong, but haven’t seen an explanation for the count being done not in accordance with basic election laws and transparency. (Just an explanation, not to mention any kind of consequence.)

      1. “the county’s election director, Rick Barron, said no one told anyone (including the observers and reporters) to leave the banquet room on the night of Nov. 3, according to Atlanta’s 11Alive. Rather, some poll workers had finished their shifts, and the staff was considering ceasing operations.”

        Specifically, the observers and reporters were told that counting was all done for the night. They were not told to leave, just that counting was done.

        Then after they left, counting resumed.

        ““I told them not to do that,” Barron said, per the news outlet. “At about 11:15 [p.m.] they were fully scanning again..””

        This still doesn’t answer why they resumed counting without notifying the observers that they were going to resume counting. And then continued to count for hours without those observers. As I understand it, they should not have done that. Will there be any consequence?

        Your link did help offer an alleged reason for the reversal. It’s really bizarre that the vote counters thought they were just gonna knock off super early, go home and have a beer on election night. Like the boss (or the whole world) isn’t watching, let’s just go home. As if they wouldn’t have previously decided how late to keep counting votes? Especially considering that it appears Fulton County has a historical problem with election integrity, and it GA apparently has a law, or last did have a law some years ago, that required vote counters to not go home until the count is finished: https://www.ajc.com/news/state–regional-govt–politics/state-investigators-fulton-election-documents-were-altered/RsJBGBIVU8yDVkrC0L3SXI/ So, it seems odd, but I suppose it’s as good an explanation as any for this odd (and possibly illegal) behavior.

    1. M L , the counting room was video taped, without interruption. And the tape was made public. How much more transparency do you need? How much more transparency could there be?

      The only reason this bit of the lying narrative even came up is because Trump lackeys edited the tape, to distort what it showed. Even that is now fully transparent.

      Nothing factual, absolutely nothing, gets in the way of the Trump cult. You ought to be embarrassed M L.

      1. They covered up all the equipment and said they were done for the night. They then returned a short time later without observers. Why? I have seen no explanation for this. It is simply suspicious behavior.

        1. Cry louder.

      2. M.L. is incapable of embarrassment.

        1. Lathrop should be embarrassed. The unedited tape shows suspicious behavior, behavior that is unexplained. Hand-waving doesn’t change that. I don’t know if they were committing fraud but I do know that when you go to great lengths to conceal your behavior that is a red flag.

          1. donojack, videotaping your behavior, and publishing the tape, is not a way to, “conceal your behavior.” You say you have seen the tape, but do not know if they were committing fraud. Good. That means there is no problem, except in your imagination. Which is a hyperactive imagination, by the way. Have you asked yourself, “What kind of a fraudster would commit crimes in front of a video camera?”

      3. Stephen,

        You wrote, “How much more transparency do you need? How much more transparency could there be?”

        I thought the answer to your question would be obvious from my comment. The fundamental way in which U.S. elections are transparent is that representatives of any political party are allowed to come and OBSERVE the vote counting process. That’s why they are called observers. As far as I know, all 50 states have this.

        So the issue here is that the properly designated observers were sent home, by being told that vote counting was all done for the night. Promptly after those observers left, counting resumed in earnest and continued for hours on end without the observers present. Why did this happen and will there be any consequences?

        How is this hard for you to understand?

        Or — are you suggesting that we no longer need this long-standing cornerstone of election transparency in all 50 states, so long as a grainy distant video is produced after the fact by a private third party who leased out the vote counting space?

        1. It’s hard for me to understand because you observed it, on the tape. Cut the crap please. When the edited version came out, specific allegations of fraud followed, based on what the edited tape showed. But the whole tape—plus careful investigation by Republicans with more power than mere poll watchers—made it clear that those specific fraud allegations were false. That should have ended the incident.

          But it has become plain that nothing will ever end the incident, because the evidence you guys rely on now isn’t demonstrable. Your evidence now is that you still feel suspicious. Not much anyone can do about that.

  25. Given the new Trump tapes from Georgia, how many think congressional demands for investigation will even materialize? How shameful does Trump’s conduct have to get before no one in politics supports it?

    And by the way, what makes anyone suppose Trump was pressuring only Georgia? That makes no sense, right? He needs more than Georgia to turn the electoral college around. How many other shoes still to drop, and where?

    1. Seems funny two days before a serious challenge that may reveal widespread voter fraud the media turns up this mountain out of a mole hill….wonder why…..

      1. The “media” did not “turn this up.” The Secretary of State of Georgia turned it up. It’s a damned tape recording, Jimmy. It’s Trump talking. There isn’t anything, “funny.” Nothing for the media to rig. Just roll the tape. Trump did this.

        Of course, if it were to turn out the Georgia thing was a piece of some kind of larger plan, involving coordinated action in more states—enough states theoretically to overturn the EC—then the media would indeed have a major role to play—investigating whether Trump in Georgia blundered into disclosing a coup d’etat in progress.

  26. I’m surprised that in the course of this long thread no one has mentioned William Pelham Barr, until recently Attorney General of the United States, first its 77th, then its 85th. As loyal a bootlicker as any in Trump’s retinue, Barr said without equivocation that DOJ had found no evidence of voter fraud, at least none sufficient to have affected the outcome of the presidential vote. Not good enough for the Trumpers here? Would any thing be?

    Could Trump himself call the dogs back to the kennel at this point, or have things gone too far for that? Thanks to Trump and his despicable enablers, does America now have its own “stabbed in the back” story to account for his 2 out of 2 popular vote loss, this time by an even greater margin than in 2016?

    1. TIL that Bill Barr’s middle name is Pelham.

  27. What are Hawley and Cruz thinking? Are they just making noise at this time so as to avoid Trump’s wrath, which at best is no more than a short-term (short-sighted?) strategy, or do they imagine they can make Trump’s “base” their own and control it going forward? How likely is it that Trump will move aside to let others milk that cow for their benefit rather than his and that of his family?

    1. Not sure what Hawley is thinking. Cruz is likely thinking, “I’ll throw them just enough crumbs to avoid being primaried.”

  28. The fraud occurred by way of the Democrat Party flooding America with low IQ third worlders under false pretenses, and then making sure that they are allowed to vote.

    That’s the fraud. That some semi-retarded Somali refugee has the exact same vote as someone whose ancestors came on the Mayflower.

  29. I respected Cruz as a person who believed in the rule of law and conservatism. He has now permanently lost that respect. The only way I will vote for him is if he’s facing Trump in the 2024 primaries and there are no other candidates. I will never vote for Cruz in a general election.

    1. You were never going to vote for a Republican anyway.

Please to post comments