Just so that all sides are represented here, I'll comment some sources that indicate there hasn't been any election fraud. Respectfully, mine are a bit more credible than MAGA subreddits and YouTube videos,.
Statement of United States Attorney General William Bar, as reported by the Associated Press on December 1, 2020: "[T]o date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election."
United States Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) advisory website on "Rumor Control."
Joint statement of the United States CISA, Election Assistance Commission, National Association of Secretaries of State, National Association of State Election Directors, and the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Council: "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised."
Edit: For the record, I haven't downvoted any of the comments on this post. This is just an attempt to make sure all information is being properly disseminated.
But surely our voting systems are totally secure and not easily hackable and the claim that the 2020 election was the 'Most Secure In American History' is totes believable because government said so?
Want to cite Forbes? The article is citing the Perkins Coie lawyer responsible for the Steel Dossier. Literal leftist propaganda that doesn't provide any context for each case.
I disagree that Bar, the Trump-appointed agency head tasked with investigating federal crimes, is not a credible source for whether a federal crime has occurred.
Yes, a piece of software meant for IT administration was hacked. That's very serious and I do not dispute that. However, there is no link between that and election fraud, nor has any of the investigating agencies suggested that; you're welcome to present evidence otherwise.
CNN and Warren (along with other top, partisan politicians) are fake news, I thought we all agreed on that here. Hence, I never cite to them. I couldn't care less about the opinion content or author in the Forbes article, it was just easier to cite that than to cite to 50+ judicial opinions rejecting election fraud. The NBC article you cite is perfectly acceptable as well, I'm just looking to demonstrate that this claim has been categorically rejected in the courts.
It is important to split out the cases that were rejected on standing versus a determination that the evidence was lacking. The Forbes article fails to split those out and leaves one with the impression that the evidence was reviewed in all those cases. I have yet to hear of a case where discovery proceeded at any meaningful level.
To the comment about the cases not being about fraud, unequal treatment is likely easily proven without discovery as it is plainly obvious in some cases. This is probably the one way to quickly get cases to be resolved but again, standing makes these tough in the current judicial environment. It was a strategy and one that seems to be well advised despite being a long shot.
Ultimately, like it or not, there is not going to be a true determination of fraud until we’ll after Biden is installed. Regardless, this is the model for stealing an election. Focus on key locations where the means is available and officials are amenable and then delay with standing arguments and obfuscation of facts.
To be clear, most election fraud cases have not been dismissed for lack of standing. This MAGA line has been promulgated since the Texas case was dismissed for lack of standing, despite most of the people who talk about it not really understanding what standing doctrine is... but that's a lesson for another day I guess. Rather, most have dismissed for failure to state a claim, which is very different than standing. This quite literally means that, having construed all evidence, allegations, and inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has failed to allege an actionable claim.
If actionable unequal treatment was "easily proven without discovery," they wouldn't be getting dismissed for failing to state claims. Again, standing is really not an issue in most of the lawsuits thus far. Additionally, the standard for dismissal requires construing everything in the plaintiff's favor, the court is bound to not obfuscate the plaintiff's facts.
Fact check.org, The Associated Press, CISA.gov.
Hey I would rather get my info from randoms on youtube than gather my information from sites that are clearly owned and operated by TPTB.
Don't act like you are here in good faith . Next time throw in some Snopes and NewYork Times for good measure.
Beyond a shadow of a doubt there was election fraud. It has been proven time and time again. But thank you for your little reports that tell us how impossible it is.
My dad was a union butcher in Chicago. The union steward would bring a box of ballots for my mom and dad to fill out. Started in 1958 and continued, even when dad retired, until dad and mom moved away from Chicago in 2006. That's 48 years of personal evidence of voter fraud in Illinois
Lmfao. Three of my sources are from executive agencies or derivatives thereof that are quite literally headed at POTUS' choice, two sources are from academia, and another is the U.S. judiciary.
All owned and operated by the very people running everything else. Whomever they might be. Maybe you have some WHO statistics you would like to throw out next. Or you can tell us how dangerous the Coronavirus virus is with your sources? That would be amazing!
This is not r/politics? Lost?
Just so that all sides are represented here, I'll comment some sources that indicate there hasn't been any election fraud. Respectfully, mine are a bit more credible than MAGA subreddits and YouTube videos,.
Edit: For the record, I haven't downvoted any of the comments on this post. This is just an attempt to make sure all information is being properly disseminated.
Why can you guys never just present your evidence without doing this?
How about with all due respect I say your sources aren't credible because they're just think tank and 'Fact check' propaganda?
How about we not cite Bar, since everyone claims he covered up Russiagate, right?
Want to cite CISA?
How about this; CISA: 'Significant' SolarWinds hack 'impacting' local governments - The country’s cybersecurity agency says the hacking campaign discovered earlier this month was “impacting” local governments, in addition to federal and state entities and businesses.
But surely our voting systems are totally secure and not easily hackable and the claim that the 2020 election was the 'Most Secure In American History' is totes believable because government said so?
CNN EXPOSES HOW EASY IT IS TO HACK DOMINION VOTING MACHINES
ELIZABETH WARREN & OTHER DEMOCRATS AGREED THAT DOMINION COULD ALTER VOTES … BUT APPARENTLY IF IT HELPS THEIR PARTY IT’S OKAY
Want to cite Forbes? The article is citing the Perkins Coie lawyer responsible for the Steel Dossier. Literal leftist propaganda that doesn't provide any context for each case.
At least give a better source for your propaganda: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-s-election-fight-includes-over-30-lawsuits-it-s-n1248289
I disagree that Bar, the Trump-appointed agency head tasked with investigating federal crimes, is not a credible source for whether a federal crime has occurred.
Yes, a piece of software meant for IT administration was hacked. That's very serious and I do not dispute that. However, there is no link between that and election fraud, nor has any of the investigating agencies suggested that; you're welcome to present evidence otherwise.
CNN and Warren (along with other top, partisan politicians) are fake news, I thought we all agreed on that here. Hence, I never cite to them. I couldn't care less about the opinion content or author in the Forbes article, it was just easier to cite that than to cite to 50+ judicial opinions rejecting election fraud. The NBC article you cite is perfectly acceptable as well, I'm just looking to demonstrate that this claim has been categorically rejected in the courts.
It is important to split out the cases that were rejected on standing versus a determination that the evidence was lacking. The Forbes article fails to split those out and leaves one with the impression that the evidence was reviewed in all those cases. I have yet to hear of a case where discovery proceeded at any meaningful level.
To the comment about the cases not being about fraud, unequal treatment is likely easily proven without discovery as it is plainly obvious in some cases. This is probably the one way to quickly get cases to be resolved but again, standing makes these tough in the current judicial environment. It was a strategy and one that seems to be well advised despite being a long shot.
Ultimately, like it or not, there is not going to be a true determination of fraud until we’ll after Biden is installed. Regardless, this is the model for stealing an election. Focus on key locations where the means is available and officials are amenable and then delay with standing arguments and obfuscation of facts.
To be clear, most election fraud cases have not been dismissed for lack of standing. This MAGA line has been promulgated since the Texas case was dismissed for lack of standing, despite most of the people who talk about it not really understanding what standing doctrine is... but that's a lesson for another day I guess. Rather, most have dismissed for failure to state a claim, which is very different than standing. This quite literally means that, having construed all evidence, allegations, and inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has failed to allege an actionable claim.
If actionable unequal treatment was "easily proven without discovery," they wouldn't be getting dismissed for failing to state claims. Again, standing is really not an issue in most of the lawsuits thus far. Additionally, the standard for dismissal requires construing everything in the plaintiff's favor, the court is bound to not obfuscate the plaintiff's facts.
Fatman Barr is that you? Or just another shill....
Fact check.org, The Associated Press, CISA.gov. Hey I would rather get my info from randoms on youtube than gather my information from sites that are clearly owned and operated by TPTB. Don't act like you are here in good faith . Next time throw in some Snopes and NewYork Times for good measure. Beyond a shadow of a doubt there was election fraud. It has been proven time and time again. But thank you for your little reports that tell us how impossible it is.
I've believe fraud has been in our elections at least as far back as Nixon, maybe further
My dad was a union butcher in Chicago. The union steward would bring a box of ballots for my mom and dad to fill out. Started in 1958 and continued, even when dad retired, until dad and mom moved away from Chicago in 2006. That's 48 years of personal evidence of voter fraud in Illinois
Lmfao. Three of my sources are from executive agencies or derivatives thereof that are quite literally headed at POTUS' choice, two sources are from academia, and another is the U.S. judiciary.
All owned and operated by the very people running everything else. Whomever they might be. Maybe you have some WHO statistics you would like to throw out next. Or you can tell us how dangerous the Coronavirus virus is with your sources? That would be amazing! This is not r/politics? Lost?
Yes, for three of these sources, and (to an extent) the judiciary, that person is Trump. I don't see what your point is here.
I've reviewed your sources, I'm not convinced. Feel free to mount an argument otherwise.
Yes, I, do.
Trash sources, maybe reddit would like them
Well that's not very nice.
And you are a sock puppet. Move along little puss
That's likewise also not very nice. tsk tsk
go home globohomo faggot
That's not very nice.