Let me make it clear: I've never said the Democrats stole the election. The issue is that with no checks on citizenship when registering, no ID checks when voting, indiscriminate mailing of ballots, election rules changed at the last minute, it's perfectly reasonable to believe that things aren't as secure as they should be. The Democrats may not have rigged the election in 2020, but the system is wide open to be rigged.
Just saying it's unreality is not going to fix the problem.
It's interesting that when the Democrats thought Trump had rigged the 2016 election with Russian interference, there was a massive investigation that spent millions of dollars and hundreds of subpoenas with two years of 24/7 coverage. Yet when the Republicans complain about the 2020 election the reaction is that it's an unmentionable subject that gets you banned from Twitter.
ID checking is fine at the registration step.
It is not necessary at the time the ballot is cast, once the ballot is mailed to the verified recipient or at the ballot box when a voter presents registration card that was mailed to the pre-verified recipient.
IF the individual does not have an ID, and cannot obtain one ( missing birth cert, etc , is less than ambulatory, etc )
it is the obligation of the state to provide a swift means of providing eligibility with as few hurdles as possible. The point being that with republican controlled regions, they appear to be intentionally putting as many hurdles in front of voter as possible, which presents a greater burden to those individuals who have difficulty obtaining ID, who often tend to be poor, minorities, elderly, etc.
Herein lies the debate.
As for Trump, in my view, many in the media, including myself, were suspecting that Trump was inadvertently helping Russians, for which there is much evidence to that, but 'inadvertantly' isn't sufficient to warrant prosecution. Most, from where I'm sitting, viewed his obstruction and the 'why' for that obstruction, as the key issue. On that issue, Trump was most certainly not exonerated and Mueller so stated this So, to assert that dems were accusing Trump of 'rigging the election by conspiring with Russians' is a strawman (that repubs set up because they know they can easily shoot it down), because the key personnel who matter, ,the accusatory body, i.e., the congress and the DOJ, never accused Trump of any such thing, formally ( though some may have, rhetorically). Opinions given in the media really are of no legal consequence.
Moreover, and let's get one fact straight here, the 2 year investigation was not a 'democrat' effort, the leading figures in the DOJ who called, and led, the investigation, were republicans, though that, in and of itself, was not, nor should not be, a determining nor relevant fact. The only relevant fact was this: 'Was there sufficient predication to warrant the establishment of the investigation, and later the elevation of the investigation by Special Counsel?''. The IG report, to my knowledge, has determined that point in the affirmative, that there was sufficient predication to warrant the investigation ( though there were issues in the administration of it ) and that is the only relevant point.
See, there are two (mainly, but three) potential of which all constitution successful outcomes of any investigation: 1. Determine whether there is foul play and refer to DOJ for prosecution. Or, 2. Clear the air of the suspicions upon which the investigation was predicated. Or, 3. A combination of #1 & #2. I believe #3 was the final outcome. Note that, because of the OLC policy, Mueller refrained from an actual criminal referral (on the obstruction point), and limited the report to creating an outline of evidence for possible indictments or impeachments by the appropriate agencies.
Any of the three outcomes of the investigation denote a successful investigation. The Strawman that republicans continually make is that, given that Trump was exonerated on 'conspiracy' issue, they assert that the entire effort was a boondoggle. But, if that were true, then all investigations that do not indict are boondoggles. But, see, that is not the case, because one cannot know, at the outset, what an outcome will be, hence the need for the investigation in the first place, to either indict or clear the air, or a combination of both if there are several issues under suspicion. This does not mean investigations are conducted willy nilly, there must be sufficient grounds, i.e., predication to warrant an investigation. Once that fact is established, then any of the three outcomes denote a successful investigation. A boondoggle would be one that was began, millions spent, and later abandoned because it was determined there wasn't sufficient predication or that the so-called predication, upon later scrutiny, wasn't, in fact, sufficient.
Florida man arrested by the FBI after threatening to storm the US Capitol for a second time
