The Fight for Election Integrity Continues -- Audits, Criminal Investigations, Legislative Reform

a reply to: network dude

Stop it from happening again. Bring in new Republican blood to make the party a majority in most of the nation. Then go back and prosecute anyone who broke 2020 election laws, by bypassing state legislatures, etc..

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: network dude

Did I or did I not specifically discus voter fraud in my comments? Legislative procedural issues are not what I am discussing.

did I write what I wrote? If so, then that is what I am discussing. I don't have the evidence for voter fraud. I stated that. I did try to explain why some of us are still concerned about this. If you want a win this bad, *POOF* you win. No voter fraud found. Q is wrong, and Trump isn't president. But the reasons why some of us question the integrity of the system were listed earlier.

originally posted by: network dude
did I write what I wrote? If so, then that is what I am discussing.

In response to my posts about fraud.

No voter fraud found. Q is wrong, and Trump isn't president.

No kidding, anyone looking at this critically will arrive at the same simple conclusions.

But the reasons why some of us question the integrity of the system were listed earlier.

What state legislatures did or did not do is an entirely different matter that has nothing to do with fraud. The entire conversation has morphed from 'Trump was cheated' to these issues and I am not discussing them at all.

a reply to: sciencelol

You should work on your reading comprehension, my comments are not a defense of anyone.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

'Rule changes' are not voter fraud, unless they were changed for one group, which they weren't.

Somehow I missed this earlier... but now that I've seen it, I have to comment.

Rule changes may not technically -- or even loosely -- be "voter fraud" or even "election fraud," but that doesn't mean it's okay, or that it cannot lead to or enable fraud of one sort or another.

When our County Recorder instructed election workers to refuse a new ballot to voters requesting one, he was not only changing rules, he was violating the law. He also instructed election workers to set those ballots aside to be "adjudicated" by an election worker. If those ballots were "adjudicated" incorrectly, i.e., if those election workers failed to correctly discern the voter's intent and gave their vote to the wrong candidate, that is probably not legally defined as "voter fraud," but it does result in a fraudulent vote, and a fraudulent ballot, and a fraudulent outcome.

When our county did not use the proper paper, they not only changed a rule, they broke the law. When election officials were ordered to give only Sharpies to voters and not allow ballpoint pens, they not only changed a rule, they broke the law. When that substandard paper and those faulty pens resulted in a spoiled ballots, as the County Recorder knew they would -- or, at least, should have known -- and those ballots were sent to adjudication, we are right back to the very real possibility of fraudulent votes, fraudulent ballots, and a fraudulent outcome.

For a more recent example, when Virginia recently decided to accept mail-in ballots without the last four digits of the voter's social security number, they not only changed a rule, they broke the law. And in so doing, they created a possibility of accepting and counting fraudulent ballots from fraudulent voters, thus resulting in a fraudulent outcome.

Distinctions are important. Legal distinctions are especially important. But just as important is the totality of evidence and circumstance. The rule change itself, the violation of the law itself, is not voter fraud or election fraud. But it most definitely enables and allows for both. It all has to be considered together to understand the big picture and keep it in proper perspective.

originally posted by: network dude
But the reasons why some of us question the integrity of the system were listed earlier.

You're right.

Those reason though, should have (and for me always have) been there as part of my normal day to day concern....it's not like something new that Trump or ANY president needed to have a light shone on me as a "wow i didnt know this could happen" moment.

If others were asleep at the wheel in years gone by thats on them, but they shouldn't be taking it out on the public or the people's only means of having a voice, by disrupting electoral certification processes with death and/or threats of hanging death and DEFINITELY not threatening death to elected officials and their families and young kids. This, however, is what's been happening.

originally posted by: Boadicea
Rule changes may not technically -- or even loosely -- be "voter fraud" or even "election fraud," but that doesn't mean it's okay, or that it cannot lead to or enable fraud of one sort or another.

I did not say it was right, and if it applies equally to everyone, despite it not being procedurally correct, then the availability is open to all.

a reply to: network dude

Don't let anyone forget that 101 Million 2020 votes were by mail (like 63%) 😈

And most of all votes (mail and "in person") were "counted" at locations other than the actually polling place (like "transported before counted") !!😈

And signature "verification" was done mostly by comparator machines set to "not so sensitive" 😈

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

I did not say it was right, and if it applies equally to everyone, despite it not being procedurally correct, then the availability is open to all.

Nope, you sure didn't -- and I didn't mean to imply that you did.

I should also add that I am not sure that any of what I spouted is a prosecutable crime, and I have never assumed that there are any prosecutable crimes, if for no other reason than laws are too often written to protect the guilty. But if there are, then I damn sure want them charged, prosecuted and judged by a jury of our peers!

Nor do I think anything can be done as a result to return Trump to the White House. That bell can't be unrung.

My best hope and goal is for necessary and proper election reform so that bell cannot be rung again.

originally posted by: Boadicea
I should also add that I am not sure that any of what I spouted is a prosecutable crime...

Let me make something clear, if anything was criminal it should be prosecuted. I just don't see any wide spread fraud, which is obviously criminal, what I do see is legislative issues that may not necessarily be criminal.

a reply to: Boadicea

My best hope and goal is for necessary and proper election reform so that bell cannot be rung again.

That was the point for all this.
Sunshine is good for everyone.

Thanks again for your efforts!

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Let me make something clear, if anything was criminal it should be prosecuted.

Thank you for clarifying for any/all who wondered or needed to know, but I never doubted that for a minute.

I just don't see any wide spread fraud, which is obviously criminal, what I do see is legislative issues that may not necessarily be criminal.

Again, no worries -- I get that, and don't necessarily disagree. The audit raised plenty of suspicions, and identified plenty of questionable events and incidents of all sorts, but we still have no hard answers, and it's impossible to accurately quantify what we do know. We need more facts. We need more specifics. We need more answers. But I will not rule out the worst unless and until we have those facts, those specifics, and those answers.

a reply to: shooterbrody

That was the point for all this.

Exactly! And from the start. There were always going to be side issues and inferences and implications, but the stated purpose of the audit was always to identify problem areas to inform and inspire appropriate election reform. That's it.

Sunshine is good for everyone.

Yes, it is!

Thanks again for your efforts!

Thanks for appreciating it... thanks for contributing... and thanks for sticking with me from the start!