U.S. attorney in Georgia: ‘There’s just nothing to’ claims of election fraud

[pamak]

So I guess the definition of "election fraud" is the sticking point in this discussion. Is is not election fraud when mail in ballots arrive with only a signature and no other information filled out? My understanding is those ballots are not supposed to be counted. Is it normal for ballots to be counted without verifying they came from registered voters? Is it lawful when the date for mail in ballots is extended by someone other than the state legislature, as specified in the state Constitution?

There is a process of verification but there is also a requirement of privacy, so officials cannot just take a ballot and ask people around about the identity of the voter.
The process of verification in broaad terms works like this

PolitiFact - Donald Trump’s jab at Georgia recount ignores key voting principles

In his effort to challenge votes in states he lost, President Donald Trump focused on the hand recount of over 5 million

www.politifact.com

For voting in person, the voting booth guarantees your privacy. For mail-in ballots, the process is different. Each mail-in ballot comes in a sleeve or envelope that the voter must sign. Election workers then match the signature to their voter records.

"They review the signature, and if it complies with the law, the ballot is separated from the envelope to maintain secrecy," said David Becker, head of the private Center for Election Innovation and Research. "There is no way to go back and review signatures after they’ve been separated from the ballots, and there’d be no reason to do so."
Every state follows the same basic steps, Becker said. Once the ballot is verified, it becomes an anonymous vote just like a vote cast in person.

Georgia set for second election recount, unlikely to probe mail-in signatures

Georgia election officials are gearing up for another recount of the roughly 5 million ballots cast in the...

www.augustachronicle.com

The upcoming recount will run ballots through scanners rather than by hand and must wrap up before several counties hold state and local runoff elections on Dec. 1, said Gabriel Sterling, the election systems manager in Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office.

...

State law and privacy concerns currently bar the close level of signature scrutiny that Trump and his Republican supporters in Georgia want, Sterling said at a news conference Monday.

 

[iguanaman]

The "votes allowed by law" consist of votes cast under the laws in effect on election day period. No vote may be disallowed because of changes in laws made after the election. I have told you that 1000 times.

And I told you 1001 times that the problem is not changes to election laws. It's the enforcement of election laws. Get it now?

So you have dropped the unconstitutional BS then? There is no such thing as an unconstitutional election law on the day of the vote. The law stands no matter what it says.

 

[bubbabgone]

You do not address my points and you are just trying to claim that the the US Constitution gives the right to Pelosi to claim that she is right whenever she THINKS that the actions of the executive branch during an emergency are unconstitutional.

I stated my point about Article 2 without addressing any face-saving baggage you wanted to add.
Shoulda made it clearer for ya.
And Pelosi can and does claim she's right all the time. Would you take that away from her?

 

[bubbabgone]

My argument is that you are bringing to the conversation laughable links with claims that have no credibility, and such thing affects your credibility also. How many times did people tell you that the issue is NOT that there is zero fraud. The issue is that there is no evidence of fraud that is extensive enough to change a federal election? It is beyond me that you continue to repeat the same BS that supposedly I believe that fraud is impossible!

And yes, the issue is whether fraud affects an outcome or not. Just like it is an issue that mail in ballots expand opportunities to participate to elections which does affect outcomes. So, if mail in ballots comes with expansion of participation and democracy (and this election with a wider use of mail in ballots had a record participation rate ) then we should make this the norm!

Fraud doesn't have to be extensive to be serious. That's where we differ. Among other areas, I'm sure.

 

[bubbabgone]

So you have dropped the unconstitutional BS then? There is no such thing as an unconstitutional election law on the day of the vote. The law stands no matter what it says.

Oh dear. Is it because you've staked out an unsupportable position that you are behaving like a child?
Not enforcing election law is illegal.
The election law was constitutional.
A court and a sec of state changing the law's provisions was unconstitutional act by elected or appointed officials.

 

[iguanaman]

Oh dear. Is it because you've staked out an unsupportable position that you are behaving like a child?
Not enforcing election law is illegal.
The election law was constitutional.
A court and a sec of state changing the law's provisions was unconstitutional act by elected or appointed officials.

We then the remedy is to get the courts to change the laws before the NEXT election. You can't disenfranchise voters in the 2020 election over that complaint. Throwing away millions of votes because voters followed the instructions of election officials is unprecedented and illegal. Surely you can grasp that concept.

 

[pamak]

I stated my point about Article 2 without addressing any face-saving baggage you wanted to add.
Shoulda made it clearer for ya.
And Pelosi can and does claim she's right all the time. Would you take that away from her?

And I explained why simply reading the constitution does not resolve all legal questions. I even gave an example of how the executive branch can initiate an attack against another country even though the Constitution authorizes only Congress to Declare War. In short, you try to oversimplify things. I know that Pelosi claims she is right. The point is that Pelosi's claims are not always in accordance with the final legal opinion, and this is a FACT!

 

[pamak]

Fraud doesn't have to be extensive to be serious. That's where we differ. Among other areas, I'm sure.

Yes, we differ because I see the benefit of expanding democracy as sufficient benefit to justify mail-in voting when fraud is not a serious problem.

 

[bubbabgone]

We then the remedy is to get the courts to change the laws before the NEXT election. You can't disenfranchise voters in the 2020 election over that complaint. Throwing away millions of votes because voters followed the instructions of election officials is unprecedented and illegal. Surely you can grasp that concept.

Are you really not getting this? The laws as written were fine. They should have been enforced.

 

[bubbabgone]

And I explained why simply reading the constitution does not resolve all legal questions. I even gave an example of how the executive branch can initiate an attack against another country even though the Constitution authorizes only Congress to Declare War. In short, you try to oversimplify things. I know that Pelosi claims she is right. The point is that Pelosi's claims are not always in accordance with the final legal opinion, and this is a FACT!

Half, likely at least 5/9th, of the SC disagrees with you about the subject we're actually talking about.

 

[bubbabgone]

Yes, we differ because I see the benefit of expanding democracy as sufficient benefit to justify mail-in voting when fraud is not a serious problem.

And I see expanding voter fraud as a serious problem and not democracy.

 

[iguanaman]

Are you really not getting this? The laws as written were fine. They should have been enforced.

So you admit the changes made in PA law before the election to address the Covid 19 pandemic were fine? All election laws were enforced.

 

[iguanaman]

And I see expanding voter fraud as a serious problem and not democracy.

So you can't find any evidence for "expanding voter fraud" but it must be there because the one term mistake said it was? How do you propose we address this "invisible" fraud? Perhaps you think what the Republican legislature in Arizona is proposing is the way? Do you think State legislatures should decide the outcome of elections and make voting a sham event?

Arizona GOP lawmaker introduces bill to give Legislature power to toss out election results
One section grants the Legislature, which is currently under GOP control, the ability to revoke the secretary of state's certification "by majority vote at any time before the presidential inauguration."
"The legislature may take action pursuant to this subsection without regard to whether the legislature is in regular or special session or has held committee or other hearings on the matter."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...bill-give-legislature-power-toss-out-n1256097

 

[pamak]

And I see expanding voter fraud as a serious problem and not democracy.

If it does not affect the verdict, you are unreasonable to deny the certain benefit of expanding voting opportunities for Americans. It makes no sense to have a belief system that treats Americans with way more respect as consumers making it constantly easier for them to shop than as citizens when it becomes an issue of debate whether we should make it easier for people to vote.

You can as well argue to have voting restricted to a smaller group of white male citizens because this will reduce voting fraud. In short, your point is clownish!

 

[pamak]

Half, likely at least 5/9th, of the SC disagrees with you about the subject we're actually talking about.

Sorry, but your claim has not been backed up by facts ad logic. Mental gymnastics based and abuse of logic trying to deduce what other judges (who did NOT join Alito's statement about the unconstitutionality of the PA legal case) think about Alito's statement made no sense for the reasons that I have explained.

 

[bubbabgone]

So you admit the changes made in PA law before the election to address the Covid 19 pandemic were fine? All election laws were enforced.

Only a Legislature changes Laws.

 

[bubbabgone]

So you can't find any evidence for "expanding voter fraud" but it must be there because the one term mistake said it was? How do you propose we address this "invisible" fraud? Perhaps you think what the Republican legislature in Arizona is proposing is the way? Do you think State legislatures should decide the outcome of elections and make voting a sham event?

Arizona GOP lawmaker introduces bill to give Legislature power to toss out election results
One section grants the Legislature, which is currently under GOP control, the ability to revoke the secretary of state's certification "by majority vote at any time before the presidential inauguration."
"The legislature may take action pursuant to this subsection without regard to whether the legislature is in regular or special session or has held committee or other hearings on the matter."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...bill-give-legislature-power-toss-out-n1256097

I prefer that legal votes be counted. Not after efforts to disregard Election Law. I guess that concept is foreign to you.

 

[bubbabgone]

If it does not affect the verdict, you are unreasonable to deny the certain benefit of expanding voting opportunities for Americans. It makes no sense to have a belief system that treats Americans with way more respect as consumers making it constantly easier for them to shop than as citizens when it becomes an issue of debate whether we should make it easier for people to vote.

You can as well argue to have voting restricted to a smaller group of white male citizens because this will reduce voting fraud. In short, your point is clownish!

You can't be that naïve. Or maybe you can. You're sure sounding like it.

 

[bubbabgone]

Sorry, but your claim has not been backed up by facts ad logic. Mental gymnastics based and abuse of logic trying to deduce what other judges (who did NOT join Alito's statement about the unconstitutionality of the PA legal case) think about Alito's statement made no sense for the reasons that I have explained.

Who did NOT make any statements regarding Article 2 requirements that election Laws be passed by Legislatures?
You and reason are strangers to each other. That much has been clear.

 

[pamak]

Who did NOT make any statements regarding Article 2 requirements that election Laws be passed by Legislatures?
You and reason are strangers to each other. That much has been clear.

AGAIN!

Without examining the PA laws regarding the executive branch's latitude during emergencies , YOU simply assume that Kavanaugh had issues with the the PA Supreme Court's decision to back up the wish of the PA executive government. So, your stupid assumptions contradict the direct evidence which show that Kavanaugh DID NOT JOIN ALITO"S STATEMENT!

What is clear is that you cannot follow a conversation to advance a counterpoint and you simply revert to things that you said before.

 

[iguanaman]

I prefer that legal votes be counted. Not after efforts to disregard Election Law. I guess that concept is foreign to you.

Which votes were not legal? A dispute over election laws does not change the legality of the votes themselves. You wish to disregard the most important election law of them all.... the sanctity of the vote.

 

[pamak]

You can't be that naïve. Or maybe you can. You're sure sounding like it.

You can't be that stupid. Or maybe you are. You're sure sounding like one when you cannot come up with a reasonable counterpoint.

 

[Lursa]

The election laws weren't unconstitutional. The changes made to them by State officials and Courts were what was unconstitutional.
And those unconstitutional changes were challenged when they were made before the election. . They were challenged before the election.
You didn't know that?

He doesnt 'know' it because you're wrong. This SCOTUS decision, that you choose to ignore or really cant understand, explains why:

"The U.S. Supreme Court has said the framers intended the clause as “a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate electoral outcomes, to favor or disfavor a class of candidates, or to evade important constitutional restraints.”

I dont expect you to accept this now, since you've dismissed it many times before...but I like that it's available to undermine your arguments based on this particular point. Kind of like a public service.

For reference:

The “elections clause” of the U.S. Constitution is Article I, § 4, clause 1.​

​

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of chusing Senators."​

​

and​

US Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 US 779 - Supreme Court 1995 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

 

[bubbabgone]

You can't be that stupid. Or maybe you are. You're sure sounding like one when you cannot come up with a reasonable counterpoint.

AGAIN!

Without examining the PA laws regarding the executive branch's latitude during emergencies , YOU simply assume that Kavanaugh had issues with the the PA Supreme Court's decision to back up the wish of the PA executive government. So, your stupid assumptions contradict the direct evidence which show that Kavanaugh DID NOT JOIN ALITO"S STATEMENT!

What is clear is that you cannot follow a conversation to advance a counterpoint and you simply revert to things that you said before.

Let me spell it out for you one last time.
4 Justices have stated "A" and a 5th Justice with the same judicial approach to the Constitution was appointed too late to participate.
The 4 have all stated that Article 2 is the critical factor in these election law violations.
Now listen closely, my little friend, they don't all have to be applying Article 2 provisions to the same case for you to conclude that, yeah, Article 2 is in their election law driver's seat.
If you still don't get it then you ain't trying.

 

[bubbabgone]

Which votes were not legal? A dispute over election laws does not change the legality of the votes themselves. You wish to disregard the most important election law of them all.... the sanctity of the vote.

I shouldn't have to ask but ... for example ... a vote with a signature that doesn't match that of the registration is not a legal vote. Is it?
Aren't there many types of illegal votes that can be counted as legal?