The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Conservative Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw Says Republican Leaders' Election Denialism was "Always a Lie"
GOP politicians lied in order to exploit public ignorance. That dynamic is just one particularly egregious example of the broader danger widespread voter ignorance and bias.

Prominent Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw (Texas) recently pointed out that Republican politicians who claimed that the 2020 election was somehow stolen from Donald Trump, were lying all along:
Members of Congress who contested the 2020 election results admitted behind closed doors that they know their cause is false, U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Houston, said on his podcast published Wednesday, offering his sternest rebuke yet of his party's rejection of President Joe Biden's win.
Speaking with former congressional candidate and election reform advocate Nick Troiano on his podcast, "Hold These Truths," the Texas Republican said fellow members of his party were merely trying to signal their disapproval of former President Donald Trump's loss but knew there was no real mechanism to overturn it. Still, he warned that messaging could dangerously lead to voters losing faith in the electoral process.
"It was always a lie. The whole thing was always a lie. And it was a lie meant to rile people up," Crenshaw said….
"People just need their last hurrah. They just need to feel like they fought one last time," he added. Other members told him, "'Trust me, it'll be fine.' And I was like, 'No, it won't! That's not what people believe and that's not what you're telling them…'"
Crenshaw has spoken frequently against members of his party who he said focus primarily on projecting conservative soundbites over serious legislating, calling them the "woke right." That arm of the party, he said, will likely only keep growing with more hardline Republicans in tow with Trump running in favorable districts this year. Republicans are widely expected to win control of the U.S. House in the next Congress.
"This extreme willingness to say the most extreme things just to grab people's attention and then the people's willingness to believe some of it," Crenshaw said on the podcast. "There just doesn't seem to be a limit to how far some people are willing to go."
This revelation is far from surprising. Informed observers knew all along that there was no evidence of the kind of massive fraud and skullduggery needed to shift the hundreds of thousands of votes across multiple states by which Biden prevailed in the election. Donald Trump's own advisers, including strongly conservative Attorney General William Barr, told him as much, early on. This obvious fact was further confirmed by the results of numerous lawsuits and post-election audits, including those conducted by Republicans in Michigan and Arizona.
But, as Crenshaw says, many GOP politicians continued to lie about the election because that's what a large part of their political base wanted to hear. They found it easier to exploit this ignorance and bias for political gain than to resist it. Unlike some other conservative critics of Trumpist election denialism, Crenshaw can't easily be dismissed as a "RINO" or a Never-Trumper. He backed Trump in the 2020 election, has few policy differences with him, and would likely back him again if Trump became the GOP nominee in 2024.
It's easy - and right - to condemn lying politicians. The fact that Democratic political leaders also often lie to the electorate (as in the case of the lies Barack Obama peddled to push through the Affordable Care Act) in no way justifies the actions of Trump-era Republicans. The latter are actually worse than most political lies because they could lead to actions that undermine the basic structure of liberal democracy, as opposed to "merely" the enactment of some specific harmful policy.
But even as we decry lying politicians, it's important to remember that the root of the problem is the ignorance and bias of voters, that make such lies effective - and incentivize political leaders to engage in them. Most politicians wouldn't use such tactics if they weren't effective, and especially not if voters punished their use instead of often rewarding it.
I summarized this dynamic in a previous post about Trump's Big Lie:
Why do so many Republicans believe blatant falsehoods about the 2020 election? The answer is rooted the broader problem of political ignorance. Because there is so little chance that any one vote will make a difference to the outcome of an election, most people are "rationally ignorant" about politics and government policy. They spend little time seeking out relevant information, and are often ignorant of even basic facts about the political system, such as the names of the three branches of government. Such ignorance makes people more susceptible to lies and conspiracy theories, including those about the 2020 election….
In [my book] Democracy and Political Ignorance, I described how belief in conspiracy theories is partly fueled by general public ignorance about government and public policy. Most of the public has little understanding of government and political institutions. They thus underestimate the extreme difficulty of planning, coordinating, and covering up large-scale conspiracies. Birtherism, trutherism, and Covid conspiracy theories are all more prevalent among people with relatively low levels of education and political knowledge. The less you know about government, the easier it is to believe that events are controlled by a shadowy cabal of ultra-competent evil-doers who can skillfully cover up their misdeeds.
But the popularity of conspiracy theories is also boosted by partisan and ideological bias. In assessing political information, most people act not as objective truth-seekers, but as "political fans" who tend to overvalue any claims that cohere with their preexisting views, and downplay or ignore any that cut against them. Much like sports fans, who tend to be biased in favor of their preferred team and against its rivals, political fans are highly biased in favor of their preferred party and ideology, and against its opponents….
There is no quick and simple solution to the challenge posed by widespread political ignorance and bias, of which GOP election denialism is just one particularly egregious manifestation. But the beginning of wisdom is to recognize the nature of the problem.
I assessed the pros and cons of several possible "top-down" and "bottom-up" solutions in a forthcoming article.
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
Whoa! Ilya is finally retreating from both-sider-ism?
Ilya sometimes tries to act as a centrist but he pretty much has always preferentially bashed the right as far as I can remember, if nothing else his obsession with Trump and openborders should clue you in. I don't know what sort of herb you've taken if you sincerely think he's any sort of fence sitter.
Ilya does not understand Trumpism. It is, Stick it to the Man. The Man attended Yale Law School, and must be stopped by any means necessary.
Why the name change?
Because he's trying to get around a ban.
Super secret double probation?
He got a jab in at Obama, just to be sure.
Ooooh. Does this mean we can quote some "Prominent" Democrats?
I mean, "Informed observers knew all along that there was on evidence" culpability by the Clinton Campaign -- and by the Biden Campaign, for that matter --- to conceal "massive fraud and skullduggery needed to shift the hundreds of thousands of" votes and dollars.
Should we discuss it? Or simply vote?
The first rule of conspiracy is to keep the people involved to an absolute minimum because the more people are involved, the odds that one of them will change their mind and expose the conspiracy goes up. The claim that anyone was able to get thousands of people to successfully implement a leakless conspiracy is, on its face, absurd.
I do not care what Dan "George W. Bush" Crenshaw has to say about anything, nor how he chooses to describe himself politically.
Why bother engaging with the evidence and finding out that you've been lied to, when you can just dismiss the source and never have to bother with those pesky facts?
That's precisely how people like you stay ignorant of the truth. Willfully and deliberately.
"People like you"
You don't know the first thing about me, Internet Stranger. Please direct your mental illness elsewhere.
You don’t thinking it’s possible to know anything about your character, or lack thereof, based on your comments?
Lol.
You advertise your ignorance with every word.
If the Dems didn't rig it, they at least were so incompetent that it looked like it was rigged.
Appearance of impropriety...
I know Biden won the election. There cannot be 7 million cheating ballots, and Democrats lost seats in Congress. I am enjoying seeing the Democrats getting verklempt, and keeping Trump in the news. They need Trump for ratings. Had they just ignored Trump and done their work, Trump would have been forgotten.
Given the large number of candidates in the election that qualify as Trumpist – signaling the ongoing takeover of the Republican Party by Trumpists - this is just stupid.
What the Democrats need is a serious discussion of the real issues facing this country with an opposition party that is equally committed to democracy and resolving those same issues.
We've currently got one party yelling "burn it all down!" and another one trying to discuss the wealth gap, healthcare, and other topics that require more attention to detail than just lighting a match.
And after the false cry of "wolf!" if a real wolf comes along who will believe the warnings? Thanks a lot, MAGA dudes.
If Somin can keep playing the same note, then so can I: There's an opening for a third political party (or more), if the authorities would graciously permit them to get on the ballot.
Talk about election misinformation and suppression!
On another thread, a commenter talked about how natural it was that third parties would be legally disadvantaged compared to "experienced" duopoly parties. Yeah, experienced in messing up the country and limiting voters' alternatives. We need less of such "experience."
"the false cry of 'wolf!'"
A majority of Democrats continue to believe the 2016 election was stolen and Trump was an illegitimate president. Clutch your pearls elsewhere.
No, what you say (which is exaggerated as clearly a “majority” of democrats believe no such point) actually makes his point. The majority of people that lean democrat, like the majority of people that lean republican, have nowhere to go. The extremists are in charge of both parties.
A 2016 Economist/YouGov poll found that half of Clinton voters thought a foreign power tampered with voting results. And that number hasn't decreased with time. An April 2022 Rasmussen poll showed that 72% of Democrats believe it’s likely the 2016 election outcome was changed by Russian interference.
Of course proving that you can't fix stupid.
This is dumb.
But a lot less dumb, and a lot less potential for violence and other anti-democratic action than accusations of wide-spread ballot-box stuffing and in-person voter fraud.
The Mueller Report stated: "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and
systematic fashion. . . . . As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel’s investigation established that
Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J.
Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers
working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian
government in its election interference activities."
In short, it's clear that the Russian Government interfered with the 2016 election in an effort to secure the election of Donald Trump, though there's no evidence that the Trump campaign was complicit in those activities, and no way to know whether the interference altered the election result. While I tend to think Trump would have won even without the Russian interference, I may be wrong, and it's not irrational for others to think differently. Thus, those who question the legitimacy of Trump's election on that ground have some basis for their view. This is totally unlike the claim, which is completely without factual support and was repeatedly rejected by the courts, that the 2020 election was stolen by the Democrats.
My issue is exactly the same as yours - it is afactual to say, 'the outcome was changed by Russian interference.'
I think the claim that Russian interference changed the outcome is a defensible position.
The effect of the GRU troll factory is hard to gauge, but it was certainly pro-Trump.
And the stolen emails certainly played a role in adding to the perception of corruption around Clinton (particularly by feeding into the email server scandal) while demotivating the Democratic base.
It's impossible to know the counterfactual of no Russian interference, but I suspect Trump would have lost.
That doesn't mean Trump was an "illegitimate" President but it did impact his legitimacy nonetheless.
Defensible but unlikely to ever be proven conclusively, but whatever the truth ol' Yevgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin hasn't been feeling discouraged by it.
"The effect of the GRU troll factory is hard to gauge, but it was certainly pro-Trump."
Factually untrue.
The GOP, however, needs to join the fraud game and cheat in all elections from here onwards. We're in a banana republic. Live like it.
I would quibble with part of what you said: Trump got the reported votes in 2016. There's not a scintilla of evidence that there was any fraud (other than the odd guy-voted-on-behalf-of-his-dead-wife here and there that's in every election). Therefore, his election was valid We may decry the Russia interference (I certainly do), but it would not make his election "illegitimate."
I believe the difference of opinion here depends on whether you feel that a successful* foreign intelligence operation designed to ensure a favorable US presidential election outcome could make a win at the ballot box "illegitimate." If the operation successfully tilts the voters in favor of a desired candidate such that they elect them, is that "legitimate?"
*there is no conclusive evidence that the most recent Russian attempts to influence our elections had any impact on Trump's election. However, I am assuming--arguendo--that it did to make my point.
"a foreign power tampered with voting results" is not the same as "outcome was changed by Russian interference" so your logic is poor.
That is disingenuous. The question asked in that Rasmussen poll did not say that the Russians actually tampered with the votes that were cast. It asked if Russian actions changed the outcome. One can believe the latter without any conspiracy theorizing. Lots of things affect the outcome of elections — economic conditions, crime, scandal, just to name a few.
Wouldn't the false cry of wolf be of democrats in 2000, 2004, 2016, and Georgia 2018?
No? Those don't exist? It's different because shutup? False claims of altered votes, hacking, crooked voting machines, votes being thrown out, that doesn't sound familiar?
And before some dumb complaint of "both sides-ism", you're specifically talking about both sides, and how one side denying elections will get the other side to do it later. Which is something that has literally happened, just not in your preferred order, where you are setting up a defense of the massive democrat election denialism that will commence in about 24 hours.
I'm sure Somin will write lots of articles about how terrible that is.
No, because as Ted says to Dougal, those concerns were real, Trump's concerns are made-up lies. Oddly enough, that difference matters to some people.
This is twice you've claimed democrat denialism is based on real things, and yet you've failed to post any evidence.
Feel free to post evidence that russians hacked 2016 vote totals, that voting machines changed votes in 2004, that Stacey Abrams isn't an insane race baiting moron, etc.
You're asking for evidence of specific claims I didn't make. For evidence of Russian interference, I refer you - again because I'm scrolling up, so I've already done this - to the Mueller and Bipartisan Intel Senate Reports. As for Stacey Abrams, it seems to me that she has legitimate concerns about Greg Abbott being in charge of elections Greg Abbott is running in. The idea that this is 'insane' is so oviously wildly exaggerated by comparison with Trumpism as to be laughable.
FYI: Greg Abbott is not Brian Kemp.
And, no, you're defining "legitimate concerns" so loosely that MAGA could be said to have "legitimate concerns." It's one thing to argue that the system should be different; it's another to argue that the election was actually unfair without specific facts to support it. The only mitigating factor with Abrams is that all she did was whine like a sore loser, rather than actually trying shenanigans and violence to overturn the election, like You Know Who.
D'oh!
And yeah. All Abbot did was make some complaints about it. That's it.
" you are setting up a defense of the massive democrat election denialism that will commence in about 24 hours"
Ay, yi yi! (sp?)
I was describing, and deploring, how much easier fraud will be when the fraudsters can simply hide their misbehavior by invoking the claim of "election disinformation."
Somin, yet again, offers "solutions" in search of a problem.
The biggest lie ever adopted by mainstream media was the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, a lie concocted by the campaign of the odious Hillary Clinton, just about the only Democrat who would have lost to Trump, a lie abetted by Democrats and their allies in the bureaucracy. The same people who spent four years claiming that the 2016 election was illegitimate and stolen. Where were Somin and the "Big Lie" hand-wringers then? Same place they'll be when the Democrats go back to screaming fraud after every election they lose; they'll be nowhere to be found.
Somin and his ilk who use phrases like "Big Lie" and "denialism" do so (and do so very selectively) to invoke the Holocaust, which is an unconscionably grotesque insult to the victims of the Holocaust. Those who do so are fundamentally unserious and deserve only scorn and contempt.
You’re dumb. Hillary conceded immediately. Nobody was saying that the 2016 vote was significantly miscounted. Nobody except for Trump that is, who kept claiming that he won the popular vote when he obviously did not.
Hillary couldn't deny the election because there wasn't the same last minute surge that put Biden over the top in 2020.
They took the much more clever route of just running nonstop stories about how Russia and Cambridge Analytica to try implant the idea that the election was illegitimate. Thats the smart way to do election denialism.
Hilary couldn't deny the election, so she didn't, that's the difference. Trump can't deny the election, either, but that doesn't stop him.
https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-maintains-2016-election-160716779.html
What do you think she's saying there?
That she still doesn't understand why she didn't win by 20 points.
https://www.facebook.com/foxandfriends/videos/in-a-video-conference-with-labor-union-leaders-hillary-clinton-asks-why-arent-i-/1167172023370392/
My bad, 50 points
Frank "can't wait for the lamentations of their women"
"“I do think that [Trump] knows that he’s an illegitimate president,” said Clinton to applause from the studio audience. “Because of that, he’s very insecure about it.”
She thinks he's an illegitimate president because she doesn't understand why voters don't like her? That's the interpretation you're selling?
He felt so insecure in his victory he lied about his margin of victory and made accusations of massive voter fraud, all the while denying reports of Russian interference and obstructing investigations into his own collusion with Russia, all of which could lead anyone to suspect he thought he was an illegitimate president.
10 minutes of Democrats denying elections
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6qJCCg45Ow
None of those out-of-context clips are about voter fraud.
Yes, this is exactly like Trump saying 2020 was stolen and 2024 will stolen through literal ballot box stuffing.
And talking about how his supporters will need to fight once again.
And talking about pardoning those who tried to overturn the election through violence.
Hillary's sour grapes are in bad taste, but she's not much of a threat to our democracy.
And given various reports on foreign interference on behalf of Trump, she certainly has more grounds to say that than he does about 2020. She still trusted and acceded to the electoral process, because she thought that was more important to preserve than her ambitions.
Hillary Clinton, **to this day**, claims Trump was illegitimate, the 2016 election was "stolen" from her, and Democrats actually "won". Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff, Biden, and many other Democrat figures have made similar accusations for the last six years. Please take your gaslighting elsewhere.
I assume this amazing refusal by commenter after commenter to directly adress the subject is a concession that Trump’s claims and actions are indefensible, but you all still want to go along with them anyway.
Haha gaslighting, I love it. So you’ve already admitted you’re wrong, but anyway…
Neither Clinton nor any other Democrat ever said she won the 2016 election.
Calling Trump illegitimate doesn’t mean he didn’t win the vote. It just means “shenanigans,” like Russia and whatever. People use “illegitimate” and “stolen” that way all the time when they lose. Like how the Jan 6 committee is “illegitimate,” right?
Anyway, you’re (falsely) accusing the Democrats of all these things, when the Republicans have done far, far worse. I assume that means you really hate the Republicans and plan to vote blue?
Anyway, you’re (falsely) accusing the Democrats of all these things...
...by quoting them verbatim.
What quote, “won?” Your claim is that Hillary said the word “won” at some point, and that meant, “I really won the 2016 election, but due to voter fraud, Trump stole it, was inaugurated, and became an illegitimate president.”
This is why it’s so funny and appropriate that you guys keep complaining about being gaslit. That means you think we’re attempting to make you question your own sanity. The only way you could be risking your sanity in a factual dispute (on the Internet!) is if your entire mental disposition rests on these beliefs. That’s called “being in a cult.”
Of course, since you're in a cult, I am gaslighting you by pointing out that when Hillary says “Who won American Idol?” it doesn’t mean “I really won the 2016 election, but due to voter fraud, Trump stole it, was inaugurated, and became an illegitimate president.” Truth has the power to shatter the brainwashed mind.
Your claim is that Hillary said the word “won” at some point
Uh, I never claimed any such thing. Your illiteracy and general stupidity would be amusing if they weren't so sad.
Well then I beg your pardon. To which "verbatim" quote were you referring?
No, no...I'm having too much fun watching you argue with the voices in your head.
Oh my god, are you trying to gaslight me? That's adorable. I just want to eat you up!
Save it for your boyfriend.
No, you did not.
You were actually dumb enough to claim that someone allegedly quoting a single word from what was presumably (at minimum) a complete sentence, is somehow quoting someone 'verbatim.'
You could be a useful idiot, if you at least bothered to actually be useful.
"It was always a lie. The whole thing was always a lie. And it was a lie meant to rile people up," Crenshaw said….
Your beef is with Crenshaw--whom you don't bother to mention.
I don't know how many people believed (without sufficient evidence) that Trump had actually conspired with Putin, but that number certainly pales in comparison with the number who believed (and still believe) in the Big Lie that the 2020 election was "stolen" from Trump.
"67 percent of Democrats believe it is "definitely true" or "probably true" that "Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected." "
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/03/09/russias-impact-election-seen-through-partisan-eyes
There's more evidence for that than there is for Trump's claims.
There's literally 0 evidence. Feel free to post some.
I refer you to the Mueller Report and the Bipartisan Intelligence Senate Report. Easy to Google.
The source for the Steele report that was the basis for all of it admitted he made everything up.
The closest thing we had to Russian collusion was that Russian selling false info to Steele on behalf of Clinton.
Didn't happen, and of course the Steele Dossier was originally for Republicans.
Nobody admitted any such thing, but more importantly, the Steele dossier was not the basis for the investigation.
Yeah, it basically was. No FISA warrants without it.
But keep trying. We just need Republicans to play dirty and do the same from now on.
Whether or not that hypothetical is actually true is irrelevant to the point, because the investigation started before the FISA warrants.
Trump tried to collude. He thought he was colluding. He said he was going to announce the fruits of the collusion. If it was actually Putin’s people who approached him he would have acted the same way. How is that not collusion?
So, you know what evil lurks in the hearts of men, even if their outer actions conceal it.
Admit it, you're the Shadow!
Their outer actions very clearly showed what was on their minds.
Wow, Brett. Attaching the notion of intent ever being provable to defend Trump.
You may not like the guy, but you sure will make a fool of yourself for him!
It's easy enough to infer that somebody meant to do something they actually did. Assuming they meant to do something they didn't do, OTOH, requires a bit more mind reading.
First, your 'what evil lurks in the hearts of men' quote is not limited to attempt.
Second, attempted crimes are a thing; you want to write them out of the criminal code.
Not getting less silly with this clarification!
My God the mind-reader accusing another of mind-reading!
"Fruits of the Collusion"
you mean Hillary Rodman's cam-pain (was there ever a more painful campaign?) antisemitic e-mails? You'd think people would be grateful to learn how they stole the nomination from Bernie.
Now there's an example of foreign interference on behalf of the Republicans.
“Trump tried to collude and wanted to, but failed”.
Holy hell, is this something that is supposed to be taken seriously? Does a $100 million investigation that concluded otherwise not break through your partisan brain fog? The revelation that the “facts” against him were fabricated Democratic work product?
No, the investigations didn't quite show that, but the evidence and the conclusions in those reports doesn't make it enough of a leap to provoke the level of outrage you're showing.
Outrage? LOL.
Yes, it's a bit forced.
It didn't conclude otherwise. And none of the metaphorical indictment against him relies on the dossier.
In addition to the other reasons you're dumb, Trump-Russia collusion was not a hoax, and was not concocted by Hillary. It happened, as was established by independent and Republican investigations.
While I believe Biden did win the 2020 election, I also think Democrats serially and intentionally violate election law to get a perceived advantage.
As an example Pennsylvania's democratic secretary of state ordered counties to count, and not segregate, undated mail in ballots in tomorrow's election.
This despite state law clearly requiring the ballots to be dated. The state supreme court in 2020 said the ballots could be counted in that election but would not be counted in future elections.
It was very contentious allowing the ballots to be counted in 2020 because it was clearly contrary to the law as written, but to then thumb their nose again, at both the law and the supreme court is outrageous.
But thankfully the PA supreme court shut them down and ordered the counties not to count the undated ballots and not commingle them with valid mail in ballots.
Now I don't know if the undated ballots could have swung the 2020 election results or not in PA, but neither does anyone else. However if state officials want the public to have confidence in elections they need to follow the law scrupulously, not decide they know better than the legislature and follow their own ad-hoc procedures.
Elections aren’t stolen (except when Republicans win) thats why Dems oppose any election security measure that wouldn’t matter if there was no cheating. Because there is no cheating. Elections 100% secure and nobody in the US or abroad could ever conceivably interfere with them to the point where we need no security or to even check if anything is out of place. In other news lets turn our attention to nonstop coverage of how Russia 'hacked' the election and how Diebold stole the Presidency for Bush!
Of course elections could be compromised--even to the point of changing the outcome--but it would be very difficult to accomplish without getting caught.
Trump had dozens of opportunities to prove that this had been done in 2020 and he always came up with diddly squat.
Perhaps that had a teeny weeny bit to do with: "It was always a lie. The whole thing was always a lie. And it was a lie meant to rile people up," Crenshaw said….
I'm talking in general. Dems are against even the most basic election security measures like IDs because even they believe they benefit from cheating. Of course they'd never admit it outright.
If what you're compromising are just precisely the safeguards that would have allowed you to get caught, maybe it's not so difficult.
But that whole line of argument is so beside the point. I keep going back to this analogy: Once you refuse to let the deck be cut after you shuffle it, you've lost any chance of convincing the loser you didn't cheat.
Democrats have been relentless about opposing ballot security for as long as I can remember. How can this NOT produce a conviction on the right that they're cheating? Psychologically speaking, I mean.
It can't. It's simply impossible, as a matter of basic psychology, of the heuristics people use to get through life on inadequate information, to convince somebody you're not a cheater if you refuse to permit the actions that would expose a cheater.
An accountant who won't let the books be audited is rationally assumed to be an embezzler, even if there isn't proof. The refusal is itself evidence.
That's what is going on here. The harder the left fight ballot security, the more entrenched the belief that elections are being stolen must become. Inevitably! The more they oppose cleaning up voter rolls, the more they fight audits, the more relentless they are about fighting the GOP having poll watchers, and screaming about any involvement by right-wingers in election administration dooming democracy, the more the case for fraud gets entrenched.
Because, in the end, why do ANY of that, if you're not cheating? That's the way people think, and it's not an irrational way to think.
And let me add that what's mostly alleged here isn't that the actual ballots were fraudulently cast, but that they were illegally counted, due to various violations of state election laws.
And the courts haven't been too bad about finding those violations, now that finding them doesn't mean Trump in the White House...
due to various violations of state election laws.
Courts say otherwise. They are the institution so charged. You are not.
You may be certain, but by all the standards that matter, you are wrong.
“ You may be certain, but by all the standards that matter, you are wrong.”
Never stopped him before. This is a guy who thinks he can decide who counts as Jewish based on his feels.
Courts have dismissed most of the cases based on "standing" or for lack of evidence, but as Brett points out, the lack of evidence is precisely due to the Democrats' actions. If normal adverse inferences applied, the courts could easily find for the plaintiffs.
More like the evidence was non-existent but they actually believed it would wind its way to the Supreme Court which would throw the election to Trump.
Republicans have resources to investigate, and have used them many times. Beyond reason even.
“If normal adverse inferences applied, the courts could easily find for the plaintiffs.“
LOL. That’s the funniest thing I’ve ever heard. You only get adverse inference instructions if you have actual evidence of spoliation or discovery shenanigans.
This is like claiming you slipped and fell on some ice in the Walmart parking lot but it was fake ice deliberately put there and all the Walmart employees have destroyed all the evidence. You don’t get adverse inferences there either.
Plus, Trump people couldn’t even produce self-serving affidavits that had a basis in fact.
https://www.abc10.com/amp/article/news/verify/verify-election-lawsuit-edison-county-doesnt-exist/507-54902cbc-62e0-494c-8d04-a3cbd897d53c
There were many instances of shenanigans in the counting. Stop burying your head in the sand.
Yeah sure. In Pennsylvania the trump people tried to make “vote counting arguments” and claimed they were being locked out. When Judge Diamond asked them “as a member of the bar of this court” whether trump people were observing the counting, They had to say yes because any other answer, ie a lie about counting procedures, would risk their license.
Now's where you cite the laughable 2000 Mules movie, IIRC.
Some angry black poll workers covered the windows while they were counting. If that isn't spoliation, I don't know what is.
You're right. You don't know what spoliation is.
But he is a lying racist, so there's that.
Democrats have been relentless about opposing ballot security for as long as I can remember. How can this NOT produce a conviction on the right that they’re cheating? Psychologically speaking, I mean.
Well that's a nice unfalsifiable buncha fact-free bullshit. The right can be barking mad, and by your (convenient for your desired outcome) logic we gotta accomidate.
Nope.
Plus, you rather overdetermine the question. What you call ballot security, the left sees as voter suppression. Which is a pretty good case considering some of the revealed private messages from GOP voting policymakers.
Yeah, the left has its excuses for opposing ballot security. None of which will make the natural consequences of opposing it go away.
The natural consequences of the right not liking democracy because sometimes they lost is not that they get indulged.
Let's see what tomorrow brings when the left loses and how they feel.
They’ll feel like most of the country is idiots who believe the lies of other idiots.
The election, of course, immaterial to whether the right gets to yell that Dems winning elections is illegitimated and get concessions for it.
Yes, let's. There will certainly (and rightly) be complaints about voter suppression and gerrymandering, but we'll still like democracy. In fact, it's because we like democracy that we complain about those things. We're the Democratic Party! It's only the right that turns against democracy and towards fascism when they lose.
If democracy is so great, why do the Democrats insist on replacing the voting electorate, against the will of the American people?
Many people who aren't white are also part of the electorate and the American people.
They are now. They weren't in 1965. And white Americans in 1965, when they were 90% of the population, did not say that they wanted to be replaced in their historic homeland by many brown shades of crap.
They didn't say it because they weren’t racist pieces of shit.
No, they didn't say it because they were lied to by Kennedy about what the law would do. He said it wouldn't change the racial and ethnic makeup of America. It did, and not in a good way. Replacing Europeans with Haitians, Somalis, Guatemalans and Pakistanis is not a positive thing.
It’s not a positive or a negative thing, they’re all just people.
Though replacing Noorondoor would be a good thing.
You could replace him with a newt.
One of the excuses being the complete lack of any evidence of enough voter fraud to justify it.
I think your accounting example shows the opposite of what you claim. Both accounting and voting have a set of existing practices. Corporations routinely conduct audits that follow these existing practices. What they don't do is to offer to perform any additional audits that a shareholder may request. If your proposition about the way people think is correct, this behavior by corporations should inevitably lead people to assume that corporations are cooking the books. But that doesn't happen, at least in my experience, which suggests that your proposition is incorrect.
Exactly right.
You don't get to wander in and demand new procedures that you have dreamed up, because you don't like the outcome of the previous procedures.
Well, Republicans do, sometimes, and if they've entrenched themselves deeply enough they get them. So far, it hasn't worked.
So where on the skullduggery scale do you put Republican efforts to disenfranchise voters in PA, where:
1) They've adopted purposely elaborate rules for mailed ballots to be counted that are easy to mess up.
2) They bring a late-hour court challenge to get technically invalid ballots tossed, intentionally timed to limit the opportunity of voters to know about or correct errors with their mailed ballots.
3) They try to block efforts to identify errors with mailed ballots ahead of election day itself.
4) They sit on county boards where they simply decide not to inform voters that their mailed ballots were rejected as invalid due to errors like failing to date the envelopes across their seal.
Like, I can't necessarily take issue with the PA Supreme Court rejecting ballots that are legally required to be tossed. But it sure does seem awfully like voter suppression, to structure the system and play it this way.
It seems awfully like voter suppression, if your working definition of "voter suppression" is "any level of difficulty voting higher than my preferred level". I don't see why anybody should take that definition seriously.
"Voter suppression" used to refer to things like turning fire hoses on people registering to vote. BS "literacy tests" a college graduate couldn't pass if they had the wrong skin color.
Not the sort of minor inconvenience you'd think nothing of if you encountered it at the DMV renewing your driver's license. That cheapens the term, which gets all it's moral force from the past history of REAL vote suppression.
Here's my proposal: Make election day a national holiday, and then prohibit voting on any other day without provable necessity. Everybody votes on election day, in person, unless they're medically incapable, or have a damned good excuse, like working in an emergency room, or being deployed overseas.
It you want to call that vote suppression, you have to insist that everybody was subject to 'vote suppression' for most of the nation's history.
Brett, it's targeted. And we have GOP people on tape saying the purpose is suppression.
And we have, after huge resources spent searching, essentially no evidence of the ballot box stuffing the GOP insists we need to guard against.
So yeah, increasing ballot security seems like a solution without a problem, unless your problem is too many people find they are able to take time out of their schedule to vote.
How do you "target" a law prohibiting counting ballots that arrive without a signature, for instance? Who are you "targeting", people who can't follow clearly printed instructions?
Ask the Republicans. They probably run training courses.
Bellmore, this is an argument about a demand to throw out as untimely (because no date) ballots which were already in hand before Election Day. What kind of crazy does it take to find that virtuous?
I'm not talking about virtue. Virtue isn't an excuse to violate the law and then demand people ignore that you violated it.
You've got a great argument for changing the law. You've got no argument at all for violating it.
Tell me, do Republicans get to ignore parts of election laws that THEY find inconvenient? Or is it only a Democrat privilege?
If a person jaywalks on the way to the polling place, should his vote be counted? He violated the law in order to vote, after all.
This was not a rhetorical question, by the way; I'm sure Brett would say that the vote should be counted, but I'd love to hear his explanation of why that's different.
The point of the question — okay, it was partly rhetorical — was to illustrate Brett's confusion over what an illegal vote is. He confuses substantive rules that define who can vote, and when, with administrative rules to make vote processing easier, or just plain arbitrary rules.
'Virtue isn’t an excuse to violate the law and then demand people ignore that you violated it.'
Neither is vice, but it seems to enough for Trump and his supporters.
Your scope is carefully curated, Brett.
Republican voting policies target minorities and the poor - sometimes explicitly so. Especially since Shelby.
These policies make it more difficult for poor and minorities' votes to count.
It's part of a larger push, and your narrow focus does not do a great job hiding it. Certainly it does nothing for your scurrilous thesis that Dems have no possible motivation other than voter fraud for making voting easier.
Brett, the fact that Republicans have found a way to do it that dodges around rules designed to prevent prior generations' versions of voter suppression does not mean what they are doing now is not itself voter suppression.
Look again at the facts. The restrictions on mailed ballots in PA are not reasonably designed to prevent voter fraud. They are designed to trip up voters. And when voters inevitably get tripped up by it, they bring lawsuits to get those ballots tossed. But they make sure to bring those lawsuits late enough in the game that courts are forced to toss the ballots before anyone can fix the errors. And then they try to backstop the scheme by exercising influence on the board level to slow-walk fixing balloting issues, especially in predominantly black areas that are presumed to vote heavily Democratic. Meanwhile, Republicans are not at all coy about telling their own voters to avoid this whole scheme - vote in person - we're going to toss as many mail-in ballots as we can!
Address those facts. Don't make facile comparisons to renewing driver's licenses (which, by the way, I can do easily online, so I have no idea why you think the comparison to the hoops they're throwing up in PA is apt - besides which, no one is suing to invalidate my driver's license).
Your proposed solution - make election day a national holiday! - of course just gives Republicans a different opportunity to game the system. Republicans, again in disproportionately Black communities, suppress the vote by closing polling locations, understaffing and underfunding them, etc. It ends up taking white people ten minutes to vote, while Black people stand in hours-long lines. Early and absentee voting is a way to minimize the incentive for Republicans to do that, and has helped to mitigate their efforts to suppress the vote in the past couple of cycles.
I don't have any issues, personally, with making in-person voting the presumed default. Give voters a couple of weeks to make it to the polls; count the votes on Election Day. No problem, no need for a federal holiday. But in your dunderheaded view of the world, you're missing an important part of the electorate - the elderly, citizens and military overseas, and rural folks. That's why we had absentee balloting long before COVID made it a partisan issue. We have also whole statutory frameworks in red states that are designed to make it as easy as possible to vote if you're so elderly that you've been institutionalized.
The bottom line here, Brett, is that you don't want Black people or Democrats to vote. Period. You're totally on board with any structure that makes it harder for them, but easier for people you identify with. Stop lying about your evil motives and own it.
Make election day a national holiday, and then prohibit voting on any other day without provable necessity. Everybody votes on election day, in person, unless they’re medically incapable, or have a damned good excuse, like working in an emergency room, or being deployed overseas.
Which, whether you intend it or not, is in fact voter suppression. Among other things there would be long waits in urban areas - as there are now some places - (would you allow water to be distributed, unlike your buddies in GA?). You would be suppressing the votes of those who you are known to dislike, and who will not vote the way you will. Coincidence?
How does a voter know if she is going to be "medically incapable" of voting on election day. Who schedules a heart attack ahead of time?
And what about people who are just out of town, for some reason other than being deployed overseas?
You're proposal is just unnecessary. It is perfectly possible to run an honest election with mail-in ballots, etc. It's been done many times, here and in other countries.
What you are after, just like the GOP, is stopping people you don't like from voting, and making up a lot of crap about security as a (flimsy) cover for it.
Brett,
There is no reason to make voting difficult. The BS about security is just that.
Let me ask you why it makes the slightest bit of difference if there is a date, or an incorrect date, on an absentee ballot, so long as:
1. It arrives before the deadline.
2. It is sent by a registered voter.
Anyway, it's all nonsense.
I voted today, in person. I had previously requested, and received, a mail-in ballot. Fraud!!
Well, no. When I checked in the letters "EV" were next to my name, and not because I drive a Tesla. I was directed to another table, where the official checked a list of early votes cast, noted that I hadn't sent my ballot in, and authorized me to vote. Not complicated.
Well, they sure broke Kaz's take on election laws! But that's not the same as breaking election laws.
You can try and overwrite the institutions created to oversee elections if you want, but what that tells us about is you not them.
And you seem to have a pretty outcome-oriented take on how the laws should work, and who gets to be indulged when they cry about elections (Republicans) and who doesn't (Democrats).
If Pennsylvania courts interpret Pennsylvania law to say that ballots without dates cannot be counted, then those ballots should not be counted. It's the role and function of the judiciary to make determinations like that.
But… note that nothing about that requirement has anything to do with whether the ballot was genuine or cast by an eligible voter or cast in a timely manner. (We're not talking about postmarks here; we're talking about whether the voter wrote down the data at the time he signed his ballot.)
That a voter failed to jump through an arbitrary hoop has nothing to do with "confidence in elections."
Shame on you Republicans and conservatives...
Election denialism is only allowed in 2000!
and 2016
and 2022 with all the implication that the inevitable red wave is the result of Musk covering up cheating.
and any time Dems feel like it which is whenever their opponents win. Then its okay and people like Ilya will completely forget it exists.
Funny that you should point to 2000. Remember, Gore was Trump and Pence in that scenario! If that had been Trump, he definitely would’ve killed America by declining to certify the vote.
Fortunately we had Gore, who, instead of destroying democracy,
1. Dropped the lawsuit
2. Conceded
3. Exhorted Democrats to get behind President Bush
4. Certified the election
You’re pretty bad at whataboutism.
'dropped the lawsuit and conceded'
thats a funny way of saying 'took it all the way to the supreme court and fought until he had no other option'.
The Supreme Court remanded. Gore had the option to continue litigating the remaining issues, which I believe involved the timelines, and which in theory could’ve ended in his favor. Instead, he declined to prolong the confusion, dropped the suit, conceded, and got the George W. Bush transition underway.
You're grasping for straws they had nothing in the holster left except to make themselves look bad. If Gore thought there was any chance he could flip a miracle at the last moment he would have. Which is why he rolled the dice on the SC in the first place. Your insane theory that Gore noblely fell on his sword and gave up a chance at the presidency that was inches away for the sake of unity makes zero sense.
Oh, I completely agree with that. Gore knew when it was time to throw in the towel.
Which makes him totally unlike Trump.
If it had been Trump, he would never have conceded in 2000.
(How could we possibly know that??!)
If Trump didn’t throw in the towel and planted his butt in the Oval Office there would be viral footage of him being dragged out. But he did. They both did. The difference is Trump bluntly stated his sour grapes while Gore or at least his camp poisoned the well like a snake by running nonstop insinuations that the election outcome was fraudulent. And they did it again in 2016. I am less wary of the man who comes straight at me with a lie than one who tries to sneak it in through subtle treachery.
Sorry if I squashed your attempt to find any moral superiority in Gore.
Check out Trump's rallies sometime - he doesn't seem to be saying he threw in the towel! Seems like you're giving him a lot of credit he does not deserve.
He refused to co-operate with the transition and took government documents away with him and has called for himself to be reinstated or the election rerun he has no more thrown in the towel than he has released his tax returns.
Sorry if I squashed your attempt to find any moral superiority in Gore.
We'll, you didn't, so no worries.
Yes, he knew he had no chance, so he stopped. UNLIKE TRUMP.
Um, Bush, not Gore, took the case to the SC.
Also, did you miss the part about how he didn't try to scheme to get electoral votes changed? He didn't just decide not to count Florida's electoral votes on the spurious grounds that the constitution allows the veep to do what he wants.
But even if you were right... I'll take it! If only Trump had done what you claim Gore did.
Not only has Trump turned election denialsim into such an obvious, ugly, power-grabbing farce, on his behalf you’re also trying to discredit any past and future legitimate questioning or examination of elections because there is literally no other defense available to you for what Trump and his supporters are doing. Trump may well be trying to overturn democracy with his actions, but so is just acting for a recount! Many many Republicans will demand recounts, audits, challenge results, but because Gore legitimately pursued his rights in 2000, it doesn’t matter, but let one Democrat ask for a recount and it’ll be J’ACCUSE ELECTION DENIER from Republicans.
You want the flip side? It's left wingers who believe that, if Republicans ever get into power, democracy is dead. Over, done, fini.
They genuinely appear to believe that, if we wake up tomorrow morning with a Republican majority in the House and Senate, we'll be looking back at our last real election.
Well, if you genuinely believe the consequences of Republicans winning elections are that dire, what are you not morally justified in doing to prevent it? Break some election laws? That's a trifle, compared to the End Of Democracy. Maybe visit the next House baseball practice?
Break some election laws? That’s a trifle, compared to the End Of Democracy.
Are you this dumb? On this, it seems you are!
Yes, he is that dumb. Haven't you noticed, day in and day out? His murmurings are barely coherent anymore.
I think it's all the gaslighting. (?)
Since the head Republican has been attacking democracy full tilt since even before the 2020 election was called, that's a legitimate concern. I note that you are pondering entirely imaginary acts of illegality and extremism by liberals while ignoring actual acts of illegality and extremism - ie Jan 6th, the claims and promises of Republican candidates - to create your ridiculously false equivalence.
you left out "Diddled his Maid"
“Destroying democracy” has become on the left like “groomer” on the right. Anybody who says it immediately identifies themselves as broken brain partisan.
Trump is no more destroying democracy than democrats are. Trump is going around spreading bullshit that most people ignore. Biden is busting his ass to suppress speech he doesn’t like. Which is a bigger threat to democracy?
I’m not at all worried about our democracy because the majority of us out here aren’t playing these bullshit games.
'Trump is going around spreading bullshit that most people ignore'
Jan 6th, suggests otherwise. How many current Republican candidates profess to believe Trump's bullshit, and how will they behave if they get into office? Your centrism is a self-parody at this point.
Jan 6 involved fewer people than attend an average minor league baseball game. It doesn’t say anything about the majority of the country.
Many Republicans are afraid to criticize Trump because he’ll set his minions on them. But still some do, like Crenshaw.
The most Trumpy Democrat is Stacy Abrams. Is any Democrat ever going to point out her continuous lies? She’s been at it longer than the Orange Beast without a peep of dissent from her party.
It represents an extreme minority willing to overthrow an election for Trump. Since their literal aim is minority rule, that's a concern.
Equating Stacey Abrams with Trump is pure Trumpism.
The majority of the country isn't going to let that happen.
And your extreme minority is about to get its comeuppance today if the polls are close.
It's a reasonable comparison. Both Trump and Abrams are totally full of shit. And you're pathetic - easier to describe someone who has always disliked Trump as engaging in Trumpism than simply admitting that Abrams is lying too. Since you can't admit something so obvious that relates to your side, you have no moral basis to criticize Trump and his election truthers.
I certainly hope you’re right.
Even if you don’t believe Abrams, her being wrong doesn’t scale up to Trumpist lies. If your commitment to centrism requires such utterly distroted attitudes, it’s not serving you very well.
Jan 6 involved fewer people than attend an average minor league baseball game.
Who have the full-throated endorsement of the GOP at this point in time.
The full-throated endorsement of the GOP? What, you mean people like Crenshaw?
Scream your zealous exaggeration to the heavens and it won't make it any less stupid.
Check out the GOP rhetoric regarding the January 06 Committee. And the lady that got shot.
Sorry your party is becoming a reactionary mess around you; wouldn't wish that on anyone. But it is what it is.
If you didn't want GOP rhetoric about the Jan 6th committee, you should have let the Republicans pick a few members of it.
You seem to want trust and respect, but you think you're owed it without doing anything at all to earn it. Like your clean as the driven snow motives mean nobody can notice your violations.
Whatever, Brett. The GOP is endorsing Jan 06 as no big deal.
That's fucked up, period.
You can point left all you want, but the GOP is fucking endorsing an attempted insurrection.
Fuck them, and screw you for trying to distract from it.
Yeah, I'll just throw in your face all those "fiery but peaceful" protests that killed dozens, cost a couple billion in property damage, and involved direct and persistent attempts to burn down government buildings that were occupied at the time.
After the several years prior, the most shocking thing about January 6th wasn't the minor scale of it, it was learning that right wingers could riot, too.
You misspelled "overwrought distraction."
The GOP should have let the GOP pick a few members of it.
Yes, throw other things around, it's all you can really do.
Republicans picked three members of it. Those three just chose not to serve.
You and your quarter-truths. McCarthy picked 5 members.
Pelosi cherry-picked 3 of the 5 and blocked the ones most likely to complicate the kangaroo proceeding.
After it was clear that Pelosi just wanted bipartisan cover and not an actual bipartisan proceeding, McCarthy withdrew the other 3 to avoid providing that cover.
You mean the ones who were likely to be investigated by the committee they wanted to sit on, yeah.
If you didn’t want GOP rhetoric about the Jan 6th committee, you should have let the Republicans pick a few members of it.
They had their chance at a bipartisan committee and rejected it. Or did you forget that part? Go talk to McConnell.
And when they tried to name members of the House committee they named people who would make a mockery of the investigation, leak to Trump, and generally subvert the whole effort. Pelosi was exactly right to say "fuck, no" to the idea of Jordan being on the committee.
If the GOP doesn't have enough non-assholes in the House, or was unwilling to pick them, that's their fault.
You and your zero truths. McCarthy suggested 5 members. Pelosi accepted three of the five, but told him that two were unacceptable and that he had to pick different ones. She did reject the two most likely to make a mockery of the investigation, which seems like a perfectly legitimate thing to do. She did not reject them based on ideology — she accepted Troy Nehls, who's far right and plenty Trumpy — but based on whether they were more likely to be subject of the investigation than the investigators.
McCarthy deliberately picked Jordan and Banks — two people with no qualifications or reason to be on the committee — to sabotage it, to give him an excuse to boycott, so dishonest people like yourself could pretend the committee was illegitimate.
There are, of course, still two Republicans on the committee.
And the fate of Liz Cheney, who was a pure conservative except on the one issue that mattered to Trump's GOP: democracy.
you forgot 2004 which Foghorn Clyburn and John Kerry claimed, well lets hear it from Lurch himself
"the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the [Ohio] outcome reflected the will of the voters."
and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard "Aihhhrrrgggggg!!!!!!" Dean said "I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided... We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and the machines were not reliable. It should not be a surprise that the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections. That's what we suspect has happened."[63]
Frank "Wind in my hair, check, Fast Steed Check, Enemies driven before me, check....."
You love to make this false equivalence, but every time you do it only underscores how much worse the GOP is this year than any party in any other year in recent memory.
Kinda weird how Ilya talking about Republican 'denialism' on the eve of an election the Dems are trying to delegitimize.
If election denial works, I suspect it will become more and more common--and universal.
Who wins from that, I wonder?
And of course this just angers the mindless MAGAts in the comments section.
I'm truly baffled that anyone would or could in any way characterize Dan Crenshaw as a "conservative" and as a starting point consider anything he says with that in mind.
I’ll confess to being unacquainted with his voting record, but on the surface he looks fairly conservative. Mind, when the topic is politicians lying maybe judging him by what he says is a mistake. What IS his voting record?
He has a "B" rating from the GOA, and 93% from Heritage. I don't agree with him on everything, and he seems a bit of a big spender, but as "conservatives" go, he seems to qualify.
Crenshaw is my rep and I’ve been watching his ass to make sure he doesn’t go Trumpy. Good for him for standing up to the bulls hit, which a lot of republicans are afraid to do because it pisses off the Big Bully.
Saying he’s not conservative is ridiculous. Doing so demonstration of the extremism of our current parties in that anyone that won’t toe every single line gets blasted. Earlier an apparent conservative called Crenshaw “ GW Bush” as if it’s an insult or something.
We need more parties to give the reasonable people somewhere to go.
These loons literally define fealty to Donald Trump as the sole criterion for being a conservative.
On that score, Crenshaw is 100% conservative. He voted for Trump twice and endorsed him in 2020.
No, he was. But now he admits the election wasn't stolen from Trump, so he's an apostate.
I've never believed that the 2020 election was fraudulent. But it sure as heckfire was irregular.
All you Big Lie! proponents would get a lot more distance with us normies if you'd just recognize that simple fact, and moderate your tone accordingly.
There was nothing irregular about it. Biden won the popular vote by 4.5%. As these things go it wasn't that close. And he won the electoral vote handily. There were close votes in some key electoral states, but not as close as the margins that allowed Trump to win in 2016.
Popular vote is irreverent, dumbass.
"The Close votes in some key electoral states"?? wow, sound like somebody knows how the erection is decided, funny how Trump was ahead in all of them until several days after erection day, when enough votes were found to pull Sleepy over the finish line.
As I recall, Republicans prevented the counting of mail-in ballots until after election day. Even Trump knew this which was why he kept screeching STOP THE COUNT! Remember STOP THE COUNT? When Trump wanted the count stopped because he was ahead? Yeah, there's a true champion of democracy.
Algore tried to throw out Military Absentee ballots from overseas.
Did he? Not sure I believe you, but so what? See what I mean? Republicans try to throw out all sorts of ballots every chance they get. They have lawyers and activists on standby that swing into action at the slightest pretext. Didn’t a Republican just try to get the Military Absentee ballots thrown from this very election?
Not actually any question that it happened.
The military ballots that have divided Democrats for 15 years
"Roughly a week and a half into the Florida recount, the issue of counting overseas absentee ballots came front and center, and ended up giving Team Bush a major victory in the court of public opinion.
On Wednesday, November 15, 2000, Al Gore lawyer Mark Herron sent a memo to Democratic recount observers telling them how to challenge late-arriving overseas absentee ballots that did not have a valid postmark on them."
" “I would give the benefit of the doubt to ballots coming in from military personnel,” Lieberman said.
Gore loyalists watching at headquarters in Tallahassee exploded.
“I screamed some profanities,” Baldick recalled, upon watching Lieberman’s answer. “May have thrown some things. I was very upset.”
Gore himself chastised Lieberman after his “Meet the Press” appearance. "
I wonder how Republicans responded, given their own propensities.
Which has WTF to do with this?
The fact is, you are full of shit.
Everyone knew the absentee vote was going to go Democratic. No surprise, no fraud. And it took a while to count them not least because of Republican efforts to slow or stop the counting. (no suppression there, right, Brett?)
But Trump made up a bunch of shit, and his gullible idiot cultists repeat it, like you just did.
Yeah, although it should be remembered that Trump is so stupid that he kept chanting "stop the count" after he had fallen behind!
Trump wasn't ahead in any of them, which is why he, you know, lost them.
"There was nothing irregular about it."
Given the (in many cases illegal) changes in how votes could could be cast it was surely "irregular".
"Biden won the popular vote by 4.5%."
Absolutely meaningless, since we don't elect presidents by popular vote.
"And he won the electoral vote handily. "
He won the electoral vote by approximately 50,000 votes spread over three states. Hardly handily.
Given the (in many cases illegal) changes in how votes could could be cast it was surely “irregular”.
All those cases were adjudicated in state (and occasionally federal) court, as happens in every election.
So I don't know what you mean by "irregular." If you mean there was a pandemic on, sure, that was irregular.
As I recall, about 44,000 votes in three states would have given Trump the EC majority in 2020. Which is pretty darned close.
In 2016 it was a 79K margin, also close, but not quite so close.
The big difference is that election administration in 2016 was by the book in the states on the margin, so there wasn't any basis to think it a 'stolen" election. While in 2020 all the marginal states had ad hoc changes in election procedures that might have influenced the outcome, some of which have been subsequently ruled to have been illegal.
Being by the book didn’t stop Trump from lying about “3 million illegal votes” in 2016. (Or you from buying that idiocy) And it didn’t stop him from lying about Ted Cruz stealing the Iowa Caucuses. It won’t stop him this time either. Watch: he’s going to claim any democratic victory was stolen even if it’s a red wave. I will bet lots of money that if Oz and Shapiro both win PA he will claim Shapiro stole the election.
And it’s not going to stop him from lying the minute he loses a primary to Ron DeSantis.
And you’ll have to spend the rest of your life trying to justify his lies based on whatever blogpost you read that you think makes you an expert in elections law.
But they can't. Admitting it was irregular is too close to admitting it was stolen, because if the outcome was due to it being illegally "irregular", then it WAS stolen.
Covid was irregular.
*You're* the one arguing it was illegitimate because it was irregular.
Missed that little distinction, methinks.
By the time the election came around, Covid was a non-factor except as an excuse for implementing changes Democrats had wanted anyway. Life was back to normal already.
Your opinion as to Covid in November 2020 is not shared by the courts.
Neither is your take that making it easier to vote was a Democratic conspiracy.
COVID was a non-factor except for all the people getting sick and dying in fall 2020.
Willful ignorance of what occurred is not a justification to deny what happened.
What occurred was courts and executive administrators who had legal authority to find ways to make voting accessible using that authority. And then Trumpers waiting until too late to complain to either throw out votes or delegitimize all votes everywhere (which somehow automatically makes Trump the winner in their minds)
Also this election administration irregularities thing is just a post hoc justification to try to make the actual insane conspiracy theories trump and co believe legitimate. They literally think there were Venezuelan and Serbians and Italians involved. And trucks of ballots. Ballots made of bamboo. Or real
Ones with trump watermarks. Or the Dominion thing that will result in significant judgments against Trump-world.
It’s also an attempt to paper over the insane remedies they were asking courts and elections boards for. Literally throw out all mail in ballots. Certify everywhere but (the majority black) cities. Texas and a bunch of states actually asked the Supreme Court to invalidate the votes of other states because it felt harmed by them.
And then the courts tore them apart. Look at the Michigan sanctions opinion for Sidney Powell. A thorough destruction of every single dumbass argument they ever came up with.
There was some special forces raid about to kick off somewhere in Germany to snag, I dunno, servers or fake ballots or something. Trump was supposed to be monitoring the fraud in real time thanks to white hat hackers, and there are those who are still waiting for him to produce the evidence. It's utterly bat-shit.
In 2020, a total of 3,358,814 people died in America. Americans not being immortal, regrettably…
The leading cause of death that year was heart disease, at 690,822 deaths.
Second place was cancer, at 598,932 deaths.
Covid was third place, a 345, 323 deaths. That’s averaged over the year, mind you. At times it edged up into first place, most of the time it was much further down the list.
Covid was enough to lower American life expectancy, (Calculated as though the pandemic would never end…) by about a year, reducing it to what it had been about a decade earlier.
So, was it impossible to hold a normal election in 2008? Yes or no?
Amazed by the sheer inability to think something through represented by this comment.
Essentially what happened is that Democrats fomented a moral panic over Covid, and then leveraged it to push through, often illegally, a bunch of changes to elections procedures that they'd wanted all along, because they expected those changes to favor them.
If they'd pushed them through legislatively, it would be playing tough politics, but not really a cause for claiming they'd stolen the election. But often they didn't get those changes legislatively, they got them in illegitimate ways that perfectly justified complaints.
Republicans turned covid into a culture war battleground and thereby murdered thousands. Responding to a pandemic isn't a 'moral panic,' opposing responding to covid is a moral failure.
The Democratic response to the scamdemic was far worse than the virus.
It certanly hasn’t been all it should be, but that came later. First came the Trump response which at first almost resembled a proper sane response on the surface but ultimately collapsed in on itself due to the sheer inability of Trump to respond effectively to something his base had decided either wasn’t real or was part of an evil plot, something he couldn't resist feeding and cultivating in them from the start, and also Kushner’s incompetence and corruption.
The CDC and other emergency arms of the government started doing their jobs, which explains the early competence of the response. Trump saw an opportunity to make it political, probably thinking it wasn't a big deal, and described it as a hoax. His base ate it up and a lot of them died as a result. We're about to see if the loss of that many elderly Republican voters made a difference...
You’re just looking for an excuse to justify you believing lies and you want to pretend you’re smart and nuanced expert in elections administration. But you’re not.
Think about 2020: when republicans tried to toss curb-side ballots in Houston, that their Secretary of State authorized, you were claiming that they were disobeying a lawful order of the Texas AG. Only there is no such thing as a “lawful order” of the Texas AG regarding elections administration. It was an opinion. But that didn’t stop you from claiming otherwise despite being corrected multiple times.
And when knowledgeable people claimed the suit was barred by laches you smugly said laches was a doctrine and you were taking about laws. But again this was obviously wrong.
With such basic errors in that case, we’re supposed to trust that you also know the elections laws of every other state? HA. No. You don’t know anything about it. You’re just regurgitating you’re feels into a form that makes it more palatable to engage in election denialism than claiming the ballots were bamboo.
No, they got them in legitimate ways.
Once again: it. is. normal. and. legitimate. to. change. procedures. to. respond. to. conditions.
https://www.flgov.com/2022/10/13/governor-desantis-issues-emergency-executive-order-to-ensure-ballot-access-for-voters-in-counties-severely-impacted-by-hurricane-ian/
Wow, Covid denial and obvious abuse of statistics to get your election bullshit off the ground.
You weren't calling Covid not a big deal in November of 2020!
Awful example of outcome-oriented retconning, and abuse of statistics.
There was an election in 2020, and Covid was real. I'm not denying either.
This habit of making allusions to Holocaust denial every time somebody doesn't share your take on a topic is getting so over the top it's hilarious.
"You weren’t calling Covid not a big deal in November of 2020!"
Ah, yeah, actually I was, I was saying that if you could go to the grocery store to shop, you could damned well show up in person to vote.
I intended no analogy to Holocaust denial in my use of the word 'denial.'
I was saying that if you could go to the grocery store to shop, you could damned well show up in person to vote.
OK, fair enough. I do recall that. Even as you pushed back on those calling it 'just the flu.'
But now you insist that your position is the only reasonable one that courts could have come to.
Which is just more you being unable to deal with people disagreeing with you.
Yeah, right. Why the hell do you think Democrats settled on calling everybody concerned about election irregularities in 2020 an election "denier", anyway? You think that was just an innocent coincidence?
No, it was deliberately intended to tar people with the stink of Holocaust denial if they had doubts about the election. Who else ever got called a "denier" but Holocaust deniers, prior to that?
"But now you insist that your position is the only reasonable one that courts could have come to."
No, my position is that whether Covid necessitated changes to election procedures wasn't a decision for the courts to make in the first place. It was entirely a legislative prerogative.
It's not like Covid appeared out of nowhere in October of 2020. The legislatures had plenty of time to pass the laws they thought appropriate, and refuse to pass the ones they didn't think appropriate.
In fact, they did just that in Pennsylvania, for instance, reached a legislative compromise, and nailed it down with an iron clad anti-severability clause mandating that the whole law was void if the courts didn't uphold every bit of it. Which the PA Supreme court noted and then outright violated.
From Sandy Hook to Climate Change, it's not an uncommon term.
No, my position is that whether Covid necessitated changes to election procedures wasn’t a decision for the courts to make in the first place.
Judicial review is a thing, and adjudication of the separation of powers and election rights as specified in state constitutions is the purview of the courts.
You continue to insist that the courts' justifications was wrong, just because you're so sure it's wrong.
Seems more like you just want a reason to call 2020 illegitimate without going full fact-free lunacy, and so you've gone law-free lunacy.
No one is fooled by your sober take that the outlier legal theory which currently favors the GOP is correct.
Yeah, it's becoming a common term on the left for anybody who disagrees with them about anything. And it's always intended to compare people to Holocaust deniers.
Yeah, it’s becoming a common term on the left for anybody who disagrees with them about anything.
Which goes to show you're a couple of decades late to decide it's only about the Holocaust now.
It's not always about the Holocaust anymore. It's always about making out disagreeing with the left to be comparable to denying the Holocaust.
I can't help the associations in your head, but no, I the left has not been quietly associating the right's constant inability to face facts with the Holocaust for decades.
That's all you.
'Why the hell do you think Democrats settled on calling everybody concerned about election irregularities in 2020 an election “denier”, anyway?'
Because they were denying the election results with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. If you don't want to be labeled as someone who denies things without proof, don't deny things without proof.
'Anyone who disagrees' doing a lot of work there. Denying big obvious things that are true puts you in an unenviable category, too bad.
I will call you an "election retard" or an "election cultist" if you want.
As of the elections we didn’t have vaccines yet. Covid was absolutely still a factor.
You mean a vaccine that didn't prevent the disease?
Non-sterilizing vaccines have been a thing for a very long time. See: measles.
Claiming the mantle of normie, while you post on the VC.
OK, chief.
Irregular? We have a way of dealing with irregularities: courts. Democrats were happy to indulge Trump’s trip through the court system. Those lawsuits smoothed out any irregularities. If Trump had accepted the courts’ decisions, we wouldn’t be here.
What Democrats are angry about now is what happened after the courts resolved all the irregularities. Talking about irregularities at this point is just a distracting attempt to legitimize Trump and other Republicans’ ongoing seditious behavior.
As usual, a conflation of "election was stolen" with "there were problems which we need to address".
Probably because of the way they referred to the 2020 election as The Big Steal.
But even as we decry lying politicians, it's important to remember that the root of the problem is the ignorance and bias of voters, that make such lies effective—and incentivize political leaders to engage in them.
I know way more people who believe that Trump colluded with the Russians than people who believe Trump was the legitimate winner in 2020.
In both cases, it seems a willful surrender to a form of hatred.
A wilful surrender to the fact that evidence points to the former, while no evidence points to the later.
Ah, the 2020 election was "irregular" because states attempted to make to easier for citizens to vote. How dare they?
And amazingly there are still people who think that the surge to Biden was due to irregularities, rather than to the well-documented fact that the GOP intentionally passed laws requiring in-person ballots to be counted ahead of mail-in ballots so that they could argue for fraud once the completely expected surge took place, so many of their own voters being too fucking ignorant to understand why.
And now, once the GOP has identified that walk-in votes tend to be more GOP while mail-in are more Democrats, they start suppressing mail-in voting.
2A time, surely. That's what 2A is for, no? Defence of our constitutional rights?
"Ah, the 2020 election was “irregular” because states attempted to make to easier for citizens to vote. How dare they?"
Making it "easier to vote" is not a valid reason for violating existing election laws.
And what violations were there of existing laws?
This is not about ignorance. It is not even about lying, except in the narrowest, most-exculpatory interpretation, where even that odious word fails to deliver sufficient sting. It is about a still-ongoing attempt to overthrow the joint sovereignty of the American People, by one of the nation's major political parties. The right response to that is not exhortation to do better, nor is it to write a, "forthcoming article," no doubt to feature still more both-sides false-equivalencies.
The right response is arrests and trials for insurrectionist perpetrators, including especially those sworn office holders who traduced their oaths, then continued, and still continue, with attempts to seize power illegally and dishonorably. Unfortunately, arrests and punishments are unlikely to happen, because a law specifically to empower such charges has not been passed, nor even introduced.
Democrats' abject failure to defend the popular sovereign they too swore to protect—while ridiculously trying to turn dire threats to the nation into electoral advantages for themselves—has furnished nothing better than feckless spectacle, featuring a disheartening mix of incompetence, cowardice, and pathetic, cautious, leaderless meandering.
A few principled Republicans—breaking with corrupt colleagues at obvious personal cost—have furnished the only examples to the contrary. Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, and the mostly right-wing witnesses who testified voluntarily have been beacons. Bless them, and pray their example proves contagious. If anything can be done to save this staggering nation, it will have to come from the likes of them. A great many more will be needed.
Today's election will do little more than mark a confluence of two mainstream but played-out political currents, destined to merge amidst roiling turbulence, and then to flow uselessly out to sea, without benefit to anyone.
The traitors are those who decided to replace the American people with unassimilable third worlders for votes and labor.
"The traitors are those who decided to replace decent, law abiding white folk. Just like you!"
FTFY
The problem with sweeping everything together as "the big lie" is that there were a LOT of election laws broken in 2020. A lot of votes cast illegally. Election clerks, workers, commissions etc. making a lot of things up that violated the law. Those things need to be investigated, and corrected, and punished, but a lot of looking into those things gets poo-pood because of The Big Lie(tm).
And what happened when all these alleged illegalities were taken to court?
If you think it isn't possible to change the outcome of an election...
2000 presidential election was decided by 214 votes. 0.01 % of votes cast in Florida.
Here's a guy who rigged elections in PA by adding hundreds of votes.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edpa/pr/former-us-congressman-and-philadelphia-political-operative-pleads-guilty-election-fraud
Show me the full voting system process & audit controls for each state. Then we'll assess security. As long as the process is opaque you should assume fraud.
This is electoral college vs popular vote. Gore got half a million more votes (give or take) than Bush.
In fact, the last GOP president to win the popular vote on his first term was George W's father, HW Bush.
Hillary got nearly 3 million more votes than Trump.
The EC is a problem.
Apparently, people still don’t understand the difference between 1) legally challenging an election result and residual complaints the election was unfair, and 2) extra-legal efforts to steal an election.
The former include challenges by Gore in 2000 (perfectly reasonable in my view) and Boxer in 2004 on Jan 6 (ridiculous in my view), as well as Abrams’ and Clinton’s complaints in 2018 and 2016 respectively (sour grapes in my view, although Abrams has a point about voter suppression).
The latter is Trump, 2020: pressuring state officials to overturn results, supporting the creation of fake electors, pressuring the Justice Department to declare the election fraudulent, pressuring Pence to unilaterally declare electoral votes invalid and doing nothing while a riot threatened the electoral vote count.
The latter is far, far, far more a threat to democracy. To equate them is disgusting.
And I've said that Trump should have dropped it after the EC voted. I'm glad Trump was a fighter, and enough stuff happened in the 2020 election that should have been fought, but you need to understand when to turn it off.
But at the same time I'm not going to pretend those idiots who busted into the Capitol were Trump's doing. He was at the other end of the Mall trying to instill fear of the voters in Congress, not fear of rioters. Those rioters actually shut down his election contest, and no sensible person would have anticipated a different outcome.
Let's keep in mind, though, that we're talking about a Congress that pulls crap like the 'nuclear option', that is no more honest. All of DC is pretty dishonest.
" But at the same time I’m not going to pretend those idiots who busted into the Capitol were Trump’s doing. "
Just like you refused to pretend that former Pres. Obama was born in Hawaii (rather than Kenya).
Carry on, Birther Brett.
No; he expressly sent the rioters there and told them to fight to stop the election from being stolen.
Even if that's true — and it's not — what does it have to do with Donald Trump?
But at the same time I’m not going to pretend those idiots who busted into the Capitol were Trump’s doing.
Well, I'm glad you've gone from "tourists" to "idiots" and "rioters."
If Trump didn't like it, why did he do zip to stop it for several hours? It seems he watched on TV and was pleased, and later told the insurrectionists they were "special," and he loved them.
But you ignore all that.
He told them to "fight like hell" or they wouldn't have a country any more and then told them to march to the capitol and make themselves heard. Which they did. And we're still hearing from them as they are found guilty of sedition and all sorts of other crimes.
If Trump is a good leader, then he led them to his desired end. If he's a bad leader, then he accidentally created a seditious mob and sent them to threaten Congress. Neither of these Trumps should ever get near the Oval Office again, no matter which one you believe is the real one.
Election issues aside, Dan "Eyepatch McCain" Crenshaw is no conservative, he is a neocon and supporter of big-government and centralization.
One eyed Jacks are wild.
So, a Republican.
I don't know if the Democrats cheated enough to change the outcome or not -- the brazen, red-hot hatred of Trump and his supporters and he helped fuel that by being himself.
I have followed election results closely since Carter/Ford and have never seen major metropolitan area just call "timeout" in counting like we saw in Philedelphia, Detroit, Atlanta, (Wisconsin???) and in North Carolina -- all in states that Trump turned red.
Add to that the judicial overturning of several election rules at the last minute and you have reason for honest doubt.
Enough to change the results?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There were no "timeouts" and there were no judicial overturnings of rules.
Horse manure:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/17/politics/pennsylvania-supreme-court-green-party-presidential-ballot/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/01/us/politics/election-delay-vote-count.html
It happened -- I SAW IT.
You may lie about a time I did not live in and it is open to debate -- this is NOT!!!!!
There’s nothing there about time outs or judicial overturnings of rules.
Add to that the judicial overturning of several election rules at the last minute and you have reason for honest doubt.
Doubt about what? The court's rules are the rules. Are you suggesting we should start second-guessing court rulings we don't like about elections? Tell that to Gore in 2000.
SCOTUS would not have had to step in if the Florida supremes had not pulled the same kind of crap they did in Pennsylvania did.
Does "selected, not elected" sound like a familiar election denial refrain to you?
And, the very same media that went in and examined the ballots seven ways from Sunday (all coming up with a Bush win) sure were missing in action in the 2020 election. Afraid what they may find????
I mean ok, so, thanks for agreeing with me and making all my points for me.
"It was always a lie. The whole thing was always a lie. And it was a lie meant to rile people up," Crenshaw said.
VC Commenters:
1. It was Hillary's fault.
2. He's a RINO.
3. We need to build a bigger lie.
Hi. Nice to meet you. David Bernstein accused me of being you a couple days ago. I figure it’s worth us appearing together here in the same place to disprove the rumor.
Ha! That's pretty funny. What a tool. He's (TWICE!) accused me of being different people and threatened to "out me." Just wait until he pulls that maneuver on you. It's not subtle, either.
Which, given the whole "Juan Non-Volokh" history on this blog, is kind of rich .....
My take on it is that half of what politicians say is a lie, and always was, so, how's this different from business as usual?
The election denial part, Brett!
Hiding behind blanket cynicism to cover for your man Trump being an anti-democratic jackwaggon and your party lapping it up won't do much.
Again, nobody is denying there was an election. So enough of this "election denier" crap. It just makes you look stupid. Especially when you deny it's meant to have Holocaust denier vibes.
I've already said that Trump should have dropped his legal battle after the EC voted. And some of the legal theories they were advancing after that were bullshit.
But people sling bullshit at the wall all the time in legal fights, to see if it will stick. and sometimes it does. A lot of the legal doctrines the modern state rests on are utter bullshit that happened to stick. So while I think a lot less of Trump for attempting it, I don't see it as rendering him categorically worse than mainstream politicians. Yeah, because I have a really low opinion of mainstream politicians.
And this "insurrection" garbage really pisses me off. After several years of riots that literally killed dozens, did billions in property damage, and involved prolonged efforts to burn people alive in government buildings, the sheer cast iron gall of calling January 6th an "insurrection" just blows my mind.
Yes, it was shocking to find out that there were actually right-wingers willing to riot and break windows. I'm disappointed at that. Wake me when the right is guilt of anything within, oh, an order of magnitude of the BLM/Antifa rioting, which you continually downplay.
What Fox News told you about BLM and "antifa" is all lies. It was designed to "really piss (you) off." That's how Fox News keeps its audience engaged. "Enraged is engaged" is their motto.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/fox-news-runs-digitally-altered-images-in-coverage-of-seattles-protests-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone/
Lol at your repurposing ‘no-one’s denying theres a climate,’ up there with you saying ‘I’m white and a nationalist I guess that means I’m a white nationalist.’ Contrarily taking commonly understood phrases literally in order to uiddle the meaning is endearingly ‘old man yells at cloud.’
Trump didn’t drop the legal battle and relied on legal bullshit because Trump is a lying bullshitter who routinely used nuisance suits to avoid debts and silence people, you’d think you’d have worked that out by now.
‘Yeah, because I have a really low opinion of mainstream politicians.’
Have you noticed it’s always exactly as low as it needs to be to normalise Trump?
You’re referring to widespread demonstrations against police violence and abuse of power. We’re referring to a violent effort to overturn an election based on the lie that it had been stolen. Different things being treated differently is a thing that pisses you off a lot. The Republicans are the Insurrection party now, Brett, no amount of whataboutery will fix that.
Let me know when the right have anything as real and vital and important as BLM/antifa had to demonstrate against, instead of a completely made-up lie by an allegedly billionaire real estate developer who shits in a gold toilet and eats documents to destroy written records.
as BLM/antifa had to demonstrate against
You misspelled raped, murdered and committed acts of arson against INNOCENT people, many acts based just upon the race of the victims.
SCUM
But enough about cops.
Cops controlled by Democrat politicians! The party over ever-invasive government!
So it's okay to defund them!
If you hate black crime victims, sure -- whatever floats your boat
Make up your mind!
You doing OK, man?
Yes, I remember the pogroms against white people that swept the land.
Congrats to Dan Crenshaw on having an opinion, I guess. Everyone is welcome to their opinion.
Um, you understand that the relevant news hook here is not that Crenshaw "has an opinion." It's that he's reporting facts: that the GOP knew it was a lie and admitted as such privately.
I mean, the rest of us all knew that already, but he's providing firsthand confirmation of it.
...and as the Sun sets slowly here in the east another thread winds down as VC commenters await election results to rearm for tomorrows comments.
Why on earth would you believe anything Dan Crenshaw has to say, PARTICULARLY when he is curiously reluctant to name names of the people he claims are making statements.
Your whole article is based on Crenshaw's statements, with no apparent attempt to determine if they are true.
Crenshaw is playing you for a fool, and you fell for it.
w.
It's called a "statement against interest."