The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Conservative Legal Luminaries Release Report Entitled "Lost, Not Stolen: The Conservative Case that Trump Lost and Biden Won the 2020 Presidential Election"
The authors include big-name conservative former federal judges Michael Luttig and Michael McConnell, former Bush Solicitor General Ted Olson, and others.

Several prominent conservatives recently released a report entitled "Lost, Not Stolen: The Conservative Case that Trump Lost and Biden Won the 2020 Presidential Election." The authors include former federal judges J. Michael Luttig, Thomas Griffith, and Michael McConnell (who is also a prominent legal scholar), former GOP senators John Danforth and Gordon Smith, former George W. Bush solicitor general and conservative "super-lawyer" Ted Olson, Republican election law expert Benjamin Ginsberg, and David Hoppe, longtime aide to a variety of GOP members of Congress. Luttig and McConnell were also often viewed as potential GOP nominees to the Supreme Court, and Danforth is the former Attorney General of Missouri, in which role he was a key mentor for future Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (who started his legal career working for Danforth).
Here is an excerpt from the report's Introduction:
We are political conservatives who have spent most of our adult lives working to support the Constitution and the conservative principles upon which it is based: limited government, liberty, equality of opportunity, freedom of religion, a strong national defense, and the rule of law.
We have become deeply troubled by efforts to overturn or discredit the results of the 2020 Presidential Election. There is no principle of our Republic more fundamental than the right of the People to elect our leaders and for their votes to be counted accurately. Efforts to thwart the People's choice are deeply undemocratic and unpatriotic. Claims that an election was stolen, or that the outcome resulted from fraud, are deadly serious and should be made only on the basis of real and powerful evidence. If the American people lose trust that our elections are free and fair, we will lose our democracy….
We therefore have undertaken an examination of every claim of fraud and miscount put forward by former President Trump and his advocates, and now put the results of those investigations before the American people, and especially before fellow conservatives who may be uncertain about what and whom to believe. Our conclusion is unequivocal: Joe Biden was the choice of a majority of the Electors, who themselves were the choice of the majority of voters in their states. Biden's victory is easily explained by a political landscape that was much different in 2020 than it was when President Trump narrowly won the presidency in 2016. President Trump waged his campaign for re-election during a devastating worldwide pandemic that caused a severe downturn in the global economy. This, coupled with an electorate that included a small but statistically significant number willing to vote for other Republican candidates on the ballot but not for President Trump, are the reasons his campaign fell short, not a fraudulent election.
Donald Trump and his supporters have failed to present evidence of fraud or inaccurate results significant enough to invalidate the results of the 2020 Presidential Election. We do not claim that election administration is perfect. Election fraud is a real thing; there are prosecutions in almost every election year, and no doubt some election fraud goes undetected. Nor do we disparage attempts to reduce fraud. States should continue to do what they can do to eliminate opportunities for election fraud and to punish it when it occurs. But there is absolutely no evidence of fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election on the magnitude necessary to shift the result in any state, let alone the nation as a whole. In fact, there was no fraud that changed the outcome in even a single precinct. It is wrong, and bad for our country, for people to propagate baseless claims that President Biden's election was not legitimate.
Here is the authors' summary of the results of the extensive litigation challenging the election results in suits filed by Trump and his supporters, such as the "Kraken" lawyers:
As part of his post-election attempts to retain the presidency, Donald Trump and his supporters filed 64 cases containing 187 counts in the six key battleground states, in addition to utilizing some of the recount and contest procedures available to them under state law. The former president maintains to this day that the 2020 election was stolen and the results fraudulent.
This Report takes a hard look at the very serious charges made by Trump and his supporters. The consequences of a president and a major party candidate making such charges are monumental. If true, our electoral system is in desperate need of repair. If not true, that must be said because such false charges corrode our democracy and leave a significant share of the population doubting the legitimacy of our system, seriously weakening the country.
Every member of this informal group has worked in Republican politics, been appointed to office by Republicans, or is otherwise associated with the Party. None have shifted loyalties to the Democratic Party, and none bear any ill will toward Trump and especially not toward his sincere supporters. Many of us have worked over the years in polling places as part of Republican Election Day Operations looking for the same sort of fraud and irregularities Donald Trump claimed in 2020….
Fraud, irregularities, and procedural deficiencies formed the basis for challenging the results in five of the six highly contested Electoral College battleground states of Arizona (page 7), Georgia (page 27), Michigan (page 36), Nevada (page 47), and Wisconsin (page 64). In Pennsylvania (page 53), Trump verbally attacked the elections as fraudulent, but his lawyers never filed such charges in court.
For this Report, we examined every count of every case brought in these six battleground states….
We conclude that Donald Trump and his supporters had their day in court and failed to produce substantive evidence to make their case.
Of the 64 cases brought by Trump and his supporters, twenty were dismissed before a hearing on the merits, fourteen were voluntarily dismissed by Trump and his supporters before a hearing on the merits, and 30 cases included a hearing on the merits. Only in one Pennsylvania case involving far too few votes to overturn the results did Trump and his supporters prevail.
It's worth adding that many of these cases were heard by Republican-appointed judges, including some appointed by Trump himself. One of the most significant decisions rejecting Trump's claims was written Judge Stephanos Bibas of the Third Circuit, a well-known Trump appointee, and previously a prominent conservative legal scholar at the University of Pennsylvania. As he put it: "Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."
The one case the pro-Trump side won (in Pennsylvania) not only involved far too few votes to change the outcome, but also didn't involve allegations of voter fraud.
"Lost, Not Stolen" provides an excellent overview of all the issues raised in the election litigation, how courts resolved them, and why nearly all of the allegations made by Trump and his supporters were false. It's great one-stop shopping for anyone interested in these issues.
Most of the information and arguments in the report are not new. As the authors point out, their conclusions are much the same as those reached in numerous court decisions, and multiple post-election audits of ballots in key "battleground" states, including several conducted by Republican state officials or groups aligned with the GOP. An Arizona audit conducted by the "Cyber Ninjas" - consultants hired by pro-Trump Republicans hoping to find evidence of fraud - even concluded that Biden won the state's biggest county by a slightly larger margin than the official vote tally indicates.
In addition to its thorough and user-friendly format, the report's significance lies in the fact that the authors are big-name members of the conservative legal community who cannot easily be dismissed as liberals, or even "Never-Trumpers." Indeed, the authors' sentiments towards Trump and other backers of the "Big Lie" are, to put it mildly, far more forgiving than my own.
Whether the report changes many minds remains to be seen. As I have previously pointed out, the evidence against Trump's Big Lie has been so strong and so readily available for so long, that most remaining belief in the lie is likely to be the result of some combination of "rational ignorance" and strong partisan bias. Still, there may be some who remain on the fence because they just haven't gotten around to looking the evidence, or have not seen it presented all in one place in an easily accessible form, by people on "their" side of the political spectrum.
Other things equal, people are willing to believe uncongenial facts presented by partisan allies, than if put forward by adversaries. Perhaps that dynamic will enable "Lost, Not Stolen" to have a bigger impact than I expect.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"In addition to its thorough and user-friendly format, the report's significance lies in the fact that the authors are big-name members of the conservative legal community who cannot easily be dismissed as liberals, or even "Never-Trumpers."
That's exactly who they are.
So only evident MAGAs can be relied on to analyse the 2020 election for fraud?
How many of the individuals listed at the beginning of this post are familiar to most Americans as Conservatives/Republicans?
I doubt few would know any of them.
THAT'S your reliability indicator?!?
How well known a person is?
No wonder why you're fucked in the head.
"Several prominent conservatives ..."
prominent
prŏm′ə-nənt
adjective
Projecting outward or upward from a line or surface; protuberant.Immediately noticeable; conspicuous: synonym: noticeable.Widely known; eminent.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
More at Wordnik
I think it meant, "Prominent among informed people," not "prominent among dumbasses who don't read a newspaper."
Oh, your one of those people with inquiring minds who read the National Enquirer?
You pompous twit. Assume the newspapers you are referring to are the NYT and WaPost who still haven't returned their PuLLitzers(sic) for their Russia gate reporting. Maybe they can trade them in for the best fiction award.
If you don't know names like Ted Olson, Michael McConnell, Michael Luttig, John Danforth… you're not qualified to be discussing politics or law. And reading pretty much any newspaper, not merely the NYT/WaPo.
I never said that I didn't know many of them, only that most Americans probably don't. Most Americans get their news from the internet, which left or right isn't very informative.
David is too busy insulting you to read properly.
John Danforth left the Senate in 1995. We are on his 5th successor in that seat.
Half his family doesn't recall him let alone most Americans.
Now, David Hoppe. That's a household name.
Well I know most of them, and I think their report is useful.
Look, I voted for Trump and contributed to his campaign, and I think he lost.
Part of Trump's appeal is that he is a sore loser, he wants to win, and hates losing, but there has to be a limit. His last minute 12 amendment gambit was disgraceful.
And I think rightly the people in the bunker with him at the end have pretty much ruined their careers, Giuliani, Powell, Eastman, and Meadows.
Reasonable opinion stated with nuance by (former?) Trump supporter.... therefore will be ignored by commentariat.
Attacks that you're either a RINO or a liar to begin in 3... 2...
I'm not exactly a former Trump supporter, although he is the 2nd to the last candidate I'd vote for in 2024, over of course any Democrat that could get the nomination.
It's a shame the Democrats end up enabling candidates like Trump because they push candidates like Hillary, Biden, Bernie and Warren leaving moderates and conservatives no real choice.
Ah yes. It's the Democrats' fault an utter asshole like Trump got the GOP nomination.
The GOP would never have nominated such a jerk on its own. They practically had a gun to their head.
Trump is quite willing to wreck the Republic to stay in power.
This is the Dems fault.
Fuck off - YOU'RE the one enabling Trump with these weak-ass blame games.
I would take issue with some of your points.
Is the report useful; maybe in the sense that all information is helpful in forming an opinion but I think the contributors started with an anti Trump bias.
Whether Trump lost is a matter of defining "lost". If you maen that Biden is now President, then yes Trump lost. If you mean that Biden got the actual number of legal votes attributed to him I would disagree. Unfortunately we will never know.
I won't apologize for Trump's behavior, which can be over the top at times, but would put it in the perspective of someone who faced constant hostility and outright lies for five years, from many of those who claimed to be Republicans/Conservative, Democrats and the press. The election results were just the coup de grace.
The problem with "the people in the bunker" (is that a Hitler analogy?) were clutching at straws because after the vote it became almost impossible to effect any change.
Oh I totally agree that the Russian collusion hoax paved the way for 2020 election trutherism.
If the Democrats and the Washington establishment can gin up a fake foreign influence scandal and get the FBI to go all in, despite knowing at the outset it was bullshit, then a conspiracy to steal the election is much more believable, both to Trump and his supporters.
Whether Trump lost is a matter of defining "lost". If you maen that Biden is now President, then yes Trump lost. If you mean that Biden got the actual number of legal votes attributed to him I would disagree. Unfortunately we will never know.
Please. This is asinine. We know what "lost" means. It means that he got fewer legal votes than Biden in enough states to keep him from getting enough electors to win.
If you're still telling yourself that there's any doubt about that, it just means you're in a cult and have been brainwashed.
What's a "legal vote"?
Wisconsin law says: "... with respect to matters relating to the absentee ballot process, ss. 6.86, 6.87 (3) to (7) and 9.01 (1) (b) 2. and 4. shall be construed as mandatory. Ballots cast in contravention of the procedures specified in those provisions may not be counted. Ballots counted in contravention of the procedures specified in those provisions may not be included in the certified result of any election."
And yet, absentee ballots cast in contravention of the procedures specified in those provisions were counted. The executive branch was *telling* people that it was OK to put ballots in a drop box, and it was decided that we weren't going to throw out ballots that people cast in good faith, but the provisions say you have to mail them or deliver them in person. So the provisions were violated, and the law is quite clear that such ballots may not legally be counted or included in the results. There's not much we can do about that now, but it's a fact.
Those are legal votes.
Everybody knew before the election that those ballots would be counted. If Trump didn't want them counted, he should've filed a challenge beforehand. You can't wait for the election to happen, then only when you lose, try to renege on the rules you already agreed to.
Furthermore, the Wisconsin courts agreed with all that and said the 2020 votes were legal. So there you go. Pretty simple.
Also, what in the effing fuck does this mean?
after the vote it became almost impossible to effect any change.
Well, yeah! The campaign is over after the vote. Any change effected at that point is called "doing a coup." You can't change the way people vote after they voted. You can't decide you don't like the results and change the rules retroactively. You can't throw out votes you don't like, or "find" votes that don't exist. You can't just pretend the vote never occurred. You can't have a do-over. What, exactly, the fuck, sort of "change" do you think Trump legitimately could have "effected" at that point?
The problem with "the people in the bunker" (is that a Hitler analogy?) were clutching at straws because after the vote it became almost impossible to effect any change.
Maybe in pretend constitutionalism there is some way to make that happen. In actual American constitutionalism an election result is a sovereign decree, constituting government. Also, the sovereign is all-powerful, and rules at pleasure. Which means nobody in government (including the courts) gets to constrain the sovereign. So, "impossible to effect any change," means the system is working right.
"Which means nobody in government (including the courts) gets to constrain the sovereign. "
...and just who or what is this sovereign that you are speaking of?
The People of the United States.
Swamp scumbags. Trump was elected to get rid of them. He was a weak leader. He got played by the scumbag lawyers. This time, he should learn from experience. Fire the entire FBI, DOJ, and State Department, Inauguration Day. Replace them with real police, real prosecutors, and real patriots.
Ilya is just a Democrat attack dog, with zero credibility. The fact that he quotes these Swamp people is more evidence.
Ilya lives in the DC Beltway. He does not understand the hate of half the country for this failed elite. These worthless little tyrants, taking our $trillions and returning nothing of value.
The real scam was the destruction of the great economy and of the great stock market by the Democrat lockdowns. That was a scam, to destroy the chances of Trump for re-election. It killed thousands, dropped the economy.
This winter, no lockdown, no matter the incidence of COVID. The best way to prevent a lockdown is to have a Democrat President.
I was hoping Trump would win again to do just that, but after seeing some of his endorsements of some of the most swampiest of the swamp GOP'ers I realize if he goes back to the WH he's just gonna get steamrolled again by the Deep State.
DeSantis is a Harvard Law indoctrinated scumbag lawyer. He was a government lawyer at JAG. The people on the bus and in the diner, like me, are losing hope. The Swamp is winning.
Yeah, I have to say that his conduct since losing the 2020 election has not made me enthusiastic about him. He was certainly better than Hillary, or your standard issue GOPe candidate, but he doesn't seem to have learned from some of his mistakes, or worse, learned the wrong lesson.
DeSantis is looking pretty good, though.
DeathSantis killed more grannies than Cuomo! Floriduh has the same Covid death rate as NY even though on 1/2021 NY had twice as many Covid deaths as Floriduh.
Ever feel like commenting here is like beating your head against a concrete wall?
Very rarely will commenters here change their minds…I find it is a better place to sharpen arguments than attempt to change minds.
So an argument I’ve recently sharpened is that focusing on Dred Scott as the worst thing in American history is absurd! Slavery was perfectly legal before and after Dred Scott and so focusing on a few free blacks that chose to live in a country in which slavery was perfectly legal and they could get kidnapped and sold into slavery if they ventured to Kentucky is a pretty stupid thing to get hung up on. Taney did free blacks a favor by hitting them with a big dose of reality—you are second class citizens in this country in which our society is based on white supremacy and slavery!! The first black didn’t even graduate from Harvard until 1870 after Dred Scott and the Civil War!
It's a much softer wall when you use the mute button after you figure out who isn't adding anything meaningful to the conversation.
I can see Sebastian commented, but not what he said, but I already know it's just trolling rather than a useful counterpoint.
Don't believe in mute. Even an idiot will sometimes say something interesting.
FYI the reply was meant for Brett Bellmore. These threads can get very confusing. Beside the edit button people often comment on it would be nice if a reply post included a line "replying to"
MB,
It's why I always put that person's 'name' at the top of my responding post, as I've done here. (Or, at least, I paste a brief quote, if I'm mainly responding to that quote.)
You're welcome, world.
Trump is pretty down with wrecking our system of government. I don't care how bad Hillary's policies seem to you, no one is worse than that.
The fucking NIHILISM required to say your guy over their guy even to the end of the Republic is breathtaking.
Trump did not collude with the FBI to spy on a President. Hillary was neck deep in that.
There is nobody in American politics worse than Hillary.
Good news! No one colluded with the FBI. Hillary didn't collude with the FBI, dunno where you got that.
Hillary never tried to overthrow an election. Trump tried it like 5 different ways.
To be fair, Sarcastro; Trump tried to blackmail and/or extort another country into doing oppo research for him. I'm not saying that that impeachable offense was worse than him trying to subvert our democracy after he got his ass kicked in the 2020 election. But it's at least in the same ballpark, in terms of "Wow, our president actually tried to do that? Really? What the fuck?!?" audacity.
You still haven't realized that Trump is just a vain opportunist? He doesn't have any interest in making America great again and never did. He's a media whore. He has no principles or loyalty - look at all the people he's thrown under the bus. He doesn't care about the supporters who came to Washington on Jan 6 and are now all in prison. They were just useful pawns to him. He likes them when they cheer for him at rallies because that makes his vanity feel good, but he doesn't care about them otherwise. He tells them what they want to hear in order to get power, but then uses that power just to keep himself in the news and on TV, not to actually do anything. Just like any other cult leader.
Look at Bannon. He was like a sciencey administrator and bureaucrat earlier in life, until he was playing video games one day and had an epiphany: the gaming world consists of a bunch of disaffected, angry, socially inept, young, risk-taking, easily manipulated guys. So he began mobilizing them, and taught Trump how to do the same thing even more broadly. They don't care about any of those people! It's just an easy mob to rile up and use as a political weapon.
"But 2000 mulez"!
An American couple crash their car, die, and ascend to Heaven. God meets them, and they ask “What were the real results of the 2020 election, and who was behind the fraud?”
God says, “There was no fraud, my children. Biden won fair and square.” After a few seconds of stunned silence, the husband turns to the wife and whispers, “This goes higher up than we thought.”
ha!
Like it.
They only release the letter now, when the "kraken" gang is starting to face real consequences.
It would have had more meaningful impact if issued much earlier.
It will have no "meaningful impact" now nor have had any "meaningful impact" if issued last month or last year or ever.
It would have given cover to Republicans who wanted to point out Trump’s delusions. In case you haven’t noticed, they had no cover. Anyone who questioned the “steal” narrative got bashed by Trump and almost drummed out of the Party.
By "meaningful impact" do you mean a group of GOP members wanting to do damage control on their reputation as the Jan 6 committee shines a light on potentially criminal behavior?
Or do you mean convincing conspiracy addicts that they were wrong and bring them back to reality?
Since the GOP is still electing fact-avoiding conspiracists in their primaries, I don't think the party has reached peak absurdity. Given that, damage control for GOP members who remained silent while Trump and team wreaked havoc on our democracy isn't going to break through the authoritarian drumbeat coming from their own party.
"Jan 6 committee shines a light on potentially criminal behavior?"
You mean a prosecution display that gets refuted almost real-time is the absolute BEST they can do?
This clown show kangaroo court gives the prosecution absolute control and they cannot produce a damned thing.
What has been refuted?
What has been refuted?
1. That Trump was bothered by the insurrection at the Capitol.
2. That Trump was very concerned about Pence's safety.
3. That people around Trump believed he had won the election and they were the one's responsible for deluding Trump about this issue.
4. That Mark Meadows is not a moral and intellectual whore.
5. That Rudy is sane.
6. That John Eastman should be allowed to remain free and away from prison.
God, Sarcastro . . . this list is practically endless.
Does this report acknowledge the very recent Wisconsin Supreme court ruling that, yes, the drop boxes WERE illegal? That strikes me as a significant "irregularity" in a state Trump barely lost.
The case for large scale "fraud" is pretty weak, basically impossible to prove, and not only because our election system isn't designed to preserve evidence, it's designed to preserve ballot secrecy. So that, once ballots have actually been counted, proving that fraud changed the outcome of an election is basically impossible.
It's also weak because a lot of the protections that would prevent or expose fraud were compromised, using Covid as an excuse.
The real issue wasn't so much fraud as the "irregularities", ad hoc changes to election procedures which selectively benefited Democrats, or compromised protections against actual fraud, rendering it harder to detect. Like the drop boxes in Wisconsin, coupled with ballot harvesting, compromising chain of custody for a large quantity of ballots, and selectively enhancing turnout in Democrat leaning areas.
Unfortunately, these were a done deal by election day, and our system does not allow for much in the way of post election remedies. Sometimes in local elections if you can demonstrate enough ballots might have been compromised, you can get a judge to order the election redone. There's no such remedy available for Presidential elections.
So, not shocking that courts which could provide no remedy rejected one case after another.
There's no substitute for preventing these abuses up front. After the election is way too late. Of course, you're not going to prevent them up front, either, if you can't acknowledge they happened last time...
You see that wasn't election fraud, that was election fortification!
Ah, "fortification" that's the ticket.
Do they acknowledge the trucks backing up at 3 AM with freshly printed ballots with only Biden checked off, and the curtains being drawn to prevent election monitoring in PA?
The lawyer hierarchy really struck back at populism in the courts.
Note that Wis Supreme Court did not rule the boxes illegal in past. These boxes were used throughout the state, Republican and Democratic areas for many years. There use was never contested before this time. Republican were happy with the boxes until the former President complained.
It has also been noted that you can still drop a ballot in a mailbox, which is not more or no less secure than the ballot boxes.
Indeed
Were the drop boxes ever challenged before? Courts need a controversy before they weigh in.
Unionized Democrats at the USPS are the last people you should trust with a Republican ballot.
Unionized Democrats at the USPS are the last people you should trust with a Republican ballot.
And how does that argue in favor of putting ballots in a mailbox being legal?
Moderation4ever is pointing out that Republicans as well as Democrats had spent many years making mail ballots more accessible and convenient in many states before 2020. There was no significant partisan difference in the use of mail ballots or partisan effect on turnout prior to 2020 either. It wasn't until Trump himself started talking about mailing ballots being insecure did anyone on the GOP side take that stance. And Trump probably only seized on that as a thing because of the concerns over COVID making mail in ballots being in more demand, just like he wanted to "downplay" everything COVID related.
It was all part of the performance.
Good for the Wisconsin SC but unfortunately two years too late.
Also, too close with the dissent arguing about the "sacred right to vote" omitting the that that right is restricted to one vote and one vote only, by an American citizen.
You mean the Republican majority Wisconsin Supreme Court?
Is there any indication that the ballots in the drop boxes were actually fraudulent, or merely that the manner in which they were collected violated state law? Because if the ballots in the drop boxes were honest ballots cast by legitimate voters, then the fact that they were improperly collected doesn't make an otherwise honest election into a fraudulent one.
All this is complete nonsense, as had been explained to you countless times.
Among other things, as M4e points out, dropboxes are every bit as secure as mailboxes. And I will add that no one said Republican voters couldn't put there votes in there also.
Be honest, Brett. You, and the Republicans in general, simply don't want urban voters voting, and will make up any kind of crap to stop them.
That's because you're approaching it like an engineer on the spectrum, rather than a lawyer. It's not an irregularity. It's not significant.
No, the real issue is fraud. (I mean, that would be the issue if there were any.) Walking out of a grocery store without paying for it is theft, a crime. Using the "10 items or less" line when you have 11 items is nothing. Is it an "irregularity"? Maybe, but it's meaningless. Does it break the rules of the supermarket? So what? Who cares?
Um, no. This is a pathetic lie. Not only doesn't it do that, but the alternative, which everyone agrees is legal, is far less secure: using the many many many more mailboxes located on tens of thousands of street corners across the state. There's no security, no chain of custody, for any of those.
Like the drop boxes in Wisconsin, coupled with ballot harvesting, compromising chain of custody for a large quantity of ballots,
Um, no. This is a pathetic lie. Not only doesn't it do that, but the alternative, which everyone agrees is legal, is far less secure: using the many many many more mailboxes located on tens of thousands of street corners across the state. There's no security, no chain of custody, for any of those.
Seriously david disconnected from reality N - zero chain of custody issues, no security issues - are you even on the same planet
Do you have a point, or are you just declaring DMN wrong, with no reasons necessary?
Can't wait for internet and ranked choice voting.
But drop box focused fraud is more scalable than mail box focused fraud. And ballot harvesting is much worse than mail, because the person doing the harvesting has such opportunity to do his dirty work out of sight of others.
But my main point here is that you don't make ad hoc, extra-legal changes to election administration in a country where trust is as low as the US. You shouldn't in any case, but it's just STUPID when trust starts out in the basement.
Nonsense. A dropbox is just a specialized mailbox. There's nothing that can be done with a dropbox that can't be done with a mailbox. (Other than, in some states, waiting until Election Day to submit one's ballot.) And there are of course hundreds of times more mailboxes than dropboxes.
This is breathtaking in its cynicism. The low trust was something manufactured by Donald Trump.
And as I've explained to you repeatedly, what you call "ad hoc, extra-legal changes" are the norm; they happen in jurisdictions nationwide in all elections. Sometimes statewide, sometimes at the precinct level. In 2020, they happened statewide in red states as well as blue. But no Trumpkin says, "Hey, we can't be sure that Trump didn't lose Texas because of the changes Abbott made." It's just a bad faith argument by you people.
That's because you're approaching it like an engineer on the spectrum
I'm stealing this!
What they need to do is make possession of a ballot by another person a felony.
With exceptions for family members, and members of the same household.
When there is a case where someone needs assistance with a ballot, either filling it out or mailing it, then the person handling the ballot should have to file an affidavit with the ballot, stating who they are and signed by the owner of the ballot. I'll note this is the basic process for a voter to get possession of a ballot when they request an absentee ballot and return it, so having a requirement to document the chain of custody until the ballot is mailed or delivered to election officials won't be too onerous, or outside current procedures.
Did these fossils write the report using quill pens?
No; they're too busy saying "Who is Bob from Ohio?" to refill their inkwells.
There Wisconsin analysis alone shows how shallow this report is.
No mention of the late night, illegal dump from Milwaukee County.
No mention of the illegal ballot drop boxes.
No mention of the 200,000 mail-in ballots from people "indefinitely confined".
No mention of statistical anomalies of ballot drops.
No mention of the constitutionality of non-legislative bodies making new election law.
Only these severely qualified statements like " no systemic fraud existed that would have altered the election results" or "no evidence of widespread fraud that would alter the election results".
There treatment is the absentee voter issue is the same thing we saw contemporaneously. "Well, these things can be challenged if it's done long before the election, and now that it's after the election, it's moot.".
Some fake two-step we saw in court case after court case.
This is why our democracy is in peril. The Federal Class and their bootlickers implemented a Color Revolution in the US and we won't close our eyes and go along with their crime.
Every one of these fuckers and their enablers deserves severe justice.
They also did not address the illegal treatment of keeping 234,000 ex-residents on the voter rolls.
They also didn't address the Jewish Space Lasers or the Hugo Chavez's nefarious ghost or the vote-scrambling German satellites!
https://www.courthousenews.com/wisconsin-election-board-ordered-to-purge-234000-voters/
Guess what didn't happen?
https://www.maciverinstitute.com/2020/11/how-the-wisconsin-elections-commission-destroyed-fair-elections-in-wisconsin/
You can tell that your link is written by a very serious person when it whines that someone appealed a court ruling (and won the appeal)!
There treatment is the absentee voter issue is the same thing we saw contemporaneously. "Well, these things can be challenged if it's done long before the election, and now that it's after the election, it's moot."
Well, they should have filed a challenge before the election! Trump agreed to the absentee ballot rules, and then lost. You can't agree to the rules of an election, and then take it back when you lose. Obviously.
The Trump cult is immune to persuasion.
Ah "persuasion" is that a synonym for lies?
No.
Which portions of the reports do you think are lies?
Unreachables remain unreachable. Can’t say it comes as a shock.
This report is nothing new. In Wisconsin the Legislative Audit Bureau working for a Republican controlled legislature found Biden won. The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, a very conservative organization, also found that Biden won. Even the Arizona forensic audit found Biden won. The fact is that Trump is batting 000. He lost the election, lost the recounts, lost the court challenges, and is still losing in follow-up reports.
He lost the election, lost the recounts, lost the court challenges, and is still losing in follow-up reports.
That he lost the election is not in doubt. Biden is the president, certified and all that.
There does remain some doubt as to whether the election was stolen. Five counties in five states might have been corrupted. Time is not on the side of such a theory, however. As time goes by, evidence of multi-person corruption has a way of leaking out, and we've not seen that so far. So I'd say the evidence that the election was not stolen is becoming stronger. But we're still not there. Five years hence, with no huge breaks, we will be there.
No. There is no doubt.
Stop spreading BS.
What next? Bellwether counties?
And why "five counties"? Funny how the only counties that "might have been corrupted" are five urban Democratic counties, and not any of the thousands of Republican counties across the country.
Because Biden's electoral "win" was so narrow that thats all it took.
You miss the point. If there were tens of thousands (or more) of illegal votes for Trump, then maybe Biden actually won by a much bigger margin than was reported.
Trumpkins keep pulling this, "There were X number of unlawful ballots [a fictional claim, of course], and X is greater than Biden's margin of victory, so therefore Trump won!" But there's nothing to suggest that these purportedly unlawful ballots were for Biden rather than for Trump.
Funny how the only counties that "might have been corrupted" are five urban Democratic counties, and not any of the thousands of Republican counties across the country.
The big answer, the D candidate won. He didn't win because of R fraud.
The five counties have this list in common:
1. Controlled by Democrats (all election officials are or report to Democrats)
2. Big enough that they could have added enough phony votes to swing their entire state while being able to pass the laugh test.
That's it?
That's your "evidence?"
Fucking ridiculous.
Some of the public have lost confidence in the objective counting of votes in an election. Several states changed the standards for registration and counting of votes without any legal justification. That those states were reliably Democrat just adds to the mistrust. Not allowing poll watchers anywhere near enough to the count did not help. Additional claims by Democrats that any requirements that a voter prove who he is are an attempt to discount Democrat votes adds to the narrative.
Ballot envelopes with signature are compared to the registered voter's signature of record, then the ballot is removed and the envelope discarded. At that point proof of malfeasance is impossible, so as the legal luminaries state, there is no proof.
Just a whole lot of mistrust.
How they address the poll watcher thing is "well the courts didn't find any evidence of fraud!".
It's this bullshit circular logic, you can't observe or look for fraud and they illegally destroy evidence, so it's all okay because the courts didn't find any evidence of fraud!
Or they hedge it with "widespread" or "systemic" or "enough to overturn".
So they do that to each of the issues in the micro and in isolation. As if only one of the issues happened in isolation; blocking poll watchers, or destroying ballots, or ballot harvesting but not all together.
Exactly. Why is it only Democrats who are against voter ID? During the 2020 election I received four ballots in the mail. They were addressed to multiple permutations of my first and middle names. I got James, J.L., James L. and Jim. I burned them and voted in person. Our County showed at least 10 voters over the age of 120. They showed Mail Box Companies as home addresses. I personally witnessed a Poll Worker helping a woman change her vote. She selected a straight Republican ticket and her vote showed for Biden. Funny how 4 years previously the EXACT same thing happened except the vote was for Clinton.
Did you report the incident of a poll worker changing a vote? Can you supply a link to the report on that incident?
Did he also report the leprechaun he saw riding the unicorn? I mean, when someone lies so blatantly, why humor him?
Uh-huh.
And you were Jimmy-on-the-spot both times. Sure you were.
"Biden's victory is easily explained by a political landscape that was much different in 2020 than it was when President Trump narrowly won the presidency in 2016."
What's funny is that after Trump won in 2016, there was a lot of shrieking about how he only won because of 70,000 votes in certain swing states! But Biden only won because of 40,000 votes in certain swing states. So Biden won even more narrowly.
A much different political landscape where President Trump was the first president in US history to expand his base and increase his votes and still lose.
It also happened to be the first "fortified" election in US history.
What a weird coincidence!
This is moronic.
I agree that Trump performed much better in 2020 than anyone could have reasonably expected. Seems like he could have just been satisfied with that!
Not the type to accept a participation prize.
So Biden won. . . .
Would you mind telling the other retards?
There's not really much funny about it. Only an idiot would take as proof that the election was stolen from Trump the fact that there was a tiny percentage swing in the wishes of the public during a (mismanaged) pandemic and global economic crisis (together with having experienced 4 years of Trump chaos).
Yes, both wins were narrow. That's why either outcome was a real possibility in either year and taking as proof of fraud the fact the R won in 2016 and/or the D won in 2020 is sheer idiocy. See Paxton, Ken.
I think Biden won in 2020 because there was a huge institutional effort to get out Democratic friendly vote. A lot of it was legally sketchy, Zuckerbucks and illegal ballot harvesting are examples, but neither rise to the level of actual fraud. There were also lots of instances of people requesting and filling out ballots for incompetent people in institutional settings like nursing homes.
That's what I keep saying: The focus on fraud is wrong, there are more ways to cheat than "fraud".
That's why I say the election was "dodgy" not fraudulent.
Welcome to the club! Every election is dodgy for Democrats. The line to vote takes 5 hours in mostly black precincts and 5 minutes in mostly white ones. Democratic areas get mailers telling them that the election is postponed or that they risk jail by voting. Ethnic-sounding names get preferentially stricken from voter rolls. Big-city precincts get randomly reshuffled at the last minute.
There are a million ways that Republicans try to suppress the Democratic vote, official and unofficial, year after year. Zuckerbucks don't hold a candle to the dodginess that Democrats experience.
When you can't quite disconnect from reality enough to call it stolen, but still want to be part of the angry cool crowd delegitimzing the Dems, there is bullshit semantics like 'cheating but not fraud' and 'Biden won but only technically.'
No, dude, your complaints are still based on making up your own sense of what's legitimate and then yelling at Dems about it. Your logic is as crazy as any birther 2,000 Mules believer.
What does sketchy even mean? That you've come up with a neato nickname for it?
I read the title, saw the name "Bush", and thought, I bet I know who posted this piece.
Being associated with GW Bush is about as credentialed as one can get as being an expectedly rabid anti-Trumper, someone beyond any objective analysis, willing to say anything to get rid of Trump.
Friday seems like as good a day as any to share your delusions.
Next time get a therapist. It isn't our job to help you.
I believe there were some 800(?) sworn affidavits of election fraud following the 2020 election. Sworn false affidavits constitute perjury. To my recollection, not one of these perjurers were arrested, tried and convicted of perjury. Perhaps the authors should have answered other questions not the ones they chose as they walked their legal tightrope.
Good point. Where are we on the 800 perjury investigations and prosecutions?
The last I heard about an investigation was when Federal IG was caught on audio intimidating the witness.
Good point?!...ML, you're a fucking shameful lawyer.
You never looked at any of the court cases, it seems.
You believe incorrectly. There were affidavits of "I saw them do X and didn't think it seemed right," or "They didn't do Y," or "I saw a box near them and something could have been hidden in it" or the like. They weren't affidavits of fraud; they were affidavits of "I don't know what the hell I'm talking about because I don't know how elections are administered."
Just you guys wait until the Pillow Guy releases all his info.
I bet Biden will be ousted 15 minutes afterwards and Trump will ride in on a winged unicorn. . . . VINDICATION!!!
It's a winged kraken, surely?
Perhaps that dynamic will enable "Lost, Not Stolen" to have a bigger impact than I expect.
I don't expect it to have much effect among the deluded fools who still think the election was stolen.
Anyone who disagrees need only read the comments by Bumble, Bellmore, Bob, & Co. Truly depressing.
They, not the authors of the report, are the GOP today.
And this is the depressing state of affairs. Those who believe the "stolen election" lie will not be persuaded by any evidence and fail to realize the danger of not requiring evidence to make such charges, much less attempt to act on them.
Either you believe in democracy or you don't. (Yes, yes, a democratic republic....). If you believe in democracy, you must believe in abiding by the results of elections you don't like unless there is proof of fraud. Otherwise, given confirmation bias, etc., the loser of a close election will always think the result was illegitimate and, except in cases of a genuine landslide, like in 2008, there can be no peaceful transfers of power. This way lies totalitarianism. And for those of you who think "better my totalitarian than your democratically elected leader", you should check whether any totalitarian anywhere has protected the freedoms (particularly including the freedom to bear arms or exercise free speech) you purport to care about.
Falsely claiming an election was stolen is just as bad as actually committing fraud to steal an election. Because, as this case amply shows, it is an attempt to steal the election by other means. Those who have peddled in that lie should be punished at the ballot box by anyone who isn't ready to give up on the American experiment. Voting for people who declined to condemn the "stolen election" lie only emboldens the next attempt to steal an election (whether it comes from the left or right). If we are to survive under the Constitution, it has to be clear that attempts to subvert our democracy will be severely punished in elections. Brett, Bob, and the usual suspects have me very pessimistic that the 2020 election and January 6, 2021, will be anything other than a learning opportunity for those who are contemptuous of democracy and the American project, for those who only want power for power's sake.
"Bob, ... have me very pessimistic"
I do what I can.
No, you don't. You are a lazy thinker. You do far less than you are capable to doing.
Is there anything at all that makes you go "hey, that's kinda sus" about the 2020 election?
Anything?
Show us one absolute perfect election EVER and then get back to us.
So what was it about the 2020 election that made you go "Hey, what a minute!"?
The long lines to vote, but only in Democratic areas.
"You are a lazy thinker. "
Perhaps, I'm too lazy to think about it.
At least I'm not an hysteric like you, thinking a brief riot, some dude in a shaman outfit and another dude carrying a podium around will lead to "totalitarianism".
I suppose at some level of moral emptiness, you just gotta act like you love it in when people call you out.
"Anyone who disagrees need only read the comments by Bumble, Bellmore, Bob, & Co. Truly depressing."
Did you actually read what I wrote?
Trump lost. I don't question that. When the EC voted, it was over, so far as I'm concerned. Whether he lost because they were cheating, or lost because people had gotten tired of his drama doesn't matter. There aren't do-overs for Presidential elections.
The problem is he lost an election where enough dodgy things were happening that it's not irrational to think that he would have won if the election had been entirely on the up and up.
All that summer I kept saying that in a year with distrust that high, we needed to run a completely by the book election with transparency turned up to 11. That if people were safely going to the grocery store, and to work, there wasn't one damned reason we couldn't conduct a normal election.
But, no. Democrats had to mix it up, had to use the virus as an excuse to make all sorts of ad hock changes to election administration. Every one of them something they'd have wanted anyway, purely by coincidence.
Everything that followed was depressingly predictable, except the January 6th riot, because nobody thought Republicans would be up for any rioting.
What bothers me is that we're just going to make all the same mistakes over again if people can't admit that election rules are the last place you do any innovating on the fly.
Brett,
"Whether he lost because they were cheating, or lost because people had gotten tired of his drama doesn't matter."
It does matter. Which is why Trump keeps pushing the lie that the election was stolen. Because it very much matters, that's why it is so incredibly serious (and disqualifying in my book) for anyone in leadership to go around claiming an election was stolen without having evidence to back that claim up. You can't ignore these facts and clutch pearls about increased mail-in voting. The false claim of a stolen election was for the purpose of stealing an election and, moreover, has to purpose and effect of eroding confidence in the election, the very thing you claim to be so worried about.
If you are worried about confidence in the election, then the biggest problem in the country are the false claims of a stolen election.
"The problem is he lost an election where enough dodgy things were happening that it's not irrational to think that he would have won if the election had been entirely on the up and up."
That's not the problem. The losers of every close election are, by that standard, "not irrational" to think they would have won "if the election had been entirely on the up and up." Apply your same standard to 2000 or 2016. The 2000 election was decided by fewere than 1000 votes in a state controlled by Republicans who made some questionable decisions during the vote counting process and then a divided Supreme Court controlled by Republican appointees said stop the counting. Yet, 60% of democrats don't claim the 2000 election was stolen, Gore didn't spend the next four years claiming the election was stolen but, gasp, conceded. Ditto Hillary in 2016 (despite saying some things I think she shouldn't have, she did concede).
To which I conclude, while it may not be irrational for the man on the street to thing maybe things would be different, party leaders have a different standard (in part because a different level of knowledge) and so should not manipulate that man on the street by claiming things that aren't true happened.
The problem is that GOP leaders are (by and large) unwilling to tell their base what is true and a leader of the GOP is actively undermining confidence in our elections for his own personal interests. That's the problem.
"because nobody thought Republicans would be up for any rioting"
Patently untrue. In fact, Trump, Bannon, etc., knew it and were counting on it. And plenty of those outside of the GOP were well aware of the Proud Boys, etc., and their penchant for rioting. So please stop with nobody expected Republican rioters.
"What bothers me is that we're just going to make all the same mistakes over again if people can't admit that election rules are the last place you do any innovating on the fly."
What bothers me is people worried about second order effects of election law procedural changes (which had and have a plausible, non-fraud reason to be made especially during the pandemic) more than they are worried about the first order effects of a losing Presidential candidate falsely claiming fraud and six Republican Senators made formal objections to accepting the Arizona electors.
How about let's first stop people actively, purposefully, with malice aforethought, undermining confidence in our elections and then worry about second order effects of election law changes?
The elephant in the room tried to steal the election by claiming a stolen election. That is the problem. Nothing else in our nation should matter as much as that.
What was "depressingly predictable," Brett?
That lots of eligible voters voted who you would have preferred didn't?
Because that was the consequence of what you call "dodgy" things. Once again, all you care about is making it hard for urban dwellers to vote.
And guess what, your opinions about how safe or unsafe it was are not the end of the matter. No one really cares that you think it would have been perfectly safe for voters to stand in lines for hours in the middle of the pandemic, especially when there was a reasonable, proven, alternative.
"They, not the authors of the report, are the GOP today."
...rather than RINOs and Never Trumpers?
The title hints a a false dichotomy.
The election could have been both lost and stolen.
As in, they got away with it.
I don't really believe that, but it's crucial in understanding people who express concern. If your intent is to understand people rather than just dish carp onto them.
dwshelf,
Trump and his minions have had every opportunity to prove their case. They have failed, utterly.
There is a time to stop tolerating lies and delusions. Rather than complain that some don't understand "people who express concern," maybe those people could put some effort into understanding why they are wildly wrong.
I'm tired of it. "You don't understand." "it's because the Democrats did X," or "Zuckerberg did Y," or some truck driver said Z. There is a limit to tolerance of this shit and I'm past it.
The deniers need to take some responsibility for educating themselves, listening to people outside their echo chamber, and if they won't then they deserve all the crap they get. They are toxic to democracy in the US.
Trump and his minions have had every opportunity to prove their case. They have failed, utterly.
That doesn't prove the negative.
Consider a case where the police know who did it, but they don't have enough evidence to convict.
That isn't how shit works here, Sparky.
You don't get to claim the election was stolen, and then demand that people prove it was NOT.
Trump repeatedly lied and said the election was stolen. He and his ilk failed at every turn to actually prove that fact. Therefore the claim is bullshit.
You don't get to claim the election was stolen, and then demand that people prove it was NOT.
That's not where I, and a lot of us, are coming from. Rather, it's that you don't get to claim it's proven that it was not stolen, based on the lack of evidence that it was stolen.
That's not how evidence works.
Lack of evidence of the positive is not proof of the negative.
This is crucial in evaluating a claim that Trump lied. It's just a logical fallacy. Trump's belief that the election was stolen is not disproved by a lack of evidence that it was.
No, chief.
The default is the ones who allege a massive conspiracy, not the ones that allege everything happened as it openly appeared.
Under your logic every election is stolen so long as one person is weird about it.
Under your logic every election is stolen so long as one person is weird about it.
We're not communicating here. I've never suggested that the election was stolen. Rather, I've said:
1. It's not been proven not to be stolen
2. Evidence gaps exist where chicanery could have occurred on a scale large enough to steal the election.
3. A person is entitled to believe, with minuscule evidence or without any evidence at all, that it was stolen.
4. Such a person can express that belief without a valid accusation of lying, or "spreading misinformation".
If you're looking to interact with such a person, someone who actually believes the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, you can find them I'm sure. Some of them also believe, based on flimsy evidence, that FDR deliberately engineered the attack on Pearl Harbor.
1. It's not been proven that dwshelf Is not a kiddie diddler.
2. Evidence gaps exist where chicanery could have occurred on a scale to conceal his kiddie diddling (we don’t even know where he lives, so how could we possibly prove otherwise)
3. A person is entitled to believe, with minuscule evidence or without any evidence at all, that he’s a kiddie diddler.
4. Such a person can express that belief without a valid accusation of lying, or "spreading misinformation".
No, everyone can tell you're burden shifting.
There are no evidence gaps, just people insisting that there are.
You are, in fact, spreading misinformation. Though it's only because you're deluded, not out of malice.
That's not actually correct.
If one looks for evidence where it should be, and one doesn't find it, that is proof of the negative. For example, I say that dwshelf just stole $100k in an armed bank robbery. We go look at the bank's security video, and we don't see you on it. We go search your house and your car, and we do not find a weapon or a bag full of money. The lack of evidence is actually evidence you didn't rob the bank.
Have you directed any of this ire at Tank Abrams, Hillary Clinton, or any of the Democrats who still cry about Bush v Gore?
Or is it only reserved for The Others?
This again? Nobody in the history of Democrats has ever said or implied that Bush was a fraudulent president. Of course Democrats were angry (and still are... that opinion was BULLSHIT!) but never attempted to overturn the outcome.
Trump was saying Obama was a fraudulent president. This is a thing with him. Everyone saw this coming. He said he was gonna do it in advance, multiple times. So like, what a surprise! Trump claims that the election he lost randomly turns out to be the first and only super-fraud-ridden election ever in the US! Who could've guessed.
https://search.brave.com/search?q=bush%20illegitimate
You are massively ignorant or downright gaslighting and have no business replying to me.
I didn't say illegitimate, I said fraudulent for a reason.
People throw around "illegitimate" and "stolen" all the time. Hell, people call presidents illegitimate for just responding badly to a crisis or otherwise failing the high expectations of the office. I'm sure you could find lots of quotes calling every president illegitimate. Stolen is the same... elections can be "stolen" by bad weather! The term gets used for any excuse by the loser for why they lost.
What you don't see are people claiming that Gore was actually, in fact, elected president such that Bush was actually, in fact, not legally president.
Oh and, you are being gaslit. Just not by me.
Several states have called their election procedures into question as not being legal.
Name them.
For the rebuttal, I'll just use the winners own words.
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
It's not a rebuttal, it's an addendum supporting the same conclusion. For those who don't click, it discusses how grown-ups from both sides of the political spectrum worked together to avoid election day and post-election chaos. A money quote:
"The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election–an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted."
Widespread election fraud and cheating has been common since Tammany Hall. Blagojevich described Democrat election stealing in major cities as a "time-honored tradition" and everyone knows it. This project is a nice idea but if they really want to succeed in the stated aims the only thing that would move the needle is election security, including requiring voting in person with an ID like they do in Europe.
This is not an argument, it's ipse dixit with a quote.
Also notable is how you start general and get partisan like one sentence in.
With your idiocy and denial skills, you could have made up anything. You have curated a pretty shitty and miserable world for yourself.
Shorter: Insiders parrot insider narrative.
Discard all other points of view than your own, and suddenly it's super easy to prove whatever you want.
You don't have to commit fraud to swing an election. You can be on control of the press and suppress your opponent's views and those of his supporters. You can spend half a billion dollars funding voting administration projects that favor your candidate. You can sow fear, uncertainty and doubt in places where your opponent is strong. You can be in control of information technology and ban, suppress, and delist your opponents, while allowing your candidates to prosper.
Not one of those things is fraudulent.
You can spend half a billion dollars funding voting administration projects that favor your candidate.
This Zuckerberg business is complete nonsense.
And that rebuttal doesn't even mention that no one was stopping Republican donors from contributing to election operations.
Again, it's just Republicans upset that urban voters get to vote.
The Biden laptop suppression wasn’t complete nonsense.
I’m with you that the election was not stolen and it’s simply ridiculous to say so. But let’s not pretend that there wasn’t a concerted effort by major media and tech platforms to put their thumbs on the scale in favor of Biden. Hell, they jumped up and down in the scale. Don’t know if that was enough to change things but it feeds a belief that things weren’t fair. And that’s not a completely ridiculous belief.
"But let’s not pretend that there wasn’t a concerted effort by major media and tech platforms to put their thumbs on the scale in favor of Biden. Hell, they jumped up and down in the scale. Don’t know if that was enough to change things but it feeds a belief that things weren’t fair."
Look, presumably you think the Citizens United case was correct. Presumably, you understand that the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Anderson, and Rupert Murdock, among other billionaires, put their collective thumbs on the scale in favor of Trump, to include Fox News, the highest rated news program in the nation at the time, unless I'm mistaken. But I don't here you upset about that.
So, yes, it is completely ridiculous to believe that the election was not free and fair because wealthy liberals with money did perfectly legal things to influence voters while wealthy Trumpists did perfectly legal things to influence voters.
Now, the GOP base may not like money in politics, but their party has taken every opportunity to ensure that money flows freely into politics. Don't selectively cry now when you think more of the effective money supported the Democratic candidates.
But if you want to push for legislation to reduce the influence of money in an even-handed bipartisan way, sure. But the fact that you are only complaining about big money influence on the Democratic side gives away the game. You are just looking for a reason to justify the GOP base's utterly irrational belief that a free and fair election was stolen from them.
It wasn't. They lost. Grown ups deal with loss.
The Biden laptop suppression wasn’t complete nonsense.
Bullshit. If you want to blame anyone for that story not getting more press, blame Giuliani, who initially didn't want to turn it over for authentication. Instead he gave it to some pretty dodgy types who reported without any effort to authenticate. Maybe he shouldn't have relied on liars to back up his story.
And note that both the NYT and the WaPo said, ultimately, that some of the emails had been authenticated, but far from all.
And if I have possession of a laptop that might e yours, how hard is it for me to plant emails on it?
And I'm still waiting for actual evidence to back up those claims about the tech companies.
Well, I guess we'll find out if it was BS.
The most consequential #fakenews of 2016 was the FBI leaking to Murdoch lackeys that the FBI was likely to indict Hillary over Clinton Foundation investigation. Hillary would have fired Comey and McCabe just like Trump because they are fairly typical incompetent Bush Republicans.
That case isn't about whether the laptop story is BS. You Trump apologists keep posting links you pretend support a proposition that they do not, in fact, support at all.
But are you on record that if the States lose the case you linked, you'll concede the Biden laptop story was BS? (If not, let's get on the record now that you were attempting to mislead everyone when you made the link.)
Your link literally makes the point I am making, so I suggest you re-read my post. Sometimes we just glance at something without actually taking a breath to read what it really says.
The thing is this: election fraud is a real problem, but it is fairly narrow in scope because it is concerned with process. There are many other threats to elections that either don't engage with the formal process, or find a loophole in the process through which one can drive a $450,000,000 truck.
Oh my, well if the AP did a "fact check" then that settles it. Lol!
Oh my, well if the AP did a "fact check" then that settles it. Lol!
Oh fuck you. You have no response, nothing to back up your statements, so you resort to "Lol." Typical of your comments.
They looked into it more deeply than you did. What did they say that was wrong? Or do you not need actual facts to back up your opinions?
And what do you think happened that was so bad? The outrage is completely fucking irrational. What if Zuckerberg had carefully singled out Democratic areas to assist? Where is the fraud? Where is the misconduct? He made it easier for people to vote. So what? Are there no Republican billionaires who could do the same in Republican areas?
It's hardly worth clicking on "fact checks" like this. But going ahead and doing it anyway, I only need to read the first line and I'm done. "CLAIM: Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg spent more than $400 million in 2020 to elect Joe Biden, violating campaign finance rules that limit donations."
As always with these "fact checks," they smuggle in a thoughtfully crafted little strawman: Zuckerberg violated campaign finance rules that limit donations. Of course, everyone knows the $400 million wasn't donated to Biden's campaign.
So I would be done after that. But I skimmed down a bit and saw this: "But election officials have said there is no indication of favoritism in how the money was distributed, according to previous AP reports." But according to his: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/washington-secrets/2020-zuckerbucks-in-8-states-90-10-to-biden-counties 2020 ‘Zuckerbucks’ dumped in eight states, 90% to Biden counties
Anyway I'm sure it's fine that billionaires spend $400 million to influence our elections. Especially when the opposing candidate is someone they deeply hate who opposes their globalist agenda, and when their $470 billion dollar oligopolistic company's business is facing regulatory and other political risk.
Thank you Citizens United!!
If you object to billionaires spending money to influence elections, then I suggest you take up the cause of election finance reform.
As it is, you obviously don't care one whit about big money influencing elections, unless a Democrat is the beneficiary.
And you still haven't explained what Zuckerberg did wrong.
You're dishonest scum.
And you still haven't explained what Zuckerberg did wrong.
What he's accused of doing wrong is colluding with local Democratic officials in heavily Democratic counties to maximize the vote in said counties.
One can see a case that "there was nothing wrong with getting out the vote", but the collusion part sure looks bad.
1) "Election officials tried to make sure lots of people could vote" does not actually "look bad."
2) Zuckerberg's organization offered grants to jurisdictions that applied. That Republican officials largely refused to apply because it might upset Trump if they did is on them, not on Zuckerberg or Democratic officials.
Here is an aggregate.
If Democrats had there way; headline in November 2024.
Final tally in 2024 Presidential election shows Trump with zero votes. Democrats deny any possibility of fraud and claim it was the most honest election in world history.
That's so stupid, you're going on mute.
Don't like sarcasm?
What a tedious bout of optimism. No, it does not, because no, it will not.
The people who most need to be persuaded that their leader is a liar, are not going to read it because it calls their leader a liar. The people who read it are the people that already know that Trump is a liar.
Even if you want to fall back on "well, some people are rationally ignorant...", guess what? Rationally ignorant people don't pick up political books! If they did that, they wouldn't be rationally ignorant!
This book has an audience: Republicans who are delusional about their chances of re-taking the party from Trump. "Big Lie" believers are not the audience, and will be un-influenced by this book.
Is there anyone trying to take the Democratic Party from the "Russians®™ Stole the 2016 Election" Big Lie believers?
How many Democratic Senators voted not to certify electors in the 2016 election for any reason, much less your supposed "Russians Stole the 2016 Election" nonsense?
How many Democratic members of the House voted against certifying the 2016 election results?
And who pressured Biden not to count electors from states Trump won?
Your whataboutism takes the concept to new lows of idiocy.
Yes, people (to the extent they exist) claiming the 2016 election was stolen from Hillary are a problem. They never had control of the party or buy in from top Democrats. Hillary conceded the 2016 election. Obama attended Trump's swearing in. Stop pretending that what Republicans are doing now is just what politicians do. It's not. Republicans are off the rails. Grown-ups do need to take the party back.
Comey and McCabe and Priestep and Mueller are Bush Republicans that orchestrated a coup attempt…and MSNBC promoted a Bush lackey in good standing to push the conspiracy theory.
Where are the liberal legal luminaries who debunked the claim that Russia ®™ stole the 2016 election?
Do such luminaries even exist?
Where are the people trying to overturn the 2016 election on the grounds that the Russians stole it?
I can tell you where one of them, Kevin Clinesmith, is not.
Prison
I can tell you what Kevin Clinesmith didn't try to do: overturn the 2016 election.
The Russians certainly interfered in the 2016 election, though. That was the conclusion of a GOP-led Senate committee.
No one should forget the "Secret Campaign To Save the 2020 Election". Time magazine laid it all out in the open. They bragged about it. All while saying they were doing it to "save" the country. Of course. But save us from what?
There's not a doubt in my mind that this past election was rigged by people in positions of power and wealth. They did it legally, they found loopholes that States didn't know about, and they took advantage of people's fear. None of these slimy folks are going to jail, what they did wasn't illegal, it was just unethical.
You didn't read it, though, did you? Because it doesn't describe any wrongdoing or any stealing or rigging of the election.
In fact, what Time wrote about had nothing to do with affecting the results of the election, but was about bolstering election security and ensuring free and fair elections to avoid jackasses like you, Dave, from claiming the process was corrupt.
DaveM, not David Nieporent, if that was in any way unclear.
"Bolstering security" with $450,000,000 in private funding of election workers that favored one party over the other, you mean.
It "bolstered" things so much that my state immediately updated it's election laws to never let that happen again.
Yes, when you add your own fiction the article sure is damming!
Why don't people read what others say anymore? It is a bit exhausting. I didn't say they stole the election. Read it again, I can't read it for you.
You said "this past election was rigged." Are you taking that back?
Why don't people like DavidM listen to what nonsense they spew?
If we get beyond the infighting among the duopoly parties, there's voter fraud in plain sight with the treatment of third parties and independent candidates.
What would you call printing up ballots which leave out the names of candidates and entire parties? And they do this openly.
It's one thing to make third parties and independents pay a nondiscriminatory fee to cover putting their names on the ballot. But to keep the names off due to supposed unpopularity, or the potential to "steal" votes which "belong" to a major party, is bad stuff.
And if the vote-stealing idea is true, it means that if all candidates were on the ballot, the voting might turn out different and the duopolists might not get the same number of votes - who knows how that would affect the balance between Reps and Dems?
I'd allow an exception for Presidential elections, where the legislature could elect its own electors. The greater power includes the less, so they could take the lesser step of nominating exactly two candidates for the voters to choose between. Since that's giving the voters more than they have a right to, it would be defensible. But unwise.
Theoretically it could. But the 14th amendment provides that "when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States . . . is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, . . . except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein [which in context means in the House of Representatives] shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state." Providing for election of presidential electors by the legislature would deprive nearly all the male citizens age 21 and older in the state of their right to vote for presidential electors, so the state would have to lose nearly all of its representation in Congress. (Under Article I, section 2, clause 3, the state would still keep one representative, unless it was determined that the 14th Amendment trumped even that provision.)
I think you're not reading that right. If the the legislature decides to pick it's own electors, they just don't hold a Presidential election; You're not denied your right to vote in a nonexistent election.
I hadn't thought of Amendment 14(2) - it seems it doesn't say "denied," but "in any way abridged."
And what would an abridgement be, if not keeping candidates off the ballot? Unless there's a write-in option.
So either the legislature picks the electors itself, or designates some official(s) to do it, but if it delegates the power to the voters it should be careful about *in any way abridging* to right to vote of non-21-y/o males.
This is more satisfying to me that my earlier interpretation.
It doesn't *just* say "denied," but "in any way abridged" etc.
Like it or not, the Supreme Court has said that a requirement that a party have a minimum amount of support to get on the ballot is constitutional. Ballots would be extremely unwieldy if every individual voter could get themselves on the ballot just by submitting a form. And if you’re going to require more petitioners than just the candidate individually, how many to require becomes a policy wuestion. Accusing people of being criminals just because they support a somewhat higher minimum number than you would may work in a name-calling contest. But it’s hardly a persuasive argument among adults.
Legalizing fraud doesn't make it OK. (and that's assuming it *is* legal, though on this we only have the word of legislators, officials and justices of the two major parties)
"name-calling contest"
Have you *read* this comments section? I can't even hope to win the name-calling contest you folks have going here. Not against the roster of champions you have.
To show that legalized fraud is still fraud, consider the perfectly legal Soviet "elections." I'm not going to start a "you didn't answer my question" discussion, so I won't *ask* you whether that's fraudulent or not, I'll just ask you to consider in your own mind whether it's possible under *any* circumstances for an election to be legal and fraudulent at the same time. If that's possible in *any* case, even the extreme Soviet one, then you'll have to admit that you can't simply dismiss concerns about fraud on the ground that the governing party or parties allow it.
Would the term "legally rigged" satisfy your objections?
Saying your 'ought' is actually an 'is' is just rewriting reality around your ego.
There are lots of things about the law I disagree with; I don't pretend the law is secretly my personal take on jurisprudence.
Again with the reading comprehension - I was specifically assuming it was legal and pointing out that it can be legal and fraudulent at the same time, just as with the late lamented Soviet Union (and maybe modern Russia for all I know).
But your proof it is fraud is you instantiating your personal take on the law as true.
So you didn't prove anything except you having a slight touch of the solipsism.
"get themselves on the ballot just by submitting a form"
Compare and contrast with my actual comment:
"It's one thing to make third parties and independents pay a nondiscriminatory fee to cover putting their names on the ballot."
Either the fee is high enough that it actually does some work — limiting the number of candidates on the ballot — or it isn't, in which case it doesn't address the issue.
The issue of perhaps too many candidates? We should be so lucky!
But one reassuring sign for the duopolists is that even with the parodically long gubernatorial ballots in California, the voters in 2003 recalled Gray Davis and elected a Republican (or at least the California version of one).
https://www.vox.com/2021/2/22/22291140/gavin-newsom-california-governor-recall-campaign-covid-19-vaccination-school-closure-caitlyn-jenner
(the article is about the unsuccessful Newom recall, but the sample ballot is the Gray Davis recall)
THE CIRCUS THAT WASN'T
"Contrary to media reports, California's 2003 recall election was anything but a circus. Despite the presence of 135 candidates, just 3 managed to split 94% of the vote, and the winner came close to achieving a majority. In this article, the author uses elite interviews and a social network analysis of campaign donations to study how the Republican Party sought to impose order on the potentially chaotic political environment. The author finds that a network of Republican donors, activists, and officeholders coordinated their efforts to advantage Arnold Schwarzenegger and pressure other Republicans out of the race."
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/state-politics-and-policy-quarterly/article/abs/circus-that-wasnt-the-republican-partys-quest-for-order-in-californias-2003-gubernatorial-recall-election/CA3075D971743646C056C98CA6B598B2
Now if this doesn't steelman your argument I don't know what would.
...and the logic of your argument would argue against write-in votes, since there the voter can basically write in any qualified person (unless the state abolishes or restricts the write-in option).
So in either case, there could *theoretically* be a cluster*&^% of too many candidates.
What if each candidate/party needed a campaign committee including a treasurer? That would be another example of a nondiscriminatory law not intrinsically weighted in favor of any party.
Right or wrong, you're making policy arguments and pretending they're Constitutional arguments.
IOW, you're being the strawman liberal the right yells about.
Again, you must have missed the part where I *specifically assumed for the purpose of argument that it was legal.*
I said "assume," not "concede," but that was the assumption I was making for present purposes.
Please try to hone your reading comprehension skills.
I was making policy arguments and pretending they're policy arguments. You don't seem to have a policy justification for the policies I'm criticizing - perhaps because those policies are indefensible?
But let us be fair - if duopologists like you didn't have straw-manning and name-calling they'd have no arguments at all in favor of their favorite ballot-rigging methods.
You'd prefer to have Tweedledum-versus-Tweedledee arguments between the two wings of your duopoly about who stole the other's nice new rattle.
I'm not a huge fan of the two party system, but I also understand Duverger's law.
I thought that was the principle that encouraged two-party systems in first-past-the-post type electoral systems.
Just to be clear, it has nothing to do with keeping the names of candidates and parties off the ballot.
I think this fundamentally misunderstands the mindset, although it might do some food on the marvins.
At the beginning of the Great Purges, when thwrw were Old Bolshevisgs still alive who openly criticized Stalin, followers of Stalin just didn’t accept the notion that because these were long-time party members, their criticism might have some legitimacy. Rather, they accepted Stalin’s claims that these people had always, from the beginning, been secret enemies of the revolution hell-bent on destroying it, and their record of supposed contributions made them all the much more evil and subversive snakes.
One of the first things a leader of this sort does is to bring home the notion that criticism is only done by enemies.
Trump doesn’t seem to have behaved any differently in this respect.
Perhaps America is different and Trump’s followers won’t behave like other followers of this sort.
But so far, the evidence doesn’t seem to support this.
Again, there are likely people not totally caught up in Trump’s orbit who might be reachable.
I see you beat me to the Soviet comparisons.
Of course, I used the Soviet example to illustrate the principle that there are at least *some* cases where a legal election can be fraudulent. I didn't go so far as to call the American duopoly parties Stalin-like, though comparing people to Stalin seems to be what an adult conversation requires.
Unless you believe the US has legalized fraud, you've just constructed a strawman.
I just said it tried to legalize fraud.
Messing with the ballots to mislead the voter because you don't like some of the candidates, or are afraid the candidates will "steal" votes, etc. - I suggested the alternative term "legally rigged," would that satisfy your verbal objections?
That's not fraud, though, it's just something you really don't like.
I tried to meet your verbal quibble by offering the term "legally rigged," which has the term "legally" right in there so you wouldn't misunderstand it.
Curiously, you don't meet my specific criticisms of the rigged ballot. And, yes, I had a specific criticism, unlike you I put forward actual arguments.
What would *you* call printing up a ballot which deliberately leaves off the names of candidates or entire parties?
Don’t matter. Only MAGA nuts parrot the Trump election lies and nothing will convince them otherwise. They just want to watch our democracy burn.
No Volokh Conspirators
in this mix?
Trump got your tongue?
Still enamored of -- or afraid of -- John Eastman?
What a bunch of cowards, top to bottom.
Carry on, clingers. Until replacement.
FU dohtard.
Happy now.
You are precisely the defender these misfits deserve.
Well, you and the folks at Stormfront, the Crusader, and whatever Steve Bannon's podcast is called these days.
The Wisconsin section missed the recent Supreme Court decision that unstaffed ballot boxes are in fact NOT permitted by state law. That doesn't prove that Trump won the election of course, but the state election commission and local election clerks violated the law left right and center repeatedly around the state. That is a problem that needs to be addressed.
That doesn't prove that Trump won the election of course,
Tell that to Brett.
It's so depressing to read so many of these comments. I wonder how Ilya feels. I also wonder how Ilya feels about knee-jerk Trump defender/liar Josh Blackman.
" I wonder how Ilya feels. "
He knowingly associates with a blog that is operated for and by downscale Republicans to flatter bigotry, superstition, and backwardness. He apparently feels just fine with respect to the wingnuttery of the Volokh Conspiracy (posts and comment)s.
...and you continue to read and post here.
Wanker dohtard.
It's a marketplace of ideas.
May the better ideas of the liberal-libertarian mainstream (reason, modernity, education, inclusiveness, freedom, science, progress, tolerance) continue to win (defeating conservatives' ugly, obsolete, unpopular preferences of childish superstition, backwardness, dogma, bigotry, ignorance, insularity, and authoritarianism).
In teh article this paragraph seems to be repeated:
The bigger lesson illustrated is why the presidency shouldn't matter so much. Our system of government has been completely inverted from its original design. We went from a federation of sovereign states that would overwhelmingly govern their own affairs, to an unworkable empire of centralized government.
The President, and Congress, and the federal judiciary, all were intended to have much less power. And the unconstitutional and unaccountable administrative state grows steadily overshadowing them all.
Nothing will get better unless that is fixed.
Imagine you are one of the millions of leftist bureaucrats and others who genuinely believe Trump is comparable to Hitler. Those who attempted to assassinate Hitler are venerated heroes and martyrs. What kind of man are you if you believe this and won't do everything in your power to lie, cheat and steal to defeat this?
But those people deserve to get what they want too. They should be able to elect their own leaders in their own states that will direct 95% of all government actions and decisions that impact their lives, rather than being ruled by BlackRock and money printers and D.C. bureaucrats.
" But those people deserve to get what they want too. They should be able to elect their own leaders in their own states that will direct 95% of all government actions and decisions that impact their lives, "
Disaffected, separatist, bigoted, half-educated, anti-government, old-timey, right-wing cranks are among my favorite culture war casualties.
They deserve to be disregarded, mocked, and replaced.
Fuck off, neo-Confederate.
Federalism doesn't solve all problems - as the Civil War showed.
"There is no principle of our Republic more fundamental than the right of the People to elect our leaders and for their votes to be counted accurately. "
Can this really be the most fundamental thing if it was originally contemplated that the President would be elected by an "electoral college" of aristocrats making their own choices?
Only if you're an originalist idiot. America left that behind immediately in one of the first steps away from the Founders and towards fulfilling the American Promise.
There are plenty of voters like me who don't like Trump, didn't vote for him, but have a very, very bad feeling about all the chaos of the 2020 election.
Things were not done well. All KINDS of changes were put into place. I am a software engineer by trade, and a poll volunteer. You bet I was on tiptoes over the changes in my state. I watch these rules and processes closely. Fortunately, most of the really worrisome changes didn't last past the 2020 election, so my level of concern is lower now.
But when I read claims that the election was the most secure ever, it definitely gets my blood up. You want to restore confidence? Stop acting like everything was peaches. There were issues.
The main issue is race-targeting voter suppression, but racist conservatives dislike acknowledgling that point.
Bullshit! Wait and see how many Black and Brown voters no longer buy into Dem crap.
November is coming.
Open wider, you deplorable loser.
Your betters are losing patience with worthless, backwater, can't-keep-up losers.
But when I read claims that the election was the most secure ever, it definitely gets my blood up. You want to restore confidence? Stop acting like everything was peaches. There were issues.
Like what? What were the things that were not done well? Or the all kinds of changes put into place that you considered worrisome?
There are plenty of voters like me who don't like Trump, didn't vote for him, but have a very, very bad feeling about all the chaos of the 2020 election.
No there aren't. And I'm not 100% convinced you fit the description.
'say my crazy beliefs are valid or I'll continue to believe them!'
No, dude, you don't get to be indulged. Fuck off, you're crazy.
Putting aside the question of whether this barely sentient turnip really garnered a record-shattering 81 million votes, the level of hysteria and garment-rending over the consequences of daring to question the election results is absurd.
Congressional Democrats filed objections to electoral counts after the presidential elections of 2000, 2004, and 2016. The media and the legal academy yawned. But when congressional Republicans did so after the 2020 elections, suddenly it became a grave threat to the Republic to do so.
As for litigation, did Al Gore and his supporters undermine democracy when they went to court to challenge certified results in Florida? Trump and his supporters made several court challenges. They lost, like Gore lost.
Who cares if Trump and his supporters "accept" the results? Hillary Clinton has spent the last six years questioning the 2016 election. Many Democrats still haven't accepted the results of the 2000 election. The questioning of election results is a less grave danger to democracy than the calls to punish those who would dare question them.
Wrong. Hillary conceded right away. To the extent she questions the 2016 election, it's not about doubting whether Trump actually won. She's just pissed off about Russia, Facebook, Comey, etc. etc.
Same with 2000. Gore also conceded as soon as he lost the court challenge. (In fact, he conceded before he exhausted all of his litigation. He voluntarily dropped the case.) So sure, Democrats still haven't accepted the correctness of that corrupt Supreme Court decision and probably never will. (Neither did the Supreme Court, really. Who issues a decision with a clause disclaiming its own precedent?) Just like they don't accept Dobbs, and the right never accepted Roe. But they accepted the outcome, and that Bush was the legally elected president.
Yes, Hillary did concede right away, then regretted it, advising Joe Biden before the election to concede under any circumstances. She never stopped questioning the "legitimacy" of the election in the ensuing years. in a 2017 interview with Mother Jones, she lamented there was no way to "contest" an election and called for a commission to investigate it.
Al Gore called George Bush to concede, then famously called him to un-concede, and then would concede again a month later when the Supreme Court said, "enough, already". He "voluntarily" ended litigation? No more than Trump voluntarily ended his. Anyone can keep filing papers in courthouses.
But all that is beside the point. There is no magic in a "concession", and it doesn't make a lick of difference if a candidate does it or not. But it's always different when Democrats do it because reasons.
We wouldn't be here if Trump had conceded. Shit, we could wrap up this whole conversation if he would concede now! It makes a big difference to the peaceful transition of power, if nothing else. This is the first transition with fatalities.
The Supreme Court case ended with a remand. Gore had the opportunity to continue the case and push for different deadlines, or something like that. He dropped it instead.
"This is the first transition with fatalities."
You have *got* to be kidding.
Have you heard about The Late Unpleasantness?
I didn't say it was the first insurrection with fatalities.
They created their own secessionist country because they didn't like that Lincoln was elected.
And this led to Amendment 14, sec. 3, so it at least had a useful outcome.
Well, they did at least concede that he was elected!
OK, the allowed that he was elected President of the United States, but then they pulled out of the United States, so they denied Lincoln was President of them.
Now, it all depends on the right of secession - whether it exists or not.
Personally - my own speculation - I would say secession would only be justified if it met "just war" criteria. But since it flunks the "just cause" requirement (rebelling for liberty would be one thing but rebelling for slavery would be wrong), then it wasn't a just war, so secession would be wrong and Lincoln was entitled to assert, by force, his right to be president over the non-seceded *and* seceded states.
I assume you meant "not to concede," but this is a Fox lie. They took one sentence out of a longer statement. What she told Biden was not to concede on election night just because Trump was ahead, because there would be lots of mail in votes still to be counted.
There was plenty of reporting before Election Day that Team Trump was planning on declaring victory that night if he was ahead (as seemed likely due to the big partisan difference in use of mail-in ballots). But not on conservative media outlets. So the recent release of a recording of Bannon saying exactly that before Nov. 3, 2020, should not have surprised anyone, but it does seem to be a surprise to some Trump voters.
And this really should have made everyone skeptical of any claims of fraud as only being sour grapes, just like Trump's claims of 3 million illegals voting in 2016 to explain how Hillary got almost 3 million more votes than him. But Trump and his allies were simply too successful at laying the groundwork among his most loyal supporters that the election would be 'stolen'. Information silos/echo chambers and cognitive biases convinced them that it was only the Democrats that they should be skeptical towards. Trump would never lie to them.
People should recognize that being skeptical of their own side is even more important than being skeptical of the other side. We are already motivated to view political opponents skeptically. Reminding ourselves to be skeptical of those we tend to agree with is really making sure that we don't fool ourselves.
We are already seeing all kinds of Trump style candidates claiming that they lost due to fraud in primaries. Making claiming fraud without verifiable evidence a normal state of affairs is a really dangerous thing for representative government.
I presume that 2020's Presidential elections were as fair as any other. Since there was a dispute, the dispute was resolved by Congress under the Electoral Count Act and Biden was proclaimed the winner. Those who allegedly tried to stop the count were violating pre-existing law, or at least I hope they were, because they're starting to go to prison for it and I'd like to assume people in prison are guilty.
While the Constitution doesn't specifically authorize an Electoral Count Act, I think it's close enough for government work, and it's common sense that the final decision rests somewhere - why not in that body (Congress) authorized to count the votes?
It's up to Congress and not the courts to count the votes. Congress did, and Biden got certified the winner. I'm going to presume Congress got it right.
Tilden claimed to have gotten more votes, but that was only because qualified voters in the South (guess who?) were in many cases terrorized into staying home and not voting. This was before the Electoral Count Act and the certification process was fairly chaotic, and Hayes was obliged to sell his Southern supporters down the river before he got to the White House.
I don't need "conservative legal luminaries" to tell me this - I've gotten a bit numb to "as a conservative" polemics. It just seems pointless to bitch about 2020-21 when there's so many contemporary issues to look at.
Though Andrew Jackson rode the "corrupt" election of 1824 all the way to the White House. But 1824 was in fact not corrupt but the system operating as the Constitution specified.
Warren Commission, Waco, Ruby Ridge. I think I've seen this somewhere before--here's the unassailable truth about what happened and you can trust us because we're the good guys. Sorry, not buying.
"Stolen election" kooks from Outer Jesusland, Ohio are among my favorite culture war casualties.
If you take the position that current voting rules are acceptable, then Trump lost. If you take the position that violent 85 IQ blacks, children of illiterate Aztec peasants born on U.S. soil, criminal Somali Muslim refugees in Minneapolis are just as American as mainline white Protestants, then Trump lost. If you take the position that the former are not real Americans, then Trump won.
When you're too much of a racist eugenicist to follow the current GOP insane conspiracy theory.
Are you encouraging your daughters to date Somali Muslims? If not, then STFU.
It's at once true that Trump was a victim of treasonous corruption for five years at the hands of the entrenched left wing power structure and that he himself at last committed his own act of treasonous corruption in the aftermath of the 2020 election. He should never be allowed in office again as a result.
And a tragic irony of Trump's unhinged tirade in the end is that it clouded the fact that the election was indeed stolen from him- just not by outright voter fraud. It was stolen by propoganda and censorship in the media and social media, and he could have argued that case forcefully with mountains of evidence that may well have propelled him back into office in 2024, particularly in light of the fact that EVERYTHING the current democrats and the left touch these past 18 months quickly bursts into flames...
Reading the report I have questions. The phrase "knocks down some of the evidence" is used. We see the final statement but not the evidence they viewed to publish this conclusion. An impressive list of experts are given but clarity on the position they take on politics that could color their judgment. Again these people offer only opinions that must be taken from evidences gathered by WHO? Why do you offer one side of a coin? Why not put both sides of a story together and compare evidence and how it was obtained? We see rulings judges gave but not their opinions published so we may question it. They dismissed offhand much evidence without a hearing. I can find no judge that learned that they are correct 100% of the time. With the preponderances of evidence that has testimony why was it dismissed? Sorry CATO while your articles are good you have failed this time. Why? not because of the win or lose of a candidate but the possibility of fraud against the citizens who have suspect conditions that their rights have been violated. Even should one find they have taken their voice is reason enough to search until no doubt remains? thus your wording of "some" of the charges are dismissed the
"others" must be addressed. Americans have lost faith in their states representations feeling that government oversight has failed them. Again it isn't who won or lost but the perception of fraud that must be shown that our voice is secure. At this moment, it is not.------------------------Grampa
...and it took a court four years to come to a decision on Stein's suit. Ah, justice.
"High level democrats were convinced Bush stole Ohio, and thus the presidency in 2004"
Bullshit.
The objecting Senator (Boxer) and representative made clear in their statements on their misguided vote that they did not intend to contest the legitimacy of the Ohio results, but did object to some procedural choices. And that they wanted to bring attention to "voting irregularities" which they pointedly did not claim changed the result or meant Kerry should be president.
John Kerry conceded. No one went on a national "Stop the Steal: 2004 prequel edition" campaign.
The Conyers report details alleged irregularities. From what I can tell of summaries available (you don't link to the document or to a summary of it) doesn't claim Bush wasn't the legitimate President or that Kerry should be installed or was wrongfully denied office. Another misrepresented link that doesn't support what a Trump apologist claims it does.
That is a comprehensively stupid statement. Which experts (let alone well-qualified experts) opine that the election was stolen or rigged?
The lawyers who advanced this garbage have earned disciplinary proceedings. If there were similar accountability for those who attempted to qualify as experts, the hayseeds pushing "stolen election" silliness would be sanctioned, too.