Pioneer Institute Hubwonk Podcast on "Lost, Not Stolen: The Conservative Case that Trump Lost and Biden Won the 2020 Presidential Election"

Joe Selvaggi of the Pioneer Instituted interviewed about the report on the 2020 election, authored by a group of conservative legal luminaries.

(Brian Prahl / MEGA / Newscom)

Joe Selvaggi of the Pioneer Institute for Public Policy recently interviewed me about "Lost, Not Stolen: The Conservative Case that Trump Lost and Biden Won the 2020 Presidential Election." The podcast of the interview is now available here. I previously wrote about "Lost, Not Stolen" here. In the interview, I expand on some of the points made in my earlier post, and add some additional ones.

Comments

[Frank Drackman]

I might believe Somnolent Joe actually won if the Marxist Stream Media would stop insisting that he actually won, Jeez, how much time did Repubiclowns waste insisting "W" won in 2000? none, they just declared victory and won by more in 04'. And if you don't want to make "Klingers" suspicious, how about counting all the votes erection night, and not have a candidates 600,000 vote margin magically decreased by 100,000/day for a week....

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This blog's fans are comprehensively stupid.

On behalf of the liberal-libertarian mainstream, I thank them -- and the other right-wing losers -- for making our victory in the culture war possible.

[DaivdBehar]

Rev. Maybe Trump lost. Massive cheating would not have included losses of Senate and House seats.

The current obsession with Jan 6 and the energy going into the investigation of trivial nitpicking is from the desperate fear of the Trump return. The Trump re-election is pretty much guaranteed, given the outcome of Democrat policies.

[DaivdBehar]

Trump was a shoo in. For 700 years, the infected have been quarantined. With Covid, they quarantined the normal, and let the asymptomatic infected go to work in nursing homes to provide intimate care. They killed thousands of patients on purpose. The drop in the world economy by the dirty Commies and their servants in the US dropped the world GDP $4 trillion. That killed millions of poor people by starvation. The oligarch of the US were enriched by $1.7 trillion and the Chinese ones by $2 trillion. This is the greatest crime and fraud heist in human history.

They dropped the economy and the market to destroy the Trump votes. It worked. Now the Democrat constituents that busted records of prosperity under Trump, suffered the most under Biden.

[DaivdBehar]

Ilya. Don't get the monkey. The white part of DC is gayer than San Fran. The monkey is a painful result of butt bangin'. The Democrats you support want to teach that to our kids. The Democrats are groomers. Stop supporting them. Do not get the monkey.

Rev, you OK? Stay safe. Queenie needs to get the monkey vaccine.

[Mr. Bumble]

Lost not Stolen?
Not based on anything from the "prominent" "Republicans".

https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/19/nevertrumps-latest-attempt-to-dismiss-election-concerns-is-particularly-dishonest/

[Sarcastr0]

The Federalist will rot your brain.

Has.

[Mr. Bumble]

Try reading the article first. You can read, can't you?

[Sarcastr0]

On this one, I know exactly what it says.

Propaganda is not written to contain many surprises.

[David Nieporent]

I'll TL;DR it for you:

1. No True Scotsman.
2. The report doesn't count because it refutes "fraud" arguments rather than the arguments we're making about irregularities.
3. Also: fraud!!!!

[Frank Drackman]

OK, Jerry, maybe you'll win, but until then, buggering boys is still ill-legal at Bushwood (and everywhere else in Amurica, surprisingly)

[DaivdBehar]

If the Democrats win, that will be allowed. They are groomers.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

George W Bush stole the 2000 election and then lied us into an asinine war all the while selling us out to China. So we spent $5 trillion slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims (while killing 7000 of our best and brightest) and then China unleashes a bioweapon that kills over a million Americans. But at least two dudes still can’t get married, right?? 😉

[DaivdBehar]

Bush, Ivy indoctrinated traitor, as they all are.

[Bored Lawyer]

Trump lost. Bill Barr said so, and he had every motivation to think otherwise. There is nothing there. It's all smoke and mirrors, like most of Trump's career.

Trump lost. Know what that makes him? A loser.

The GOP does not need to nominate another loser.

Really simple.

[CindyF]

Bill Barr said so without even looking at any of the evidence. I'd have more confidence in his opinion if he hadn't immediately jumped on the "most secure election ever" bandwagon.

[Bored Lawyer]

You are beclowning yourself. He checked it out and concluded it was BS. This is a guy who bent over backwards to back up Trump. But he is also smart enough to know when a fairy tale is just that, a fairy tale.

[Sarcastr0]

These smoke and mirrors have a cost.

[Martinned]

How is the "Trump lost" campaign going so far? Convinced anyone yet? Is the likelihood of the January 6 committee lasting beyond January above "snowball's chance in hell" yet?

[Bored Lawyer]

Most of the country was already convinced before the committee. Including a majority of the GOP. It was a badly staged political circus that had no real purpose other than to make some people feel good.

I don't need Lynn Cheney to tell me that an outhouse smells.

Trump did accomplish one thing. He taught the GOP how to have a spine and give the middle finger to those who talk silliness. After that, he can go home to Mar-a-Lago, as far as I am concerned.

[Martinned]

I like your optimism.

[Bored Lawyer]

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. But there are many who feel like me. I live in NJ, and grew up on the NY media. I knew about Trump's antics since before most people.

Trump succeeded because he was a reaction to decades of lies and deception. Much of that is still there. While I despise him, I give him credit for trying to take it down. It's like a wrecking crew hired to knock down a house.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You keep rooting and planning for right-wing ignorance, bigotry, backwardness, and superstition to prevail at the American marketplace of ideas. It suits you. And you don't seem to care that your crusade is futile . . . you are content to flash a middle finger at your betters.

You can whine and whimper, mutter and sputter, rail and flail as much as you like . . . but you will continue to comply with the preferences of the liberal-libertarian mainstream. Until replacement.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yawn. Let me know when you have new material. I have heard those Marxist rants for 40 years. Let me know when the Soviet Union comes back.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The culture war is not quite over but it has been settled, thanks to more than a half-century of American progress shaped by the liberal-libertarian mainstream against the efforts and preferences of conservatives. That's why right-wingers -- who can't stand modern America -- pine for "good old days," which never existed.

Conservatives didn't become disaffected and delusional because of victories at the American marketplace of ideas.

[DaivdBehar]

Rev. You sound afraid. I will do my darndest to prevent your being sent to camp. Love you, bruh. You are a great lawyer. Just look at the great legal analysis on display in your comments.

[Frank Drackman]

Reverend "Jerry" it's your side that's pining for the days when killing babies (mostly black, hey, if black women want to kill their babies, who am I to stand in their was?) was legal in all 57 of Barry Hussain's States (Who obviously had a "Better" ed-jew-ma-cation than I did, only learning of 50 states)
And sorry if I don't see a Demented Political Hack as the Leader in the "Marketplace of Ideas"

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Hey (man!), give the "Reverend" Jerry a break, not like he gets alot of reading material at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
he's gotta make those tired aphorisms (rhymes with.....) last

Frank

[DaivdBehar]

Rev. Great legal analysis, bruh. Didn''t you attend a Top Tier law school. The analysis shows the evidence of the great legal training.

[Frank Drackman]

C'mon Man! (Reverend) Jerry Sandusky's the Top "Cellblock Lawyer" at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx

[bernard11]

Most of the country was already convinced before the committee. Including a majority of the GOP.

This is not what polls indicate.

I don't need Lynn Cheney to tell me that an outhouse smells.

No. But it is helpful to know who has been using it, and when.

Lots of interesting information coming out.

[dwshelf]

Lots of interesting information coming out.

Is it really interesting to hear the 712th example of Trump being intemperate and having a self centered view of things?

Is that "information"?

[bernard11]

Is that all you've heard?

[Michael P]

There was some social climber who claimed she wrote a note that somebody else wrote. Mostly it's been leftist pols preening in the most sadly predictable ways.

[David Nieporent]

No; actually, it's been all Republicans providing damning testimony against Trump.

I see you've given up on the "she committed perjury about Trump in the SUV" lie after being humiliated, but that won't stop you from continuing to make stuff up about her.

[Commenter_XY]

David, may I follow up on something you wrote last week? You said something to the effect that in the immediate aftermath of the election, and POTUS Trump disputing the results, it would not be right to prosecute POTUS Trump. Last week, you stated it would not be right to fail to prosecute POTUS Trump for his actions and behavior post-election.

May I ask: Was there 'one thing' that changed your mind on the question of prosecuting POTUS Trump (that vividly stands out in your mind)? Or was it the steady accumulation of many things over time that changed your viewpoint?

I am most interested in the moment you changed your mind. What was that?

[David Nieporent]

It is an accumulation of many things, yes. I'm not inclined to write a detailed, footnoted essay in a Volokh comment, but I would say this: before these hearings, I viewed the events from 11/3/20 to 1/6/21 as

(1) a series of clown lawsuits that merited attorney sanctions;
(2) Trump being his usual loudmouthed self on social media, ultimately inciting the attack on the capitol in the layman's sense of "inciting," but in a way that would be difficult to show intent that would make him criminally culpable;
(3) Trump, flailing around in his typical everything-is-about-me way denouncing Republican officials who didn't support his claims about the election; and
(4) A bunch of loons on 1/6 who got out of control, and Trump being more interested in watching it on TV than doing anything about it.

Each of those was bad, even if conducted in a half-assed way. But the key is, I viewed those things as mostly discrete, independent phenomena.

But the committee's work has brought the picture into sharper focus for me. This was far more organized than I had conceptualized (even if individually each element continued to be half-assed). It was a multi-layered plan to keep Trump in office (to steal a leftist phrase) By Any Means Necessary. I can no longer dismiss the 1/6 riot itself as the spontaneous action of a mob that was riled up; it was planned and anticipated — with Trump having the intention to lead the mob! — and was done for the purpose of intimidating Pence and Congress into adopting Eastman's plan. And Eastman's plan did not merely involve using the chaos caused by Trump claims on Twitter about fraudulent election results, as I had thought; it was a premeditated, top-down strategy to submit fabricated elector ballots. (I had known beforehand about the meetings of one or two of those sham elector slates, but I thought they were just made-for-tv publicity stunts, rather than an actual campaign scheme conceived by Trump's inner circle in which those fake ballots were actually submitted to Congress.) Trump's recorded call to the Georgia Secretary of State was not just a one-off thing of him venting; it was a step in the scheme.

Of course, it's still an uphill battle to prove Trump's criminal culpability (even if one could find jurors who could assess him dispassionately); whether we're talking about this or some of the financial shenanigans of the Trump Organization, he always seems to manage to keep his involvement at a high enough distance that he can argue he didn't really know the details of what the people below him were doing, or didn't understand that it was wrong.

But we now know that plenty of Trump's legal advisors directly told him that everything about his campaign to overturn the election was factually wrong and legally untenable. Hell, even Eastman ultimately realized he should try to secure himself a pardon, because he was facing legal jeopardy.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That type of comment doesn’t belong at this blog. If nothing else, it humiliates the management, which would prefer (and does all it can) to keep everything at the low-grade polemics level.

[Commenter_XY]

David....Wow, what a complete answer. Thank you!

[Sarcastr0]

More or less agree with DMN. I didn't really have much of an opinion about prosecuting Trump because I thought it was impossible. This testimony makes clear that Trump tried a bunch of ways to overturn the election (one this past week!), of which Jan 06 was only one.

This is not a man it's safe to let back into power, I don't care how much you like what he promises [sorta] that he will do policy-wise.

[Commenter_XY]

DMN's response (and yours) are food for thought (for me).

[grb]

Here's one surprising thing learned from the hearings: We all knew an underling at the Justice Department, Jeffery Clark, made a business proposal to Trump. In exchange for DJT ousting the head of Justice and putting him in charge, Clark would write letters to key states asking them to postpone election certification. His reason would be DOJ "investigations" into voting irregularities that had uncovered serious concerns. This was a total lie. No investigations existed. It was a fraud to block the final vote count.

And we all knew representatives from the DOJ told Trump (to his face) there'd be mass resignations if he accepted this scheme. Dozens of officials and prosecutors pledged to quit, so Trump had to back-down.

Here's what we just learned: Before Trump understood all the repercussions, the White House call logs were already listing Jeffery Clark as the acting head of the Justice Department. The deal had been accepted. Trump had bought into the fraud.

[David Nieporent]

It's going better than you'd think:

https://twitter.com/SarahLongwell25/status/1549134015000502272

"Between mid-May and mid-June, support for the Jan. 6 investigation increased by 8 points, to 63%, driven mostly by independents" https://bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-07-18/good-news-for-democrats-even-republicans-are-tiring-of-trump…

But, as you imply, if the GOP takes the House, the committee will last until roughly 12:01 p.m. on January 3, 2023. (Actually, I know that the president is inaugurated at noon on 1/20 of the appropriate year, but I don't know what time of day a new Congress is sworn in on 1/3.)

[Flooded]

It's simultaneously true that Trump was victimized by subversive corruption for five years at the hands of the entrenched left wing power structure and that he himself finally committed his own act of subversion in the aftermath of the 2020 election. He should never be allowed in office again as a result.

And a tragic cost of Trump's unhinged behavior there at 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 through propaganda and censorship in the media and social media. He could have argued that case very forcefully with mountains of evidence. Ironically that may well have propelled him back into office in 2024, particularly in light of the fact that EVERYTHING the Democrats and their cheerleaders in the press touch these past 18 months quickly bursts into flames.

As it is, the truth that media and social media corruption indeed did turn the election for Biden can be swept under the rug along with the false voter fraud claims...

[Bored Lawyer]

"And a tragic cost of Trump's unhinged behavior there at 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 through propaganda and censorship in the media and social media."

Media bias against conservatives has been a fact of life for a long time. Accomplished conservatives deal with it, not whine and whine like Donnie.

Ronald Reagan was labelled an "amiable dunce," but he was elected twice by wide margins, precipiated the fall of the Soviet Union (with help from others, including that bastard Bill Casey, God bless him) and many believe him to be the best post-WWII president.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Media bias against conservatives has been a fact of life for a long time. "

Educated, experienced, reasoning professionals tend not to respect gay-bashing, ignorance, racism, superstition, misogyny, backwardness, or xenophobia?

They seem to prefer reason, science, inclusiveness, modernity, legitimate education, tolerance, and the reality-based world?

Especially in modern, successful, educated, productive communities able and willing to support legitimate newsgathering operations (rather than the Outer Sticksville Weekly Advertiser-Shopper or the Lower Hickstown Daily Bircher)?

[dwshelf]

many believe [Reagan] to be the best post-WWII president.

Many believe Trump to be the best president since Lincoln.

Reagan was a nice guy. Sometimes you desperately need an asshole.

Hopefully, we'll have Trump policies with a competent administrator for our next president.

[Martinned]

Reagan was good at pretending to be a nice guy. That's not the same thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

I must agree. While I personally liked Reagan, and as an actor he was really, really good at coming across as Presidential, (And understood the importance of that in a way Trump didn't.) I'm not so sure he was genuinely a nice guy, as opposed to being good at coming across as one. His administration had one or two genuine scandals, such as Iran Contra, which run contrary to the notion that he was squeaky clean.

Or perhaps it would be accurate to say that, while he was a nice guy, he wasn't always a good guy.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well he certainly wasn't the dunce that Dems portrayed him as.

And, Iran-Contra gave us Fawn Hall.

[Sarcastr0]

Sometimes you desperately need an asshole.

The right thinks you *always* need an asshole. That's says something about them.
The far left do as well. Same deal for them.

[Brett Bellmore]

An asshole is somebody who's an asshole when it's not actually necessary. What you actually need is somebody who doesn't confuse being tough with being an asshole, somebody who's willing to do the right thing when it means they won't be liked. An asshole who wants to do the right thing will get you that, but at the cost of being unnecessarily abrasive.

I guess you pay that price, if you can't find somebody who will do the right thing even if it results in their being yelled at, who knows how and when to shut it off.

Personally, I thought Rand Paul was a better choice in 2016, but not enough Republicans agreed with me.

You have to understand, in 2016 Republicans were not looking for a statesman. They were tired of 'statesmen' who couldn't be relied on in a crunch, who weren't just willing to compromise where unavoidable, but who were actively looking for excuses to compromise.

They were looking for a wrecking ball. Trump fit the bill.

[Sarcastr0]

No - the right's anti-virtue signaling is premised on these times requiring the asshole switch being always on.

The dirtbag left agrees, but we didn't go and make one of them President.

[Flooded]

The censorship and proganda that went on in the 2020 election was unprecedented. The Hunter laptop story alone would have turned the election and it was only one example among hundreds.

[David Nieporent]

The Hunter laptop story was massively publicized and yet, for obvious reasons, had no effect on the election. Because there is no "Hunter laptop story."

[Brett Bellmore]

"It was all over the news, and didn't happen!" Really covering your bases here, aren't you?

[Sarcastr0]

You can parse English, no real political upshot is the implication here.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I get that, and that's batshit crazy. The candidate's son was a crackhead manwhore up to dirty deals with our nation's adversaries, with the candidate in on the take, and you can PROVE that because the idiot left his laptop full of incriminating data with a repair shop, and then forgot where he left it. And that's not a story with a real political upshot? Seriously?

A tenth the crap that's been proven about Hunter would end the political careers of anybody who had any association with him, but Biden made it into the White house because multiple media outlets were holding an umbrella for him during the shitstorm. That's what happened, and it's an utter outrage, and Trump is justifiably pissed about it.

[David Nieporent]

The candidate's son was a crackhead manwhore up to dirty deals with our nation's adversaries, with the candidate in on the take,

The candidate's son — not the candidate. He was already known to have had drug problems; that wasn't a secret or in dispute, so it's hard to see why that would have affected the outcome. There were no "dirty deals" evidenced on the laptop, and there was no "candidate in on the take."

And that's not a story with a real political upshot? Seriously?

Seriously. All of this was reported before the election, and it didn't affect the election.

A tenth the crap that's been proven about Hunter would end the political careers of anybody who had any association with him,

Weird, because there's a lot worse about the Trump crime family, and none of it affected his career.

[Brett Bellmore]

" There were no "dirty deals" evidenced on the laptop, and there was no "candidate in on the take.""

Now, that's where you're wrong. We have testimony that "The big guy" referenced on the laptop as getting a cut was Joe Biden. And we have voice mails confirming that Joe knew about Hunter's business dealings.

Seriously, this sort of thing was systematically suppressed before the election. The NYT got locked out of their Twitter account over it. Twitter actually blocked the White House press secretatry when she mentioned it.

Was the suppression 100% complete? No, but it was complete enough; Polls have shown that if the voting public had known more about it before the election, we'd be in Trumps 2nd term right now.

[David Nieporent]

We have testimony that "The big guy" referenced on the laptop as getting a cut was Joe Biden.

In which court, in which case?

And once again:

1) The email to which you are referring had a question mark next to the notion that the "big guy" was going to get a cut.
2) This cut was of a deal that never happened.
3) Joe Biden was a private citizen at the time this deal that never happened would have happened if it had happened.
4) This deal that never happened was not a "dirty deal."

[XD]

“Testimony” does not just mean “testimony given in court,” don’t be a hyper literal asshat, David. And whether Biden was a private citizen doesn’t change whether it was corrupt for Hunter to peddle his obvious influence on public policy as former VP. Just absurd. You’d never make excuses for anything like this from Trump. And Hunter Biden literally described himself as ‘in business with the f*cking spy chief of China.’ How is that not a deal with America’s adversaries, dumbass? Not to mention he still owns his stake in that private equity outfit he helped start with said spy chief!

https://nypost.com/2021/04/30/hunter-biden-continues-to-invest-in-equity-firm-linked-to-chinas-central-bank/

[David Nieporent]

“Testimony” does not just mean “testimony given in court,”

Sure. It could be in a deposition, too. For which court case was the deposition taken?

And whether Biden was a private citizen doesn’t change whether it was corrupt for Hunter to peddle his obvious influence on public policy as former VP

It literally does. (What influence do you think Joe Biden had on public policy during the Trump presidency, by the way?)

Not to mention he still owns his stake in that private equity outfit he helped start with said spy chief!

I always refer to 15-month old stories with the term "still."

[F.D. Wolf]

Trump has been out of office for 19 months. He has been essentially banned by all the social media giants. He rarely makes media appearances. (I honestly can't remember his last one).

The vast majority of people in this country rarely give Trump a passing thought. Yet there is a certain segment of elitists (and those who fancy themselves as such) who are pathologically obsessed with him, and, more to the point, with destroying him. The fact that they have so far failed in their attempts increasingly frustrates and enrages them, so they redouble their efforts.

If Trump should find himself in the White House again, it will not be in spite of these efforts, but largely because of them. The working class, the great unwashed masses, see this effort and wonder, "Why is the ruling class so fixated on bringing down this man?" and realize it's not for their benefit.

[CindyF]

I love all the articles which are basically written by Democrats and are always titled something along the lines of: "The Conservative Case for Supporting the Progressive Causes". Then the writer or speaker tugs on their beard and exclaims that they are the ones with true conservative principles. I believe my favorite was "The Conservative Case for Drag Queen Library Hour".

[bernard11]

Are you seriously claiming that the authors of this report are not conservatives?

If so, your definition of "conservative" must include "being a gullible idiot."

[Mr. Bumble]

https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/19/nevertrumps-latest-attempt-to-dismiss-election-concerns-is-particularly-dishonest/

But you won't bother to read it. As to your question: If they are conservatives then Biden got 81 million legal votes, the adults are back in charge and the country is propering.

[David Nieporent]

I read it. Mollie Hemingway makes Leni Riefenstahl look like an independent documentarian. As Mary McCarthy once said about Lilian Hellman, every word she writes is a lie, including "and" and "the."

I mean, the very first word is a lie: none of the authors were part of the NeverTrump movement.

Her entire argument is a standard rehash of the Trump talking points, except she pretends that she and her fellow liars — if Trump had his way and #fakenews were shut down, she and every other garbage human being who publishes at the Federalist would be at Gitmo — aren't claiming fraud while claiming fraud.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'll agree that, except for Ginsberg, the basis for calling the authors "NeverTrumpers" is kind of light. "Not conservatives", they might be able to make a case for. Or "establishment hacks". But "NeverTrump" is a bit of a stretch for most of them.

I do think they scored a valid point about the report's focus on "fraud", narrowly defined, when a lot of the issues with the 2020 election were not, technically, "fraud". But instead illegal changes to the way the voting was conducted, circumventions of campaign regulations to conduct GOTV drives through election offices, and media censorship.

[David Nieporent]

That's because, "'"fraud,' narrowly defined," is all that matters in this context. Everything else is a red herring.

(It's also disingenuous on yours and Hemingway's part, because Trump's claims are about "'fraud,' narrowly defined." Trump's baseline argument is that he actually won the election: that 81 million people didn't vote for Biden, that Biden's margin of victory was the result of forged ballots delivered by 'mules' or a manipulated vote count by 'algorithms' or the like.)

What you still don't get is that election regulations that don't relate to fraud are trivial. If a law says that all ballots must be filled out in blue or black ink, and someone submits a ballot in red ink, counting the ballot is not 'fraud' (as long as it's done without regard for which candidate the ballot is for). If a law says that polling places must be at least 100 yards from a bar, and it turns out that a particular polling place was only 90 yards from a bar, it is not an 'irregularity,' let alone 'fraud,' to count the votes cast in that place. If the law says that voting ends at 8 p.m., but a judge orders a particular precinct to stay open until 9 p.m. because of a power failure earlier in the day at that precinct, it is not an 'irregularity,' let alone 'fraud.'

[Mr. Bumble]

Trump "lost" by less than 50,000 votes spread over three states which make "fraud" or election irregularities something that needs to be looked at.
Biden may have been credited with 81 million votes but you can be sure that 81 million people didn't vote for him.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think 81 million people voted FOR Biden, but I'd easily believe that 81 million people voted AGAINST Trump. I don't think any President ever has faced that kind of media headwind.

[Sarcastr0]

You are certain of a lot of things that are factually untrue. And think everyone else should be as certain.

That's sort of a new problem. In the past, people differed in their methods and predictions of the future.

Nowadays, thanks to some corners of the media insisting only they can be trusted, and then lying, it's facts.

[XD]

> You are certain of a lot of things that are factually untrue.

Post proof? Oh wait, these elections are totally unverifiable lol

[Bored Lawyer]

"which make "fraud" or election irregularities something that needs to be looked at"

Agreed. They were looked at. Nothing there, at least nothing that would change the result. There were the usual shenanigans, but the end result was the same.

[XD]

WI dropboxes and ballot-harvesting ‘rules’ from the WEC were just ruled illegal. How many votes were done via those methods? Certainly more than the 20k-something margin in Wisconsin. And that’s just one example. Not to mention that a lot of these places are impossible to audit because they magically “lost” al of their chain of custody documents on the dropboxes, as a bunch of blue GA counties did. Not everyone is as ill-informed as you are.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not concerned about Trump's fraud claims, though. I'm concerned about what actually happened, and needs to be prevented from happening again. I don't want dismissal of Trump's fraud claims to be leveraged to prevent that other stuff from being dealt with.

Examples of things that desperately need to be dealt with are,

1) Establishing that election laws are NOT suggestions, and that neither election administrators nor courts are entitled to improvise how elections are run.

2) Establishing that transparency is not optional, that poll watchers WILL be permitted to watch everything, and from someplace where they can actually see what's going on.

3) Preventing donations to local elections offices from being used to run local, targeted GOTV operations out of those offices, by establishing that any donations have to go into the general fund and be distributed to such offices on a uniform basis.

[Sarcastr0]

As DMN noted, you're really mad about nonmaterial issues.

Poll watchers WERE permitted to watch everything, just not get close enough to interfere. Which a lot of the Trump zealots cannot be trusted to resist.

And a grants model of election support *is* a uniform basis to distribute funds. Just evenly spreading money around is a horrible way to support anything, elections included.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Poll watchers WERE permitted to watch everything"

Bullshit, and you know it. For instance there's the case in Philly where the were barred from a bunch of polling places on the excuse that the 'satellite' polling places weren't really "polling places" on account of other things happening there, too. Which is the sort of excuse you don't use to bar poll watchers unless you really DO want to avoid having anybody watch what you're up to, and don't care what anybody thinks about it.

Then there was that counting center in Georgia where, yes, they really DID tell the poll watchers AND media, "We're done for the night, go home, we'll resume work in the morning." and then they got back to work after the watchers had left, as security footage demonstrates. The elections administrators deny that they'd told anybody to leave, but the media who were there confirmed it happened. The 'factcheck' sites lean heavily on the claim that nothing fraudulent took place, but just take the administrators' word on not having told people to leave.

Happened in Detroit, too: They kicked out the poll watchers using Covid as an excuse, then covered the windows so nobody could see in. Yeah, the 'fact check' there makes excuses for what was done, but the fact remains that they really did deliberately paper over the windows to keep people from seeing through them.

Seriously, you should be smarter than making a silly, easily debunked claim like that.

[David Nieporent]

Bullshit, and you know it. For instance there's the case in Philly where the were barred from a bunch of polling places on the excuse that the 'satellite' polling places weren't really "polling places" on account of other things happening there, too.

You really have to make up your mind as to whether "election laws are NOT suggestions, and that neither election administrators nor courts are entitled to improvise how elections are run." Either the letter of the law is binding or it's an "excuse," but it can't be both.

[David Nieporent]

Then there was that counting center in Georgia where, yes, they really DID tell the poll watchers AND media, "We're done for the night, go home, we'll resume work in the morning." and then they got back to work after the watchers had left, as security footage demonstrates. The elections administrators deny that they'd told anybody to leave, but the media who were there confirmed it happened.

You'll have to take it up with the Trump-supporting GOP governor and secretary of state, who both say you're misrepresenting what happened.

Happened in Detroit, too: They kicked out the poll watchers using Covid as an excuse, then covered the windows so nobody could see in. Yeah, the 'fact

Utterly false. Poll watchers continued to be there and to observe, as the law required. Extra people who weren't entitled to be there were kicked out, and the windows were covered to keep them from looking in.

Trump's campaign tried to make a court case out of this, but then elections officials pointed out that in fact GOP observers were in the room, and the judge pressured Trump's lawyer on that point, demanding an answer rather than hemming and hawing. And that led to the infamous begrudging admission by Trump's lawyers that there were in fact a "non zero number" of GOP poll watchers in the room.

[Brett Bellmore]

"and the windows were covered to keep them from looking in."

And when would it ever be appropriate to keep them from looking in?

[David Nieporent]

And when would it ever be appropriate to keep them from looking in?

When they're not entitled to observe.

[bernard11]

Preventing donations to local elections offices from being used to run local, targeted GOTV operations out of those offices, by establishing that any donations have to go into the general fund and be distributed to such offices on a uniform basis.

You and your "uniform basis." So if Metropolis gets $1000 Smalltown must also get $1000. That makes no sense at all.

Further, there is absolutely nothing, nothing, wrong with what Zuckerberg did.

You don't like it? Too bad.

[David Nieporent]

Come on; that's interpreting Brett uncharitably. Presumably he doesn't mean that each office must get the same share of the $, but that they must each get a pro-rata share.

And, frankly, I don't even have a problem with that in theory, (though I don't have a problem with what happened in 2020, either). Here's the issue, though: Zuckerberg wasn't just flying over in a hot air balloon and dropping handfuls of cash from the basket. He was offering grants to any elections officials who would use the money for appropriate GOTV operations. Anyone could apply, but the GOP for the most part refused to do so. If the law were changed so that he could only give it to the state, which would give it out equally to everyone regardless of whether they took appropriate GOTV measures, then he wouldn't give the money at all. Which would be fine with the GOP because they don't like GOTV, but would be overall a bad thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Anyone could apply, that doesn't mean that anyone who applied would get much.

Team Zuckerberg Masks the Heavily Pro-Democrat Tilt of 2020 Election 'Zuck Bucks,' Study Finds

"The report contrasts with a report Zuckerberg commissioned in December, which emphasized that “more Republican jurisdictions, defined as municipalities that voted for Trump in 2020, applied for and received grants.”

Doyle and Oliver say this conclusion is misleading because Republican jurisdictions were far more likely to receive grants of less than $50,000, which, they wrote, were “likely not substantial enough to provide the funding, infrastructure, and personnel to materially change election practices in the recipient jurisdiction.” These small grants comprised 27% of the center’s awards.

In the counties where CTCL made its 50 largest grants in terms of per capita spending, the average partisan lean in favor of Democrat Joe Biden over Republican Donald Trump was 33 points – meaning the aid could be expected to stimulate more Democratic votes. Twenty-five of the top 50 grants per capita went to just five states – Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, and Texas (the latter two where "Democrats were optimistic about Biden's chances," the authors write). Seven of the top ten largest grants per capita went to counties in Georgia and Wisconsin, states that Biden narrowly won by 12,000 and 21,000 respectively. (Along with the report, Evolving Strategies has put together an online map and visualization app that tracks CTCL’s top 100 grants on a per capita basis.) "

Republican areas got small amounts per capita, heavily Democratic areas got large amounts per capita. Basically, they gave enough to Republican areas to have a bit of deniability, but gave most of the money to Democratic areas.

[David Nieporent]

Anyone could apply, that doesn't mean that anyone who applied would get much.

There is no evidence — certainly none presented in your link — that any large GOP jurisdiction applied for a CTCL grant and was turned down. So all you're doing is restating the faulty premise.

[XD]

You asked for proof they weren’t conservatives, not that they were NeverTrump. Moving the goalposts much?

Why don’t you actually refute Mollie’s arguments about the election instead of flinging insults. Ah, but that would be above your intellectual capacities.

[CindyF]

I might start having some respect for any attorney's opinion when they start speaking out against dozens of protesters from January 6, 2021, being held without bail, or sentenced to prison for simply being at the Capitol on that day. Or, if they would at least object a tiny bit to the 4th Amendment violations against those defendants as they do concerning murderers, rapists, and drug traffickers on almost a daily basis. Two months in prison for a 60+ year old woman who simply entered the Capitol and all the criminal "justice" supporting professors are suddenly silent.

All that advocating for criminal justice is just bull shit otherwise.

And no, not a writer on this site is conservative.

[wreckinball]

Good post

[David Nieporent]

I would never have any respect for CindyF's opinion, as she dishonestly keeps saying "simply being at the Capitol" much the same way an Al Qaeda propagandist might say, "simply riding on an airplane" about the 9/11 hijackers.

I also like the "4th Amendment violations" claim. Has CindyF ever taken a civics class? Or used Google? Does she know what the 4th amendment says? Which part of it does she think was violated? Two months in prison does, admittedly, sound lenient for someone who participated in a coup attempt, but whether lenient or harsh, it doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the 4th amendment.

[Mr. Bumble]

The coup was the election, the coup de grace is the Jan. 6 hearings and the treatment of those arrested and prosecuted so far.

The message: Don't question your betters (as the good Rev. would say).

[Sarcastr0]

Get out of America, if you think the government is illegitimate and persecuting dissenters.

Seems dangerous, especially for someone as vocal on the Internet as you.

Or maybe you just say blustery shit you don't actually believe, but vents your frustration at losing.

[XD]

Why should I have to leave when others are in the wrong? Don’t be a dunce.

[David Nieporent]

"Letting people vote is a coup" is kind of like an ethos.

[XD]

“Letting people vote who are unqualified to do so in order to illegally swing an election” is a coup, actually, moron.

[David Nieporent]

Okay, so Biden's margin of victory was tens of thousands of votes in some swing states.

But tens of thousands seems like a tall order for you, so let's make it easy for you and start small: name, say, five people from swing states who were "unqualified to vote" who voted for Biden.

[XD]

There are literally people being prosecuted who didn’t even enter the Capitol or attack anyone, they simply walked across the barriers after they were pulled down. If that is not “simply being at the Capitol” then I don’t know what is.

[David Nieporent]

There are literally no people being prosecuted "who didn't even enter the Capitol" but "simply walked across the barriers."

[SRG]

"Right-wingers outraged to find that prison conditions for 1/6 rioters as bad as for African-Americans"

[Jimmy the Dane]

I've got a nice igloo on some good land southern CA for sale that might be of an interest to a lot of people around here. Let me know if you want more information.

[Sarcastr0]

Post more about what you want to do to people you disagree with and lampposts.

Wannabe Brownshirt.

[Krayt]

He was the President of the United States. He could have sat the nation down, and run through incontrovertible proof and evidence of fraud, with actual numbers, and started investigations.

He didn't. In the handful of cases that made it to court, when sworn in, the lawyers said, eh, not much happened.

Again, he was the President. If he had real evidence, he could have done a ton, beyond complaining how his own employees were disobeying him.

[SRG]

Worth noting that in the last hail-Mary case, when Texas went direct to the Supreme Court, Trump's amicus brief nowhere alleged fraud, only that the changes to voting procedure made fraud detection more difficult.

[David Nieporent]

Don't forget Rudy's admission in the Pennsylvania case that "We are not alleging fraud."

[SRG]

And there was at least one other case where attorneys said as much once they were in court.

What the Trumpistas can't seem to get their tiny heads around is the idea that if lawyers make claims outside court which they then do not make inside, that is strong evidence that the claims themselves are weak-to-nonexistent.

[Brett Bellmore]

"only that the changes to voting procedure made fraud detection more difficult."

"I have no proof he stacked the deck, all I can prove is that he shuffled it privately and didn't allow anybody to cut the cards."

That's the essence of the problem: The demand that you prove fraud, when what you're complaining about is that the procedures that would have allowed fraud to be proven were bypassed. It's like saying that there's no proof the accountant embezzled, all you can prove is that he burned the account books!

[David Nieporent]

How does letting people put ballots in dropboxes as well as mailboxes "make fraud detection more difficult"?

[XD]

“How does multiplying unsupervised voting locations make it harder to detect malfeasance in voting?”

I don’t believe that even you are so big an idiot as to be incapable of answering this question for yourself.

[David Nieporent]

You didn't answer the question. How does letting people put ballots in dropboxes as well as mailboxes "make fraud detection more difficult"?

Setting aside why you mistakenly think that dropboxes are "unsupervised," there are orders of magnitude more mailboxes than dropboxes. And every single mailbox is "unsupervised."

It's hard to get statewide numbers, so let's just take Milwaukee as an example. According to a website called mailboxlocate.com, "There are 227 United States Postal Service collection boxes and post offices" in Milwaukee. There were just 15 voting dropboxes in Milwaukee.

How does going from 227 unsupervised boxes to 242 boxes, of which 227 are unsupervised and 15 are supervised, make it harder to detect malfeasance in voting?

[XD]

Ilya Shapiro is a controlled-oppo moron, just like every goon on this report:

https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/19/nevertrumps-latest-attempt-to-dismiss-election-concerns-is-particularly-dishonest/

[David Nieporent]

Antisemite thinks all Ilyas are the same person?