Conservative publication fact checks election fraud stories

"All of these claims, with the exception of the absentee Georgia ballots (which seemed like honest confusion and could actually have hurt Joe Biden if true, given his general advantage in mailed-in ballots), were shared to bolster the claim that the election was stolen from Donald Trump. And all of them, with the exception of the claim that Pennsylvania reported a batch of ballots all for Biden, were false. (Even that one was missing some context.)" - The Dispatch

6587 reads

There are 175 Comments

RajeshG's picture

This source asserts that there is statistical evidence that there was widespread election fraud in this election:

https://www.newsmax.com/bruceabramson/fraud/2020/11/13/id/996950/

From this article:

The sole anomaly arose around the most critical number: zero. Based on current tabulations, four states cluster around the zero, showing a victory margin of less than 1%. All four show Biden ahead: Georgia (0.2%), Arizona (0.5%), Pennsylvania (0.7%), and Wisconsin (0.7%). That heavy skew towards one side is statistically anomalous — occurring with probability less than 0.01 (one chance in 100).

 

This finding is robust. Thresholds other than 1% yield similar results. Combined with other statistical anomalies pointing in the same direction; the reports and affidavits of irregularities in ballot printing, distribution, collection and tallying; and the numerous warnings prior to the election that the procedural changes many states put into place compromised the integrity of the election; by far the most likely conclusion is these data were manipulated to favor Biden.

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

It's fantasy. What matters in cases of fraud is evidence of specific crimes. It may be possible to manipulate data to suggest some kind of general pattern of foul play, and that sort thing more than meets the standard for supporting conspiracy theories (a very low standard to say the least), but it doesn't hold weight in a court of law.

I also get the impression the author is not familiar with all the barriers in place that make large scale fraud like he's suggesting ("millions of votes") extremely difficult. If it happened, there will be specific evidence.

Interestingly, we have a state senator here in western Wis. who has considerable experience with how elections actually work. An excerpt from her newsletter 11/13 (emphasis added). (Republican, by the way: Kathy Bernier)

As a former county clerk and the current head of the Senate committee dealing with elections law, I strongly believe that the integrity of our elections and the public’s faith in those elections is of paramount importance for our Republic. That’s why I have spent the last several years working to strengthen our elections law, increasing security and transparency, while ensuring that all municipalities across the state are following every aspect of our elections law. Although we are taking allegations of voter fraud seriously, I want all Wisconsinites to know that in recent years we have adopted many election safeguards like Voter ID and uniform early voting rules that make voter fraud in Wisconsin difficult to accomplish, especially on a large scale.

Local election officials are now in the process of certifying the election at the municipal and county levels, before the results undergo the state certification process. Vote numbers from election night are considered preliminary results and are not official until canvassed. After every election the county board of canvass meets. There is always a county clerk, a Democrat and a Republican represented on that board. They will review the results, vote totals for all races, total number of ballots and the final number of voters on the voter rolls. If those numbers do not match it will be noticed. In addition, there will be random audits of numerous polling locations from around the state. Those audits will be available for public inspection.

Most states have similar procedures, but in each state it's a bit different. So the kind of large scale manipulation the article wants us to believe happened would require multiple distinct breaches of security at multiple levels in multiple states. "Improbable" is understatement.

In any case, where evidence of fraud, etc., can be produced, the courts will require various corrective measures. In some cases, hand recounts will happen. I'm not a prophet or a betting man, but I really don't think hand counts will change totals much or the final outcome at all.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

dgszweda's picture

RajeshG wrote:

This source asserts that there is statistical evidence that there was widespread election fraud in this election:

https://www.newsmax.com/bruceabramson/fraud/2020/11/13/id/996950/

Rajesh, a few items you need to be careful about.  First, the source, newsmax, is highly biased to the right.  All things are biased.  And things biased to one extreme can still generate truth.  What I tend to try to do is to capture news across the spectrum.  I read between 10-20 news sources a day across both far left, moderate and far right, including those that present high factual and others that produce more opinion pieces.  This gives me a better pulse of the truth.  What you are finding is that the idea of large scale fraud or anomolies is only found in the far rigth news outlets with limited to moderate factual writing.  Even right news outlets like Fox is not propogating these stories anymore.  So you need to be careful.  Second, the article purports that statistical evidence shows that fraud was committed.  The problem is that it doesn't show actual fraud.  This is the problem that the lawsuits are having.  A whole slew, I believe 10 were thrown out on Friday.  All of them are being thrown out for lack of evidence.  Not poor evidence, and not some evidence that doesn't meet a threshhold, but absolutely no evidence that fraud was being committed or that any counts have been affected.  Even the one that was won on Thursday was only about a handful of votes, they were not even counted yet, and had nothing to do with fraud, but a rule that was changed that the court ruled could not be done.  Two law firms have now abandoned Trumps lawsuits, because they are increasingly getting cited for lack of ethics and potential contempt because they are knowingly bringing forth frivolous lawsuits with no evidence.  Third, the problem with the statistical model you cited is that voting does not necessarily follow a determine set of guidelines that makes statistical modeling accurate.  Behaviors and how those behaviors translate into voting can in many cases not follow statistical models.  This is why everyone thought Trump was going to loose to Clinton in 2016.

RajeshG's picture

dgszweda wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

This source asserts that there is statistical evidence that there was widespread election fraud in this election:

https://www.newsmax.com/bruceabramson/fraud/2020/11/13/id/996950/

 

 

Rajesh, a few items you need to be careful about.  First, the source, newsmax, is highly biased to the right.  All things are biased.  And things biased to one extreme can still generate truth.  What I tend to try to do is to capture news across the spectrum.  I read between 10-20 news sources a day across both far left, moderate and far right, including those that present high factual and others that produce more opinion pieces.  This gives me a better pulse of the truth.  What you are finding is that the idea of large scale fraud or anomolies is only found in the far rigth news outlets with limited to moderate factual writing.  Even right news outlets like Fox is not propogating these stories anymore.  So you need to be careful.  Second, the article purports that statistical evidence shows that fraud was committed.  The problem is that it doesn't show actual fraud.  This is the problem that the lawsuits are having.  A whole slew, I believe 10 were thrown out on Friday.  All of them are being thrown out for lack of evidence.  Not poor evidence, and not some evidence that doesn't meet a threshhold, but absolutely no evidence that fraud was being committed or that any counts have been affected.  Even the one that was won on Thursday was only about a handful of votes, they were not even counted yet, and had nothing to do with fraud, but a rule that was changed that the court ruled could not be done.  Two law firms have now abandoned Trumps lawsuits, because they are increasingly getting cited for lack of ethics and potential contempt because they are knowingly bringing forth frivolous lawsuits with no evidence.  Third, the problem with the statistical model you cited is that voting does not necessarily follow a determine set of guidelines that makes statistical modeling accurate.  Behaviors and how those behaviors translate into voting can in many cases not follow statistical models.  This is why everyone thought Trump was going to loose to Clinton in 2016.

David, since you consider yourself to be so well-informed and others of us not to be, it would be good to get a key explanation from you. On the night of the election, all of the states that Biden has suspiciously "won" stopped counting when Trump was way ahead in those states. As we know, "miraculously" Biden has "won" everyone of them. Why did they all stop counting on that night?

Also, suppose that the situation was the opposite. Suppose that Biden was ahead by hundreds of thousands of votes in 5 remaining states on the night of the election, etc. Suppose all of those states just happened to stop counting on that night and then one by one all of them were "won" by Trump. I seriously doubt that you and others would be just saying, "Oh, well. Nothing to see here. Move on. Votes do not follow statistical models. Etc."

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

David, since you consider yourself to be so well-informed and others of us not to be, it would be good to get a key explanation from you. On the night of the election, all of the states that Biden has suspiciously "won" stopped counting when Trump was way ahead in those states. As we know, "miraculously" Biden has "won" everyone of them. Why did they all stop counting on that night?

Also, suppose that the situation was the opposite. Suppose that Biden was ahead by hundreds of thousands of votes in 5 remaining states on the night of the election, etc. Suppose all of those states just happened to stop counting on that night and then one by one all of them were "won" by Trump. I seriously doubt that you and others would be just saying, "Oh, well. Nothing to see here. Move on. Votes do not follow statistical models. Etc."

Wait, I thought the suspicious thing was that states kept counting the votes into the middle of the night. Now you are telling me they stopped. Can you tell me which states you are talking about that stopped and the times at which each of them stopped? Since you are so well informed, you must know that, since that is the point you are making.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

David, since you consider yourself to be so well-informed and others of us not to be, it would be good to get a key explanation from you. On the night of the election, all of the states that Biden has suspiciously "won" stopped counting when Trump was way ahead in those states. As we know, "miraculously" Biden has "won" everyone of them. Why did they all stop counting on that night?

Also, suppose that the situation was the opposite. Suppose that Biden was ahead by hundreds of thousands of votes in 5 remaining states on the night of the election, etc. Suppose all of those states just happened to stop counting on that night and then one by one all of them were "won" by Trump. I seriously doubt that you and others would be just saying, "Oh, well. Nothing to see here. Move on. Votes do not follow statistical models. Etc."

 

Wait, I thought the suspicious thing was that states kept counting the votes into the middle of the night. Now you are telling me they stopped. Can you tell me which states you are talking about that stopped and the times at which each of them stopped? Since you are so well informed, you must know that, since that is the point you are making.

I do not have any independent information of my own to provide to you.
 
Apparently, there is much dispute about what actually happened in those states:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/04/facebook-posts/battleg...

Let the process of the court cases, etc. work itself out and time will tell.

Bert Perry's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

David, since you consider yourself to be so well-informed and others of us not to be, it would be good to get a key explanation from you. On the night of the election, all of the states that Biden has suspiciously "won" stopped counting when Trump was way ahead in those states. As we know, "miraculously" Biden has "won" everyone of them. Why did they all stop counting on that night?

Also, suppose that the situation was the opposite. Suppose that Biden was ahead by hundreds of thousands of votes in 5 remaining states on the night of the election, etc. Suppose all of those states just happened to stop counting on that night and then one by one all of them were "won" by Trump. I seriously doubt that you and others would be just saying, "Oh, well. Nothing to see here. Move on. Votes do not follow statistical models. Etc."

 

Wait, I thought the suspicious thing was that states kept counting the votes into the middle of the night. Now you are telling me they stopped. Can you tell me which states you are talking about that stopped and the times at which each of them stopped? Since you are so well informed, you must know that, since that is the point you are making.

One thing that's very interesting here is that you've got one body of allegations--those involving the software, mail ballot regulations, and the like, which are mostly being swatted down in court.  You've got another--that poll watchers were forced out in several places and that people were working until the wee hours--that really hasn't been touched.

Now the trouble with the latter is that due to anonymous ballots, it's going to be awfully hard to track down whatever number of votes were fraudulent.  But again, the very fact that the law was broken to evict Republican poll watchers is enough, really, to indicate some indication of intent to commit fraud.  So is the fact that large liberal cities were doing ballot counting into the wee hours--again, very few people do their best work at 3am, so it is to start a horrendous way of ensuring sound voting.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Kevin Miller's picture

Bert Perry wrote:
But again, the very fact that the law was broken to evict Republican poll watchers is enough, really, to indicate some indication of intent to commit fraud. 
In which cities were all of the Republican poll watchers evicted? I know of some cities where the Republicans watchers wanted to stand closer to the counters, but in which ones were they evicted?

Joel Shaffer's picture

Definitely not Detroit Michigan. In fact, Trump-appointed conservative judge Timothy Kelly threw out the case where the Republican pollsters cried foul and fraud.  

“Sinister, fraudulent motives were ascribed to the process and the city of Detroit,” the judge wrote, but he found that this “interpretation of events is incorrect and not credible.”

Judge Kenny focused on a walk-through held at the TCF Center on Oct. 29, overseen by Christopher Thomas, who served in senior positions in the state’s bureau of elections for 40 years until 2017 and then came back to help Detroit run its election.

“None of the plaintiff challenge affiants attended the session,” Kenny wrote, referring to the individuals who registered complaints. Thomas worked with numerous other challengers to resolve questions, the judge noted.

This judgment aligned with the city’s own response to the suit, which said that “most of the objections raised in the submitted affidavits are grounded in an extraordinary failure to understand how elections function.”

As for the one city employee who made allegations of other city workers “coaching” voters in how to vote, Kenny noted that her complaints were “serious” but lacking in specifics. “It asserts behavior with no date, location, frequency, or names of employees,” he wrote.

And the judge said the social media postings of at least one person who made allegations, Patrick Colbeck, undermine “his credibility as a witness.” The city’s legal response included screenshots of some of Colbeck’s postings, which talked about a rigged election weeks before Election Day. 

Other people in the suit made references to the QAnon conspiracy theory in their social media posts."

https://news.yahoo.com/michigan-judge-trump-lawsuit-cheating-claims-elections-214059509.html

When I see articles like this, I really wonder if skeptical conservatives that believe there was widespread fraud have voluntarily locked themselves in a conservative-media bubble where they only hear their biased interpretation of events, rather than the actual truth itself.  We definitely live in a post-truth culture and it's not just the progressives/liberals that are peddling false narratives. As this election has shown, it is also political conservatives too.  

Bert Perry's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

Bert Perry wrote:
But again, the very fact that the law was broken to evict Republican poll watchers is enough, really, to indicate some indication of intent to commit fraud. 

In which cities were all of the Republican poll watchers evicted? I know of some cities where the Republicans watchers wanted to stand closer to the counters, but in which ones were they evicted?

Let's ask the question differently.  In which of the cities where poll watcher evictions were noted--Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, etc..--were there adequate numbers of poll watchers admitted as prescribed by law.  Having seen the counting rooms--large rooms with hundreds of people doing the counting--I have to suggest that "more than zero" is anything but an adequate implementation of the law, which requires equal access for both major parties' poll watchers.

Really, if a city allows fewer poll watchers of one major party when poll watchers of that party are available. that's reason for suspicion.  The law says equal access.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Kevin Miller's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Let's ask the question differently.  In which of the cities where poll watcher evictions were noted--Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, etc..--were there adequate numbers of poll watchers admitted as prescribed by law. 

Let me ask the question differently as well. Do we have the names of any of the individuals from Detroit, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh who were doing their jobs as poll watchers when they were asked by the election officials to leave the polling places? Have any of them specifically come forward to stand in front of a judge to make that claim?

Bert Perry's picture

Kevin, it's my impression that people have come forward under their own names, yes.   Here's a source:

https://www.newsweek.com/michigan-election-affidavits-fraud-trump-1546698

Are all affidavits filed by poll workers?  Of course not.  But there's enough complaint to justify a better response than "there was at least one poll watcher in our ten thousand square foot counting rooms."

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

RajeshG's picture

RajeshG's picture

https://spectator.org/what-we-must-believe-to-believe-biden-won/?fbclid=...

From this article:

In the end, to accept Joe Biden as our legitimate Chief Executive, we must believe the voters hammered the Democrats in congressional, state, and local elections, yet decided to elect the “leader” of their party president. We must believe that he dramatically underperformed among minority voters, yet received 10 million more votes than Barack Obama. We must believe that virtually all of the reliable election bellwethers were wrong. We must believe that all of the elections in the swing states were conducted honestly and that the Venezuelan software used to tabulate the votes was secure. All of this beggars belief. Joe Biden may be inaugurated in January, but he certainly wasn’t elected president.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

https://spectator.org/what-we-must-believe-to-believe-biden-won/?fbclid=...

From this article:

In the end, to accept Joe Biden as our legitimate Chief Executive, we must believe the voters hammered the Democrats in congressional, state, and local elections, yet decided to elect the “leader” of their party president.

That's not hard to believe. I voted Republican for congressional. state, and local offices, but I didn't vote for Trump for president. It's easy for me to believe that many other people did the same.

Quote:
We must believe that he dramatically underperformed among minority voters, yet received 10 million more votes than Barack Obama.
The fact that there were about 25 million more votes in this election than in 2012 makes this rather easy to believe

Quote:
We must believe that virtually all of the reliable election bellwethers were wrong.
I don't think there were very many election bellwethers that were saying Trump would win.

Quote:
We must believe that all of the elections in the swing states were conducted honestly and that the Venezuelan software used to tabulate the votes was secure.
I certainly believe that election officials take their jobs seriously and that there are multiple checks within the system to combat any software errors.

Quote:
All of this beggars belief. Joe Biden may be inaugurated in January, but he certainly wasn’t elected president.
The votes of the American people say differently.

 

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

 

Quote:
We must believe that virtually all of the reliable election bellwethers were wrong.

I don't think there were very many election bellwethers that were saying Trump would win.

 

 

Concerning the election bellwethers in this election, here's an article that helps:

https://trendingpolitics.com/wsj-s-post-election-analysis-of-bellwether-...

From this article:

From 1980 through 2016, 19 of the nation’s more than 3,000 counties voted for the eventual president in every election. Only one of them, Washington state’s Clallam County, backed President-elect Joe Biden last week.

 

The point is that unlike every other Presidential election since 1980, 18 of the 19 bellwether counties did not back the one who "won" the election--Biden. Instead, those 18 bellwether counties all voted for the "loser" in this election--Trump.

Joel Shaffer's picture

RajeshG, 

the spectator article indirectly stereotypes African-American voters, as if they wouldn't vote for Biden more than Obama.  Hogwash!  From my connections with both Grand Rapids area blacks and Detroit blacks through various inner-city community organizations and churches, this was probably the biggest voting drive done by blacks that I've seen in my lifetime, including when Obama was president. Even though Trump was able to garner more black voters than any other Republican, it's because he energized blacks from the Health and Wealth Gospel Churches, along with the usual small group of conservative African Americans that usually vote Republican.  

The majority of African-Americans want police reform, plain and simple. After the unjust tragic deaths of Amaud Arbery and George Floyd, the enormous amount of blacks backed Biden because Trump only spoke of law and order, while Biden talked about reform despite the slander by conservatives (even here on Sharper Iron) that tried to link Biden and the Democratic Platform to the extreme elements of the democratic party (AOC and the Squad) who favored crazy policies that defunded the police.  In the minds of many African-Americans, their lives depended on it which is why they voted for Biden. To be honest, I'm sick and tired of false narratives about African-Americans who my fellow conservatives know little about and barely have any relationships with because they are so locked into their conservative media echo chamber.  They rely on political hacks such as Candace Owens and Larry Elder to confirm their biases about black people and black culture.     

G. N. Barkman's picture

Joel, I have several Blacks in my church.  One couple supported Biden.  They were active in Democratic politics long before they became members of our church.  At their age, I don't expect that will change.  Our congregation loves them, and respects their choices.  (We also have at least one White member who supported Biden.)

Another Black couple strongly supported Trump.  When I first heard this it surprised me.  This man tells me that many of his Black friends supported Trump.  Interesting.

A third Black member did not express his voting preference, and I certainly did not ask.  He has made comments about his opposition to defunding the police, and the criminal behavior of the BLM movement.  I wouldn't be surprised if he voted for Trump, but won't know unless he tells me.  I know I don't have the breadth of experience with Black Americans that you do, but you are not the only one who interacts with Blacks.  It seems to me that Black Americans are beginning to loosen their loyalty to Democrats.

G. N. Barkman

Joel Shaffer's picture

I am not saying that black people necessarily vote monolithic. One of the black men that I disciple voted for Trump. Another who is on staff with me probably did 3rd party. I know several conservative blacks in Grand Rapids that voted for Trump in 2016 but voted for Biden or 3rd party because Tim Scott was the only Republican that was pushing hard for some type of Police reform and other aspects of Criminal Justice Reform because the other Republicans were too frightened of the powerful police unions and the Private Prison lobby.  Out of the several hundred blacks that I have an ongoing relationship with, only a handful advocate for police defunding.   But the fact still stands that, although Trump received more black votes than any other Republican in history, an enormously huge group of African-Americans (some of which didn't even care for Biden) in the inner-cities and old suburbs voted for Biden in larger number numbers than Obama ever did because of the president's posture of law and order with nothing to say about reform.   When conservative media talking heads resort to conspiracy theories about voting in the 'hood, it demonstrates to me how culturally unaware they are of the distrust that so many African-American folks in higher crime areas have of the police.  I am blown away at the arrogance of so many of my fellow conservatives that believe if you just get a Republican mayor or that you get Republican-controlled bureaucrats to run the city, magically the city will experience reductions in crime and other social pathologies.  It is much much more complicated than just electing the people with your political ideology. And it's so much more complicated because of the pervasive nature of sin that has affected every aspect of government and policy and the people who run the government as well as those who are their constituents. 

The vast majority of blacks that I know have some values akin to conservatives and if the Republican platform would include Police Reform, Health Care for everyone (there are conservative ways to make it cheap without universal government, but the Health Insurance Lobby won't allow it) Immigration Reform, and solutions for the housing crisis and where the Republican party was advocating a womb-to-the-tomb Pro-life ethic, you'd have a huge, mass exodus to the Republican party.   Black radical social critic Michael Dyson made this observation about 3 years ago.  He himself is a progressive (probably leans socialist), but publicly said that if the Republicans made a more intentional outreach into the black community that went beyond just talking about marriage/fatherlessness and had conservative solutions to social issues such as police reform, health care, immigration reform, the housing crisis, and etc... Republicans would be the party of black folks. In one way, Trump has shown to Republicans reaching out to black folks can be done, but there needs to be much more.  If Republicans would adopt some of the Libertarian solutions to alleviating poverty, criminal justice reform, housing, and immigration, you would see a massive shift towards their party.  But right now, they won't because of powerful lobby groups and because blacks still trust the Democrats more (which isn't saying much). 

Ken S's picture

Joel Shaffer wrote:

The vast majority of blacks that I know have some values akin to conservatives and if the Republican platform would include Police Reform, Health Care for everyone (there are conservative ways to make it cheap without universal government, but the Health Insurance Lobby won't allow it) Immigration Reform, and solutions for the housing crisis and where the Republican party was advocating a womb-to-the-tomb Pro-life ethic, you'd have a huge, mass exodus to the Republican party.  

You've just listed in a nutshell my major gripes with the Republican party. I'm white and a registered Republican, but really wish that these issues were addressed in their platform.

Paul Henebury's picture

Round and round we go  Smile

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

pvawter's picture

Tonight the WI Election Commission is meeting to discuss the recount petition filed by the Trump campaign. It's interesting to read the comments by the board's partisan members. The Democrat members are discussing rule changes proposed by staff members after the Trump campaign filed for a recount. Regardless of how you feel about the President or the likelihood of some sort of fraud or other irregularity affecting the outcome of the election, does this kind of thing produce confidence in the system or does it simply add fuel to the fire?

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Trump campaign has spent 3 million for recount in parts of Wisconsin. It won't make much difference. Looks like the Wis Election Commission squabbling has to do with recounting procedural technicalities... and proposed changes didn't get anywhere. If they had, I'm sure there would have been another legal challenge.

The commissioners deadlocked on making changes to the manual that Democrats and elections commission staff said would bring the guidance into line with current state law. Republicans balked, saying the guidelines should not be changed after Trump filed for the recount.

Their inability to agree leaves in place guidance that says absentee ballot applications must be approved as part of the recount, even though commission staff said that’s not required under the law.  AP

 

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

pvawter's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:

Trump campaign has spent 3 million for recount in parts of Wisconsin. It won't make much difference. Looks like the Wis Election Commission squabbling has to do with recounting procedural technicalities... and proposed changes didn't get anywhere. If they had, I'm sure there would have been another legal challenge.

The commissioners deadlocked on making changes to the manual that Democrats and elections commission staff said would bring the guidance into line with current state law. Republicans balked, saying the guidelines should not be changed after Trump filed for the recount.

Their inability to agree leaves in place guidance that says absentee ballot applications must be approved as part of the recount, even though commission staff said that’s not required under the law.  AP

 

Right. If they wanted to put to rest the Trump campaign's fraud allegations and conspiracy theories, they're doing it very badly.

Pages