Confessions of a voter fraud: I was a master at fixing mail-in ballots

[JMR]

So you would oppose offering immunity to find out if this story is real or not?

.

I think I quite clearly stated that IF there were more evidence, I would support an investigation, but not by Barr's DOJ, which IMO would just use the investigation to create undue suspicion about the legitimacy of the election.

 

[Chomsky]

I agree- full immunity if he/she makes these claims under penalty of law if not verifiable. Immunity if true, jail time if sworn statements to LEO are either unsubstantiated or proven false.... eace

You guys are dreaming. If we did Congressional & DOJ inquiries for every Trump fake news conspiracy piece, we'd never have an election!

 

[JMR]

You guys are dreaming. If we did Congressional & DOJ inquiries for every Trump fake news conspiracy piece, we'd never have an election!

That might be the plan.

 

[Chomsky]

the NC ballot collectors should weigh in.

Yep. They do have the criminal bonafides!

 

[Chomsky]

That might be the plan.

Fair point.

 

[Helix]

Yep. They do have the criminal bonafides!

Nobody does it better!

 

[Grim17]

I agree- full immunity if he/she makes these claims under penalty of law if not verifiable. Immunity if true, jail time if sworn statements to LEO are either unsubstantiated or proven false.... eace

I agree with one exception... Just because something can't be substantiated, doesn't mean it's untrue. The idea is to find out whether the claims are true or not. If it's discovered that the person has lied, then they should be prosecuted and sent to prison.

If I were asked to tell a story of something I witnessed in the past, but was told that if anything I said couldn't be verified or substantiated I would go to jail, there is no way I would come forward and tell the story.

Now, if none of it can be verified, then I would be all for the person being prosecuted and sent to jail.

 

[Moot]

For example, an Iowa judge just cancelled 50,000 absentee ballots because the election department pre-printed the name, address and other info on each ballot. This made it so anyone who stole the ballot out of the mailbox or in other ways would know the name to sign on the ballots. You could just follow the mailman - or you could be the mailman. Or someone at election division (partisan) who never mailed them in the first place.

That was an attempt to facilitate massive voter fraud starting at the partisan election division on a grand scale.

Election boards usually match the signature on the ballot to the person's registration form which significantly reduces the kind of fraud you're talking about.

 

[poweRob]

True, the Post is know for it's sensationalism, which is why I think the DOJ should offer the person complete immunity if they will come forward and testify to what they know... If it is a fake story, nobody will come forward. If it's real, they may come forward and we discover how extensive mail in voting fraud really is and how we can prevent it.

Would you agree with such a move?

.

So you admit that the DOJ should investigate every known liar for any claim said liar makes so long as you wish it to be true. :lol:

 

[Grim17]

There already was a large & encompassing federal investigation done under Trump. No fraud was found.

I merely suggest that they offer that person immunity if they come forward and offer details to substantiate their claims. If they are lying, or can't substantiate any of their claims, they won't come forward and it's done. If they are telling the truth, then they might come forward and we can prosecute people who have been involved in voter fraud and learn how we can prevent such things from happening in the future.

Getting the person to come forward is the first step... If they do, we can investigate... If they don't, then life goes on.

 

[Chomsky]

I merely suggest that they offer that person immunity if they come forward and offer details to substantiate their claims. If they are lying, or can't substantiate any of their claims, they won't come forward and it's done. If they are telling the truth, then they might come forward and we can prosecute people who have been involved in voter fraud and learn how we can prevent such things from happening in the future.

Getting the person to come forward is the first step... If they do, we can investigate... If they don't, then life goes on.

But that's predicated on their being enough credible evidence to even launch a probe. In the internet age, there's stories & Tweets of every kind all over the place. Good luck separating the wheat from the chaff, enough to determine which ones to investigate.

 

[Chomsky]

Nobody does it better!

Nobody!

 

[Grim17]

So you admit that the DOJ should investigate every known liar for any claim said liar makes so long as you wish it to be true. :lol:

How do you know their source is a "known liar" if you don't know who they are?

Making the offer of immunity will either result in the person coming forward and their claims can be checked out, or it will result in nobody coming forward and no investigation will take place. Would you oppose that?

 

[What if...?]

So do you agree with me that the DOJ should offer full immunity to this person to find out it their claims are true?

.

No.

But we should definitely determine if there's any evidence to support their claim and suppress it as well as forbidding any material witnesses from testifying.

 

[Grim17]

No.

But we should definitely determine if there's any evidence to support their claim and suppress it as well as forbidding any material witnesses from testifying.

So you wouldn't want a person who was involved in voter fraud to come forward?

That seems to indicate that you don't think voter fraud is worth looking at.

 

[Cardinal]

This story from the NY Post is based off information from an anonymous source, so in my opinion needs to be investigated right now by the DOJ to determine if these accusations have any merit.

In my opinion, it's simple... The DOJ should offer this person complete and total immunity from prosecution if they come forward and testify to everything they know about these voter fraud efforts.

Nypost, anonymous source...pass.

 

[uptower]

This story from the NY Post is based off information from an anonymous source, so in my opinion needs to be investigated right now by the DOJ to determine if these accusations have any merit.

In my opinion, it's simple... The DOJ should offer this person complete and total immunity from prosecution if they come forward and testify to everything they know about these voter fraud efforts.

We often complain about sources have a left/right bias and unfortunately either way they are usually just reporting the news, whether we like to hear it from their perspective or not.

However the NYP is a tabloid. Its journalists are not, really. There is every chance this article is not merely 'spin' or 'bias' but entirely fabricated, source and all.

It may also just be they are taking a few anecdotes and trying to pretend it is bigger, as national data collected by both universities and think tanks, as well as Trump's own white house, have shown voter fraud - either absentee or in person - to be exceptionally rare, and even vote tampering to be relatively minor.

As usual the problem remains large-scale suppression, conducted in broad daylight under the cover of recently drafted laws and regulations to allow it.

 

[poweRob]

How do you know their source is a "known liar" if you don't know who they are?

Making the offer of immunity will either result in the person coming forward and their claims can be checked out, or it will result in nobody coming forward and no investigation will take place. Would you oppose that?

I didn't say there source was. You flat out admitted that NY Post is fake news. But you want to make sure that the United States Attorney General investigates a story by what you admitted as a fake news org, because they are presenting an anonymous sourced story. :lol:

 

[Aberro]

Form the article:

“ The tipster said sometimes postal employees are in on the scam.

“You have a postman who is a rabid anti-Trump guy and he’s working in Bedminster or some Republican stronghold … He can take those [filled-out] ballots, and knowing 95% are going to a Republican, he can just throw those in the garbage.”

We already know who the USPS union supports.

I have no doubt this is true. I’ve known some rabid Obama supporters that would not hesitate to do this.

The cities need to check local strip mall dumpsters for this.

 

[What if...?]

For example, an Iowa judge just cancelled 50,000 absentee ballots because the election department pre-printed the name, address and other info on each ballot. This made it so anyone who stole the ballot out of the mailbox or in other ways would know the name to sign on the ballots. You could just follow the mailman - or you could be the mailman. Or someone at election division (partisan) who never mailed them in the first place.

That was an attempt to facilitate massive voter fraud starting at the partisan election division on a grand scale.

So they sent out a copy of every signature?

That is pretty bad...

 

[What if...?]

So you wouldn't want a person who was involved in voter fraud to come forward?

That seems to indicate that you don't think voter fraud is worth looking at.

You are assuming there is one.

You are asking a pure hypothetical as if it's some reflection of an event in the consensus reality the rest of us live in.

 

[Grim17]

I didn't say there source was. You flat out admitted that NY Post is fake news. But you want to make sure that the United States Attorney General investigates a story by what you admitted as a fake news org, because they are presenting an anonymous sourced story. :lol:

Tell me, what is the harm in offering immunity to the source, if he does in fact exist?

.

 

[Grim17]

You are assuming there is one.

You are asking a pure hypothetical as if it's some reflection of an event in the consensus reality the rest of us live in.

No, I'm saying if there is such a source and what they told the post is true, then making that offer would bring them forward. If they don't exist, or the exist but are not telling the truth, then of course nobody would come forward... so what would be the harm in making such an offer?

.

 

[What if...?]

No, I'm saying if there is such a source and what they told the post is true, then making that offer would bring them forward. If they don't exist, or the exist but are not telling the truth, then of course nobody would come forward... so what would be the harm in making such an offer?

.

Jeffrey Epstein comes to mind...

 

[Grim17]

Jeffrey Epstein comes to mind...

So again, you have no interest in whether this source exists, and if the person does exist, no interest in whether what he told the Post is true?

The only conclusion that I can reach is, that you must be a supporter of voter fraud and have no interest in seeing it stop.