Put simply, I don't know what to believe. As an IT security worker, I have absolutely no faith in the election since voting required the use of hackable electronic voting machines.
We need to restore trust in the system. An idiot needs to be able to understand and audit it. Until that happens, there will always be people who think it's rigged, and politicians will always exploit that.
It's not, but the only state without a paper trail for everything which went Biden in the last election is New Jersey (The other 7 states which have some level of exposure to digital manipulation voted Trump).
You are deliberately commenting in bad faith. You could easily click on the link I posted between those words that shows exactly which states have a paper trail, and that, importantly, shows that all of the contested swing states in the 2020 election have a paper trail.
The 2000 elections were most probably stolen, but Al Gore played the safer card and accepted defeat. Since then I don't see how anyone can trust the process.
How so? The vote differential from FL was clearly within the margin of error of the counting methods, but that only suggests the possibility of a counting error, not a steal.
> About 19,000 ballots were spoiled because of overvotes (two votes in the same race), compared to 3000 in 1996.[18]:215–221 According to a 2001 study in the American Political Science Review, the voting errors caused by the butterfly ballot cost Gore the election: "Had PBC used a ballot format in the presidential race that did not lead to systematic biased voting errors, our findings suggest that, other things equal, Al Gore would have won a majority of the officially certified votes in Florida."
And yet the protests then were level-headed, largely peaceful, and fully justifiable.
Are you suggesting that the design was made with the intention to take votes from Gore? Because that would be necessary to call it a "stolen" election. I acknowledge the possibility that the outcome was in error.
I'm not saying it was explicitly intentional but it isn't believable nobody on the election commission was aware of the alignment issues from previous elections. It is either straight up incompetence or willful neglect. Either way, the will of the people wasn't acted upon.
Doesn't need to be intentional, the fact that when the mistake was shown after the fact, the best they could do is invalidate tens of thousands of votes, which very likely were for one candidate, shows how the win was stolen from him.
This argument only works if you ignore the voters who were improperly purged from the voter rolls for having the same or similar names as convicted felons.
In addition, there was a big movement that claimed 2004 election was stolen from Kerry. Several books were published on it in fact. See this article from Politico, which covered it again in light of the Trump claims.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/19/2004-kerry...
I don't think this election was stolen, but in 2004, I did think there were oddities which were swept under the rug.
All but 1 of the states that have paperless machines were won by Trump. None of the "contested" states have paperless machines. So while I agree that every state should have paper trails, the argument is irrelevant in for this specific election discussion.
It would be great to do a full, transparent audit of the complete system and apply national standards. Let's do it! That's part of the point of the Federal Elections Commission, but that's been politicized and intentionally crippled.
But make no mistake, people who are crying about massive fraud are not actually serious about doing any of that.
From what I understand nobody signed the affidavits. Once there was a legal consequence to lying they all backed out. This might have changed later, but was true of the original 40some lawsuits that were filed.
The courts dissmissed the cases after there were signed affidavits. Those signed affidavits are still there, waiting for the formal due process, and the courts are more than welcome to take the cases and investigate them with subsequently prosecuting the lying side. That's what those who stormed the Capitol today have among their demands.
> But make no mistake, people who are crying about massive fraud are not actually serious about doing any of that.
Those people signed affidavits, what papers did you sign that make you liable under the penalty of perjury to get any weight and seriousness to your position?
Did the court rule to investigate the claims made in the affidavits and to check the paper trails and if they match and, based on the results of the investigation, prosecuted one party or the other? Or did they dissmiss them under technicalities not related to the sworn affidavits? That's the due process to follow.
> Did the court rule to investigate the claims made in the affidavits
No, because no one made legally-cognizable claims based on the affidavits in court, instead withdrawing or avoiding making fraud claims in court filings (though sometimes referring to them in court arguments and then admitting they weren’t part of the case) and preferring to take the “evidence” to “hearings” run by political allies with no adjudicative role as an act of political theater.
> No, because no one made legally-cognizable claims based on the affidavits in court
That's not how courts are supposed to work. If they worked as you say, there would be no reason to have hearings for the majority of rape/abuse accusations. The courts are there to have a formal process which would determine whether provided evidence and witnesses have weight and elements of truth, and whether additional investigations are required. it would also be required to establish whether anyone who signed the affidavits had to be prosecuted for perjury, because the just process would have to determine and prosecute the lying side (as that side is not known beforehand). None of that took place, there were no hearings, and the filings were dismissed without the required due process.
> If they worked as you say, there would be no reason to have hearings for the majority of rape/abuse accusations.
No, accusations that someone has committed rape (whether by prosecutors or in civil litigation by the alleged victim seeking damages) are legally cognizable claims.
> The courts are there to have a formal process which would determine whether provided evidence and witnesses have weight and elements of truth, and whether additional investigations are required.
No, they only exist to do that in the case of concrete disputes where there is a cognizable legal claim that the proferred evidence is relevant to resolve.
> it would also be required to establish whether anyone who signed the affidavits had to be prosecuted for perjury.
It would only be required for that if a prosecutor was charging them for perjury. The mere signing of an affidavit doesn’t create a perjury dispute that a court needs to resolve if there are no perjury charges offered.
> None of that took place, there were no hearings, and the filings were dismissed without the required due process.
There were plenty of hearings, the Trump team deliberately, voluntarily either withdrew fraud claims or did not include them, making any alleged evidence of fraud irrelevant to those legal cases.
Presumably, if they had evidence of fraud that they thought would hold up in court they wouldn’t have done that. And, given the success of the claims that they did make, it isn’t like the Trump team was afraid of advancing even marginal claims.
> No, accusations that someone has committed rape (whether by prosecutors or in civil litigation by the alleged victim seeking damages) are legally cognizable claims.
A cognizable claim is one that meets the basic criteria of viability for being tried or adjudicated before a particular tribunal. Now, tell me what's the difference between the claims that have signed affidavits and accusations of someone committing a rape that make the former not meeting the basic criteria of viability, whereas the latter does meet them?
> The mere signing of an affidavit doesn’t create a perjury dispute that a court needs to resolve if there are no perjury charges offered.
Sure, but if actions of one of the two parties lead to the constitutional crisis, the court had better investigate which side is the lying one, don't you think so?
> It would only be required for that if a prosecutor was charging them for perjury.
And to establish whether there was a perjury, you need to investigate it through a formal process of hearings and other elements of the due process.
> There were plenty of hearings
Dismissing the case is not hearing of the case, there were other hearings related to the matter, but not the legal hearing of the case with witnesses attending and being interrogated.
> Sure, a cognizable claim or controversy is one that meets the basic criteria of viability f
No, its one that taken on its face states a violation of the law, from someone who would be entitled to a remedy under the law, which the court has the power to remedy.
Viability is a step or two down the road.
“Standing” and “failure to state a claim” are grounds for dismissal than are about not having a legally cognizable claim, and which come before any assessment of the viability of the claim.
"laches" (that, assuming the claim was valid, it is barred by unreasonable delay by the complaining party which would cause unreasonable harm to the interests of the defendant or third parties which would not have occurred had the claim been made timely) is a similar, though distinct, ground. (A lot of the post-election challenges to procedures which were well-known before the election were barred by laches, with the harm relied on being the denial of voting rights of voters who relied on the processes to vote.)
> Now, tell me what’s the difference between the claims that have signed affidavits and accusations of someone committing rape
That there were no actual claims made to courts based on the affidavits; the fraud stories that the campaign claims that the affidavits support weren’t advanced in court, or were withdrawn voluntarily.
> No, its one that taken on its face states a violation of the law, from someone who would be entitled to a remedy under the law, which the court has the power to remedy. Viability is a step or two down the road.
I took the reference to basic criteria of viability from the legal body of knowledge. Check your premises. Besides, alleged election fraud taken on its face states a possible violation of the law, the current President (represented by his lawyers) (who in turn represents the people voted him) is (are) someone who would be entitled to a remedy under the law. And the court has the power to remedy it. Essentially, what you say are the same things as the basic criteria of viability.
> That there were no actual claims made to courts based on the affidavits
That's factually false, as there were official court case filings, that carry their unique numbers, and the claims made in those filings are backed by signed affidavits. One of these filings is the Case No Case 4:20-cv-02078-MWB from 11/09/20: https://static.reuters.com/resources/media/editorial/2020111... The document mentions sworn statements regarding mail-in ballots and actions that could lead to election fraud, and that the case asks to be investigated.
“The document mentions sworn statements regarding mail-in ballots and actions that could lead to election fraud, and that the case asks to be investigated.”
Investigation is not a remedy given by courts.
Investigation is what litigants do to develop facts to bring to court.
where do I say that an investigation in and on itself is a remedy given by courts? The due process that includes an investigation and that has the final judgement is.
> Investigation is what litigants do to develop facts to bring to court.
Litigants cannot do it outside the court process, because they have no power to conduct an investigation that requires warrants to be issued by court for the police, or other permitted authority, to make an arrest, seize property, and conduct a search necessary for the purpose of investigation. Facts are the notions that the court establishes during the process, not when cases are filed.
> The due process that includes an investigation and that has the final judgement is.
No, due process in civil litigation does not include other people investigating for the litigant. (Discovery from the other party, sure, but that’s not investigation.)
Due process means that if you’ve raised a legally cognizable claim, then you get the chance to have the (legally admissible) evidence your investigation has gathered for that claim heard by the court.
> Litigants cannot do it outside the court process, because they have no power to conduct an investigation that requires warrants to be issued by court for the police, or other permitted authority, to make an arrest, seize property, and conduct a search necessary for the purpose of investigation.
No one is arrested, nor warrants (search or otherwise) issued on behalf of litigants in civil cases.
> Facts are the notions that the court establishes during the process, not when cases are filed.
Specific fact claims (which is not “Something funky might have happened, we’d like it to be investigated”), which, if true, would meet the criteria of some legal wrong that can be remedied, are a threshold requirement for a case. This has always been the rule, its not some new problem that first emerged for Trump.
> No one is arrested, nor warrants (search or otherwise) issued on behalf of litigants in civil cases.
Election offence is criminal offence, afaik that's true for all (all english-speaking nations?) bodies that inherit the English model of the rule of law:
> Due process means that if you’ve raised a legally cognizable claim, then you get the chance to have the (legally admissible) evidence your investigation has gathered for that claim heard by the court.
> Specific fact claims (which is not “Something funky might have happened, we’d like it to be investigated”)
It's always been more than that, since the affidavits from witnesses have detailed particular locations, times, people, and the means used by those people, that the witnesses suspect to be instances of election fraud.
Consider there's a burglary, you suspect a person and you've obtained sworn statements from your neighbours witnessing seeing the person entering your house. You are in no power to enter suspect's premises in search for facts of him committing the burglary, unless you have a warrant from a court issued to the police to do so. And you cannot have that warrant until you get courts start the official process of hearing from witnesses. That's exactly the scenario of the alleged election fraud by mail-in ballots, where votes were (allegedly) stolen by some suspected actors with some suspected means.
But those are prosecuted exclusively by public prosecutors, not by campaigns or candidates (even incumbent ones that oversee criminal prosecution authorities) in civil lawsuits in their role as candidates. Nor, even when they are investigated and prosecuted as crimes, do they need to file a case before pursuing search warrants as part of an investigation.
> Consider there’s a burglary, you suspect a person and you’ve obtained a sworn statements from your neighbours witnessing seeing the person entering your house. You are in no power to enter suspect’s premises in search for facts of him committing the burglary, unless you have a warrant from a court issued to the police to do so.
You don’t have the ability to do so even then, because the warrant is issued to the police, not to you.
> And you cannot have that warrant until you get courts start the official process of hearing from witnesses.
No, you can’t get the warrant at all, full stop. The police can get a warrant, if you give them information about the witnesses (which doesn’t even need sworn statements), and they think its worth following up on, and they present the witness statements (and any other evidence they gather if they investigate) in a warrant application to a judge and the judge agrees there is probable cause.
You filing a civil lawsuit has no role at all in that process.
> You filing a civil lawsuit has no role at all in that process.
You have two sets, one of them is criminal, another is not. How do you establish whether they are criminal or not prior starting the formal process in the court? There are wtinesses that need to be heard during the official process, and there's warrants to be issued to bring additional evidence of a criminal offence, or perhaps there's no criminal offence, but it has to be established during the initial hearings conducted at the court.
> You don’t have the ability to do so even then, because the warrant is issued to the police, not to you.
sure, that's what I mean, the police and other authorities have to go there and bring (if it exists) an evidence to the court in addition to those that have been filed with the case. That's not the job of the litigant prior submitting their case.
> You have two sets, one of them is criminal, another is not.
They are overlapping, but, sure, both criminal and civil wrongs exist.
> How do you establish whether they are criminal or not prior starting the formal process in the court?
You don’t. If you think you have suffered a civil wrong, you gather the evidence, and file a civil lawsuit.
If you think you have been criminally wronged, you contact criminal law enforcement authorities, who decide how to follow up, and may eventually file a criminal case.
You (as someone not acting as a public prosecutor) filing a court case has no bearing on the process for an criminal offense.
> That’s not the job of the litigant prior submitting their case.
To the extent its a criminal issue, its not the private litigants case at all.
To the extent its a civil issue, investigating and having evidence (of the actual wrong, not just evidence that someone else suspects that a wrong of some vague kind might have occurred) is, absolutely their job prior to submitting their case, without which they don’t have a case.
> They are overlapping, but, sure, both criminal and civil wrongs exist.
> If you think you have been criminally wronged, you contact criminal law enforcement authorities, who decide how to follow up, and may eventually file a criminal case.
The issue here is that even the civil filings were not taken by the court, they were dismissed due to technicalities rather than hearings. And no one checked the paper trails (which is not enoguh to establish legitimacy, as the paper needs to have correct signatures and other credentials) in the swing states and reported back to the court under penalty of perjury. There was no final judgement on the matter that would establish whether there was wrongdoing and if it needs to be re-qualified as a criminal one, or whether those who signed affidavits may be committing wrongdoing themselves. There was only a final judgement regarding the prcedure of the filing and whether there's standing. The end result of it is a constitutional crisis, where institutions begin to lose their own "standing". Authorities lose authority if they do not demonstrate a just process, regardless of the actual technicalities that take place during case filings. Is there a clear legal path to follow to file the correct case? Yes there is. There's also a legal path to follow when it comes to elections, as well as there are articles of the Constitution that define whether states or state legislatures make and change election laws. Were they followed as thoroughly as you propose the other side to follow the procedures related to case filings? They weren't. The end result is today's events.
That's what you get when the SCOTUS dismisses the case by one sentence without looking into those affidavits. Those 72 million citizens that supported and approved of the formal court hearings and wanted investigations to happen are not silent servants of those who sit in the Capitol building during normal days. When the due process is ignored by one side, another side has a full right to demand the due process by acting physically. They have this right granted to them by the US Constitution, which is above anyone in the Capitol building.
The Declaration sets principles behind a just and fair government, the Constitution outlines how this just government would function (it would function lawfully). When the government doesn't follow the principles and doesn't apply the required due process when it needs to be applied, it gets outisde the notion of a just government. The right to the current actions lies in the Constitution itself, as it doesn't allow for the current government to exist in its current form (doesn't function lawfully), and it doesn't fit the notion of a just government.
This is misleading. Every single state that is under investigation right now (swing state) is part of the "70%" that has paper trail. Also, every single one of the "30%" paperless states except one (NJ) was won by Trump. So if there was voter machine hacking, it was pro-Trump.
We need to restore trust in the system. An idiot needs to be able to understand and audit it. Until that happens, there will always be people who think it's rigged, and politicians will always exploit that.