AG Barr on with Wolf Blitzer:
https://twitter.com/RepStevenSmith/status/1325956128593895424
“Sure you had 1,700 illegal ballots cast by one guy but that’s not really enough to swing an election, so why bother?”
Because Biden’s lead in several swing states is within the margin of a dozen people pulling the same sort of scam.
This is the new narrative: “we’ll concede a few anecdotes of fraud, but it’s not enough to change the overall election outcome.”
Yes, it most certainly could be.
This is fucking bullshit.
The narrative has been for many years that there is no voter fraud. When this is proven wrong, we are told that both sides cheat so it balances. Or that the fraud is so small it isn’t really fraud.
Today I’m hearing that asking for an investigation of indicators of voter fraud in order to find evidence of voter fraud is uncalled for because there is no evidence.
And when evidence is presented to justify the investigation I’m told it isn’t big enough.
The Dems scream about voter suppression because you can “prove” suppression by finding one person after the election who didn’t vote and getting them to say “I didn’t vote because evil Republicans made it to hard or to scary”. Proving fraud takes actual work and the Dems have been blocking that work for years
The three monkeys are alive and well where vote fraud is concerned.
I’m gonna be frank here: we all know there was massive fraud, enough to affect the outcome. Nitpicking the details is fine cuz we’re talking serious business here, but the very notion of fraud should be near disqualification.
If you’re in school, the very act of cheating guarantees an F followed by punitive measures. This is a concept that is hammered in constantly from a very early age for (hopefully) everyone.
It’s like a man in power being accused of cheating on his wife; the very question of impropriety is almost as damning as the act itself.
Bit of a rant, but you see my point?
The issue here is that they’ll only begrudgingly concede to lone actors. What they’re worried about is if it can be proved that there was a coordinated effort, then your examples would apply, and you can throw the whole thing out. It could also spell the death of their party as we know it.
I do, but a candidate’s supporters committing voter fraud should not be any more disqualifying that a candidate’s supporters being members of the Klan, unless you can prove that the voter fraud was being done at the direction or with the knowledge or cooperation of the candidate.
Amusingly, Twatter has slapped a red ‘This claim about election fraud is disputed’ on that tweet.
Boy, they are just tap dancing their balls off to keep the narrative up, aren’t they?
I’ve asked before (possibly on another post here): What is the acceptable number of fraudulent votes? And how many demonstrable fraudulent votes should be enough to trigger an investigation and federal charges?
If your answers to those two questions are anything but “zero” and “one”, respectively, then you have no place commenting on election fraud.
Consider CA Prop 51, setting the amount of shoplifting required to make it “illegal enough” to press charges at $950. What you get is people shoplifting with a calculator and stealing $949 in merchandise.
Or Oregon measure 110 this year, de-criminalizing “personal use amounts” of street drugs. What we’re going to get is people still dealing and using, but only carrying “personal use amounts” at a time. Yes, it’s more work and requires more trips, but by selling one gram/ounce at a time (instead of half-kilos), you avoid legal scrutiny while making the same profit. Why wouldn’t you?
If you have someone filling out 1,700 fraudulent ballots, but say that’s not enough to investigate, then next election you’ll have a thousand guys filling out 1,700 fraudulent ballots. For those math-inclined, that makes 1.7 MILLION fraudulent votes. Suddenly, a significant portion of the vote is fraud, but because nobody exceeded the magic number, there’s no problem, right?
What about when that thousand guys becomes ten-thousand guys, because the precedent is set? 17 million — 10% of the voting population — is not enough to sway an election if they’re submitted 1,700 at a time?
No. This is why for something as important as elections, the answers to the first two questions MUST be “zero” and “one”, respectively. Every. Damn. Time.
Anything less and you’re inviting huge numbers of small frauds that quickly add up.
Exactly, and it’s easier to throw a few guys under the bus too when caught and still get away with it when it’s going on at a massive scale.
On another note, regarding the vote-counting software “glitch” in Michigan that changed ~6k Trump votes to Biden votes.
Sure, 6,000 votes may or may not be enough to sway the election, but that same software was used in 48 counties in Michigan. 6,000 times 48 is 288,000, which is enough to shift a state red-to-blue, no question.
As an IT worker, we have to vet software that could be adopted. It has to be tested to verify it does what it should do, doesn’t do anything it shouldn’t, and jives well with other software we use. If it fails any of that, we don’t allow it; the install packages get blocked on the network level.
There’s NO WAY a “glitch” like miscounting thousands of votes was missed in development, alpha testing, beta testing, and finally suitability/compliance testing. Ergo, this software should not have been adopted. At best, there was epic-level incompetence at every stage of development and deployment. At worst, “miscounting thousands of ballots” was seen as a feature, not a bug or “glitch”.
Every one of those ballots needs to be hand-counted, and that software — along with its developers and its users within the county elections offices — needs to be fully investigated and/or prosecuted.
There needs to be a Federal law that any and all software used in the handling of votes shall have its source code and design specifications open for inspection by any citizen. Not necessarily “open source” in the “anyone may copy it at no charge” sense, but non-confidential.
If it’s not open-inspect it is not fit to be trusted and not fit for a purpose as critical as elections.