Conservative publication fact checks election fraud stories

The Supreme Court has been mentioned more than once in this thread. The point seems to be that because the Supreme Court has not ruled that there is evidence of fraud that all such claims are bogus.

What? I am not aware that anyone has asked the Supreme Court to rule on anything regarding the election at this time. With pronouncements like this, the case against the probability of voter fraud must be weak. Time will tell. The Supreme Court may get involved at some point, but that time is not yet.

Justice Alito: Mail-in ballots received after Election Day in Pennsylvania must be kept separate

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alito-mail-in-ballots-pennsylvania

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has issued a temporary order requiring Pennsylvania elections officials to segregate ballots received after 8 p.m. on Election Day.

The move grants a GOP request, at least for now, to place the ballots in a secure, sealed container and have them counted separately, if at all.

The Pennsylvania GOP asked the Supreme Court for an emergency order after it was unable to get at least 25 of the county boards to confirm they were already doing that, and Alito agreed.

He declined to address a separate request for an emergency order to stop those ballots from being tallied.

Alito, who was nominated by former President George W. Bush, said that the court had not previously been informed on state guidance handed down to counties on Oct. 28 about what to do with ballots received between the 8 p.m. Nov. 3 deadline and Friday, Nov. 6

There is a petition on the merits of the case still pending before the Supreme Court — which could potentially step in to overturn the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and void votes after they have been cast in a state that has the potential to decide the presidential election.

Alito has ordered the opposing side to file a response by 2 p.m. Saturday.

Republicans had sued in a bid to make sure the late-arriving ballots were segregated in the hope that another lawsuit aiming to disallow the state from counting ballots that arrived after Election Day would be successful.

Democrats had asked the court to hold off on taking any action on the Republicans’ request.

As of 8 p.m. Friday, former Vice President Joe Biden was leading President Trump in the state by about 20,000 votes. On Wednesday, Trump was leading Biden by hundreds of thousands of votes in Pennsylvania. Just before midnight Thursday, the president’s lead shrank to around 24,000.

The Trump campaign and Republican groups have filed multiple lawsuits in connection with disputed ballots, alleged procedural missteps and the validity of deadlines. It is part of an effort to hold on in the key swing state, which carries 20 Electoral College votes.

[dgszweda]

No evidence to date. Claims? Yes. Real evidence? None.

I see. So affidavits and personal testimony are NOT real. Got it. As I understand our legal system, it’s up to the courts to determine whether any evidence, including affidavits, are valid evidence. Since I don’t know the credibility of those making the affidavits, I can’t make a judgment on how valid they are myself, but I also know that without going through the legal process, they can’t just be dismissed either, as apparently many are willing to do.

Really, I don’t see what the problem is with using every legal means to validate the results. If all the challenges are struck down as adding up to nothing, then so be it. I still believe it’s worth the expense to go through the process. Think that’s too expensive? Then we should pass laws that tighten up our election process, clean up the voter rolls, require ID (like most more “advanced” nations already do), make ballots nearly impossible to fake and validate them with cryptographic hashes or similar, and don’t just send masses of blank ones out that can be used by anyone. Even if there is NO fraud (which I don’t believe for a minute, even if it’s only a tiny amount), our process lends itself quite well to the possibility, and the doors to those possibilities should be closed. Hard.

Thanks, Adam, for the detailed information regarding involvement by the Supreme Court. As soon as I read your comments, I remembered the ruling by Alito, which had previously slipped my mind.

I stand corrected.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

In a legal sense, witness testimony with affidavits — of course, that’s evidence.

But define it however you want, if that fits your narrative. But don’t expect us to buy it.

[Adam Blumer]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

In a legal sense, witness testimony with affidavits — of course, that’s evidence.

But define it however you want, if that fits your narrative. But don’t expect us to buy it.

That is not evidence of fraud. It is just evidence. Fraud is a finding. An affidavit is evidence, but not proof. These are being thrown out left and right because they are hearsay, or ideas, and not an indication of fraud. An affidavit means nothing in and of itself. Rudy is flinging affidavits all around, trying to provide some legitimacy to what he is touting. Most people buy into it because it sounds official and it must be proof. I am not sure Rudy is that smart anyway, so he might even think they really mean something.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/09/repub…

“A Michigan judge threw out a Trump campaign lawsuit last week seeking an order that the Secretary of State provide “meaningful access” for observers to watch ballot counting and allow it to view videotaped surveillance of ballot drop boxes.

The judge said the secretary had already issued a directive providing access to observers, the counting was complete, and there was no legal basis to provide videos. The judge dismissed as hearsay an affidavit from a Republican poll watcher in Detroit alleging she heard about a date on a ballot being improperly altered. “

That didn’t work, so let’s use new definitions?

Now it’s “evidence of fraud.”

The evidence we’ve been talking about has always been evidence of fraud. That’s what the witness testimonies with affidavits are all about.

Nice try to deflect.

Evidence is what gets presented in court, and yes, affidavits filed claiming exclusion of poll watchers and backdating of ballots would qualify. What Dave is talking about is convictions, and given the glacial pace of most court actions, of course those haven’t occurred yet. It’s a nice case of “Lucy with the football”, really. The flip side is that the arguments against that would also qualify.

(I agree that Giuliani’s sloppiness is not heartening to anyone who supports the President’s cause, but let’s not assume that because he’s getting things thrown out—often for procedural issues—that that means there is no evidence. )

Regarding the claim that all is well regarding the software, it’s actually a bit worse than I’d stated before, because what’s at hand is a very specific script that will change with each county/town’s ballot—and apparently whatever issues were down-ballot affected the top, and in a very predictable way. Before I’d say all is well, I’d insist on a thorough look wherever the software was used, all the way through the ballot.

So claiming all is well, a bit hasty on the MI SOS’s office, especially given that the company’s software is apparently used in a bunch of other states where MI SOS does not have jurisdiction.

So far, we have documented a Trump supporter in PA attempting to have his dead mother vote for Trump (the tweet from PA Lt. Gov. Fetterman to Texas Lt. Gov. Patrick is priceless). And, a USPS “whistler blower” perjured himself and conned Trump supporters into donating $130K to his Gofund me page. Oh, and all those “dead voters” in MI, well, to be blunt, just don’t exist. But CNN did the fact checking so, of course, the facts will be discarded for the relativism of OAN, Newsmax, Breitbart, Infowars, and the scores of other alt-right sites with their lips firmly ensconced around the teats of power hoping for any drips and dribbles they may get.

1. The media is reporting all this stuff, they just also happen to be including the refutations. And contradicting Trump is high heresy. … This is like every time I see someone post “WHY ISN’T THE MEDIA TALKING ABOUT THIS?!?!?” and I’ve already read about “this” on a main stream media site.

2. Trump laid the groundwork for this grift months ago. Sadly, it’s going to end very badly.

3. The PA lawsuit filed by Trump is laughable. Has anyone other than dgszweda read it, I wonder.

4. Everyone else is lying, but a known, documented serial liar and serial adulterer who hasn’t met a bankruptcy he doesn’t love is suddenly the paragon of truth.

5. dgszweda, you’re spitting into the wind, brother. Wanted to jump in so that you know you’re not alone. Just keep in mind Proverbs 26:4.

I’m out. This is nonsense and embarrassing. Shame on most of you.

https://twitter.com/JohnFetterman/status/1326311204923576321

I have nothing to be ashamed of. Why try to shame us just because we have different views than you do?

John said: “. Oh, and all those “dead voters” in MI, well, to be blunt, just don’t exist.”

Not according to the Michigan Secretary of State’s office. Now we don’t know how many “dead voters” didn’t get caught, but we do know that the MI SOS caught a bunch of ‘em, which indicates that there are a lot of people trying to “vote while dead”, an unknown quantity of whom did not get caught. So to state “there are no dead voters” really assumes an audit that hasn’t been done.

[Bert Perry]

John said: “. Oh, and all those “dead voters” in MI, well, to be blunt, just don’t exist.”

Not according to the Michigan Secretary of State’s office. Now we don’t know how many “dead voters” didn’t get caught, but we do know that the MI SOS caught a bunch of ‘em, which indicates that there are a lot of people trying to “vote while dead”, an unknown quantity of whom did not get caught. So to state “there are no dead voters” really assumes an audit that hasn’t been done.

Of course, your post is from a different election, not the one that we are talking about in this thread. And yes, votes come in from dead people. If you know anything about elections, it is pretty common. People still die in the US. So when they vote early, submit the vote and then die before election day, there vote doesn’t count. Of course the President’s actions on COVID have only increased this number this year.

[John E.]

5. dgszweda, you’re spitting into the wind, brother. Wanted to jump in so that you know you’re not alone. Just keep in mind Proverbs 26:4.

I’m out. This is nonsense and embarrassing. Shame on most of you.

https://twitter.com/JohnFetterman/status/1326311204923576321

Thanks. Yeah, I know. I was pretty bored today in meetings after meetings, so thought I would entertain myself some. Also, wanted to explore further on what made people tick who fall for this stuff. Obviously, it is those who get their news from Newsmax and other sites and don’t actually read information. I wouldn’t say these suits are getting thrown out over procedural elements, unless you include no evidence as a procedural issue. The rulings are almost comical. But of course no one wants to take the time to read those and understand them. They will just take the drivel from the narrative.

I want everyone to continue watching what this president does over the next two months. He will seek to burn down the government. He has started by firing key members of his team. He is a bully. He was one before he became president, he was that when he was a president, and you will see him exemplify this further over the next two months. This is what a narcisist does. But hey, he is against abortion, so maybe all of this other stuff should be ignored.

[dgszweda]

Of course the President’s actions on COVID have only increased this number this year.

Come on David, you’re better than that.

Ok. You are a Trump supporter who believes there was rampant voter fraud in the presidential election. What are you thinking will happen with all these lawsuits? Be specific please.