Trump Evangelical Advisers Back Voting Challenges But Stop Short of Alleging Fraud
Aaron Burr was a very talented individual. Is it really beyond the realm of possibility to believe he felt compelled to return from the dead to opine on the 2020 election? It would fit with the general otherworldliness of 2020!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Burr: Talk less. Smile more.
Sorry, couldn’t help thinking of Hamilton.
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
A potentially blockbuster video that may provide the Trump team with the “smoking gun” that many are demanding as proof of voter fraud:
WATCH: Video footage from Georgia shows suitcases filled with ballots pulled from under a table AFTER supervisors told poll workers to leave room and 4 people stayed behind to keep counting votes
You are posting more mud that doesn’t stick. This woman obviously does not understand how ballots work. Each ballot has a unique ballot tracking number (barcode) which is a mechanism to avoid duplicate counting (what she’s claiming). You can scan the same ballot a thousand times and the count would result to 1. Again, Trump court-appointed judge Timothy Kelly dismissed her testimony/affidavit because it wasn’t credible. So much of the “evidence” that is being presented is actually ignorance on the part of poll observers, and in this case, a subcontractor of Dominion.
[Joel Shaffer]You are posting more mud that doesn’t stick. This woman obviously does not understand how ballots work. Each ballot has a unique ballot tracking number (barcode) which is a mechanism to avoid duplicate counting (what she’s claiming). You can scan the same ballot a thousand times and the count would result to 1. Again, Trump court-appointed judge Timothy Kelly dismissed her testimony/affidavit because it wasn’t credible. So much of the “evidence” that is being presented is actually ignorance on the part of poll observers, and in this case, a subcontractor of Dominion.
Without making a judgment as to whether anything wrong occurred here, I can say from my experience as a software engineer who writes firmware for wireless cards, and who has been in the business more than 30 years, that if the civil authorities are not given access to 100% of the source code that was in use at the time on the voting machines (with a way to verify that the source code provided actually matches the binaries running at the time that the votes were counted), then the software can do literally *anything* with the vote numbers, no matter what supposed safeguards are in place. Whether that actually happened or not is up to people with access to decide. But to just trust software as doing the right thing (when the vendor has resisted showing all the source code on the grounds of “proprietary secrets”) is completely crazy.
I’ve seen another recent article that argued that all voting machine software needs to be “open source” (where anyone can look at the code and verify that it does what it says it does). (BTW, that’s exactly what is done for much of the trusted encryption software in use everywhere.) There’s absolutely no way that the software that counts the votes for public elections should be only in private hands, no matter whose hands they are. And having read much of the history of Dominion and what even democrats have said about it in the past when considering acquisition of their voting machines, it’s impossible to just “trust” that the right thing was done, if 100% of the hardware and software are not accessible to civil government, both those in the majority and the opposition. Interesting that you are even claiming a Dominion contractor/sub-contractor was “ignorant” of how the software worked. (I know you said “ballots,” but it’s how they are counted by the software that matters.)
As I posted weeks ago, it’s really easy to claim “no evidence,” when one is not allowed to look for it. If no phones, recordings, pictures, etc. are permitted by the observers, then guess what, there’s going to be “no evidence” other than testimony, which has been decried as “lies” by people much more ignorant of software engineering than a Dominion contractor. If either Dominion or the civil authorities want to clamp down on rumors, conspiracy theories, and the like, then there needs to be a complete audit of the software (every single part of it, including the supposed “proprietary” parts) by people other than those involved in writing it and running it on November 3rd. But no matter which way this whole process goes in the end, if the people permit it for elections in the future, then no election results can ever be trusted again, no matter who wins.
Dave Barnhart
[Joel Shaffer]You are entitled to your opinion, and you are wrong. I am not posting mud.You are posting more mud that doesn’t stick. This woman obviously does not understand how ballots work. Each ballot has a unique ballot tracking number (barcode) which is a mechanism to avoid duplicate counting (what she’s claiming). You can scan the same ballot a thousand times and the count would result to 1. Again, Trump court-appointed judge Timothy Kelly dismissed her testimony/affidavit because it wasn’t credible. So much of the “evidence” that is being presented is actually ignorance on the part of poll observers, and in this case, a subcontractor of Dominion.
I posted to a link that reported about eyewitness testimony by a Dominion subcontractor. To assert that she and all the other people in that hearing were clueless about understanding what you claim about that safeguard is ridiculous. Had what you said been true and commonly known to be an inviolable safeguard, she would be guilty of having borne fraudulent testimony and perjured herself. She would have been immediately called out in that hearing itself.
If you want to believe that nobody in that hearing understood such a basic thing that supposedly provides an inviolable safeguard for the ballots, that is your choice.
People who are intent on committing fraud obviously would seek knowledge about ways to overcome such safeguards and use that knowledge to do so.
As it stands, its your understanding against hers. I will go with her testimony, until it is proven to be false.
What’s the difference between “eyewitness testimony” and “rumor”?
It’s worth pondering in this context.
What we have a lot of these days is Christians “just passing on” a lot of claims they’ve seen on social media or wherever, without taking the time to do a thoughtful evaluation of credibility/probability.
So the question is, what’s the difference between that and “spreading rumors’? And what’s the difference between that and “bearing false witness”?
I’m not saying there’s no difference. I’m asking, what is the difference?
Take for example the infamous suitcase story that turned out to be completely bogus. How many conservatives and Christians spread claims and videos around on that? Was there at any point anything to raise those claims above the level of “random rumor”/gossip? If so, what was it?
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.
[Aaron Blumer]What’s the difference between “eyewitness testimony” and “rumor”?
It’s worth pondering in this context.
What we have a lot of these days is Christians “just passing on” a lot of claims they’ve seen on social media or wherever, without taking the time to do a thoughtful evaluation of credibility/probability.
Well, all of us still have to evaluate the credibility of sources, but it sounds like there are several hundred affidavits, sworn under penalty of perjury. Do we believe those, or at least believe in the sincerity of those who made them? Let me put it another way. Do we believe the multiple women who made claims against Bill Cosby, most without any other proof at all? Most people seem to think the numbers make the difference. Why should that be different with the election evidence? That question does deserve an answer, I believe, even though numbers alone don’t make the claims true.
At some point the amount and weight of evidence has to at least be taken into consideration. I will say this for myself: I know little enough about either what actually happened in the election or with Bill Cosby, that I can’t say for sure what really happened in either case. Is that unsatisfying? At some level, yes, but absent better knowledge or more trustworthy sources, I have to leave it at that.
As to whether we pass any of this information on, I’m mostly in the “no” category. Personally, I haven’t been sharing the various election news reports, either from the mainstream media or from those sites that have sprung up to give an opposing point of view, simply because at this point, I no longer know who or what to believe. It’s very obvious to me that most sources of information, no matter which one you pick, have an agenda that is more important for them to pass on than the truth. One of the reports I read yesterday quoted one of the judges as making a comment to lawyers in the case something like: “It’s obvious that your goal is not the truth but to win the election.”
I’m content to let this play out where it should, in the legislatures, courts, and other sources of governmental authority that have both the prerogative and means to do so. Does that mean I will ever really know the actual truth? Maybe not, but since I wasn’t one of the principals involved, with first hand knowledge of anything touching the processing, I don’t think it will help to pass on the latest “bombshell” or claim of “completely debunked” without knowing more than I do.
Dave Barnhart
We have two (at least) separate threads going on this topic now but I wanted make something available here on why a pile of sworn affidavits can sometimes be a pile of pretty much nothing.
A brief excerpt from a pretty good article…
One reason an affidavit may be inadmissible is due to the inclusion of hearsay. Many of the affiants in Trump lawsuits submitted affidavits alleging they heard someone say there was fraud, but didn’t have a first-hand account. In most cases, with some exceptions of course, hearsay is not admissible in court.
It’s very likely in a situation like this one, where a leader with a fanatical following encourages “everyone” to report the misdeeds he claims robbed him of his rightful power, that there would be lots of very low quality affidavits.
Still, it would be great if we could all see them. I think they probably are public record somewhere, but I don’t know where.
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.
[Aaron Blumer]I read the whole thing.We have two (at least) separate threads going on this topic now but I wanted make something available here on why a pile of sworn affidavits can sometimes be a pile of pretty much nothing.
A brief excerpt from a pretty good article…
One reason an affidavit may be inadmissible is due to the inclusion of hearsay. Many of the affiants in Trump lawsuits submitted affidavits alleging they heard someone say there was fraud, but didn’t have a first-hand account. In most cases, with some exceptions of course, hearsay is not admissible in court.
It’s very likely in a situation like this one, where a leader with a fanatical following encourages “everyone” to report the misdeeds he claims robbed him of his rightful power, that there would be lots of very low quality affidavits.
Still, it would be great if we could all see them. I think they probably are public record somewhere, but I don’t know where.
I watched more than an hour of the hearings before PA legislators and have seen some of the hearings in other states. To my recollection, the witnesses who have testified in those hearings have provided eyewitness testimonies of many irregularities in election procedures in PA and elsewhere.
I have taken sworn statements my entire life. My. Entire Life. I’m not sure how much more emphatic I can be that THIS IS LITERALLY MY JOB. I have been in government investigations my entire adult life. I promise you that sworn statements, in and of themselves, mean nothing. Nor does eyewitness testimony. People often don’t understand what they see.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]I have taken sworn statements my entire life. My. Entire Life. I’m not sure how much more emphatic I can be that THIS IS LITERALLY MY JOB. I have been in government investigations my entire adult life. I promise you that sworn statements, in and of themselves, mean nothing. Nor does eyewitness testimony. People often don’t understand what they see.
So in your experience, what are the approximate percentages of witnesses that lie, witnesses that are telling the truth as they see it but are wrong, and those that you determine to be reliable? I’m assuming the last of those is non-zero? When a witness is determined to be reliable, do you just ignore what is brought to you, or does it result in further investigation, or is it just shelved without other hard evidence, even if there are multiple testimonies/witnesses?
Or as you see it, are witnesses never telling the truth, and if they are, do they always misunderstand?
Dave Barnhart
[TylerR]Your extensive lifelong experience still does not qualify you to prejudge the veracity of eyewitness testimonies of wrongdoing. Unless you have personally watched the hearings and then personally investigated the claims of the eyewitnesses, you yourself are not in a credible position to say that their testimonies are false or not worth investigating further.I have taken sworn statements my entire life. My. Entire Life. I’m not sure how much more emphatic I can be that THIS IS LITERALLY MY JOB. I have been in government investigations my entire adult life. I promise you that sworn statements, in and of themselves, mean nothing. Nor does eyewitness testimony. People often don’t understand what they see.
If you say, well, the authorities involved have responded to the claims, that’s like taking the side of an alleged wrongdoer just because he denies what eyewitnesses say that he did. We need independent examinations of these eyewitness claims of wrongdoing by various election officials. So far, that has not been done with many of the claims of the eyewitnesses who have testified in these hearings.
If thorough, actual investigations disprove the claims, then we would know that they are false or not credible.
Your extensive lifelong experience still does not qualify you to prejudge the veracity of eyewitness testimonies of wrongdoing. Unless you have personally watched the hearings and then personally investigated the claims of the eyewitnesses, you yourself are not in a credible position to say that their testimonies are false or not worth investigating further.
Rajesh, you’re not alone in this thinking by a long shot… but there’s something huge missing in this.
Consider what these acts have in common:
- I got new tires and drove away without personally inspecting each tire and checking the torque on each lug nut. (I did come back after 50 miles to have them checked as they recommended)
- I had a biopsy taken and after I got the call with the results, accepted them as true without personally putting them under a microscope (or learning how to interpret what I would have seen if I did)
- I contributed funds all year long to my 401k and never once called up a mutual fund manager and asked to see all of his/her analysis for his buy/sell decisions
- I got a flu shot without personally testing it to see if it was safe and effective
- In 2019, I flew back and forth from Chicago without personally inspecting a single lever, bolt, screw, flap, or engine.
- Even in 2020, I’ve driven over dozens of bridges dozens of times without ever inspecting them first to see if they’re sturdy.
- I put money in the bank and never once checked the doors for secure locks, analyzed the computer systems for vulnerability to hacking, or verified that the security cameras work. Didn’t interview any personnel for their knowledge and experience in banking. Didn’t ask to see logs of teller activity in handling my funds. … and didn’t worry about any of that for a second.
I could go on. Here’s my point: we all rely on professionals with special expertise countless times every single day. We trust that they know their work better than we do and that it’s not our job to tell them how to do it… and that we’d probably get it wrong if we tried.
Yes, government is different. They work for “the people.” We’re entitled to know what goes on and if it was done right, etc. We’re also obligated to fully understand how it works before we cast judgment.
And both humility and charity demand that we respect their professionalism over the claims of people we don’t even know until there are solid verifiable facts indicating we should do otherwise.
In this case, we have clerks, other local officials, state officials, and judges who are trained, experienced, and responsible to do these things.
Could they mess up and should they be held accountable if they do? Sure. But sound judgment (added to the already noted charity and humility) demands that we recognize the probability is high that they know better than we do how to do their jobs. So, the starting point is not “they failed/did wrong” (because I didn’t lilke the result) until they can prove themselves innocent and competent. The starting point is “they did their job” until there are verifiable, factual reasons to think otherwise.
And yes, I’ve watched a good bit of hearings here in Wisconsin. It’s always insiteful to note who’s calm and fact focused vs. who’s emotionally repeating dramatic anecdotes and representing them as “facts.”
Example (you do have to register to view this, but it’s free). https://wiseye.org/2020/12/11/joint-committee-on-campaigns-and-election…
Nothing is being swept under the rug in Wisconsin. People are insisting on drawing verifiable fact-based conclusions, for the most part. Grown ups (for the most part) are running the show. It’s all been looked at and still getting looked at. The really goofy stuff is not being permitted to determine outcomes, though it is definitely being allowed to be heard. I find the process encouraging. They know what they’re doing.
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.
Discussion