Like most things, I'm going to hold my breath on this until a written report comes out on this. However, if this is true, and if "sending data" includes the ability to modify existing votes, this should be grounds for an in-depth audit.
A detailed forensic audit already happened when a "glitch" shifted 6,000 votes from Trump to Biden in some podunk (all red) MI county. The president tweeted out the forensic audit showing the vote totals being manipulated, and mentioned it in last speech.
Look, I get it, (that is your role here). It's a valid one, if annoying. But the issue isn't the evidence, but rather a lack of desire to confront it on the part of virtually the entire power structure of government. They are just trying to run out the clock, and it will likely work.
Shouldn’t there always be grounds for an “in depth audit”? Are we not a transparent society? That’s what has tipped me off that there was most likely fraud that altered the election outcome. If there was nothing to hide, we would have been able to audit these machines back in November. Why have Americans been stonewalled for two months when they are just asking for transparency?
Moreover, if Biden did win legitimately, wouldn’t he be calling for in depth audits of the election and election machines, to clear any doubt surrounding his presidency? I thought that was common sense.
Whether or not to audit is ultimately a state issue. When I say "grounds" for an audit, I mean something that I could see a successful suit-in-equity being brought on to enjoin the state to do an in-depth audit. In purported fraud circumstances, that generally means you have to fit it into an Equal Protection claim. Prima facie evidence that votes were, in fact, modified after submission would be sufficient to mount an Equal Protection claim, in my opinion.
The issue is, none of the lawsuits thus far have sufficiently mounted that attack. If this tweet is true, in the manner I stated, I think it could work.
See I think that is moronic. When individual states are deciding upon outcomes that affect other states, then it should be their duty to prove that they in fact did act in line with federal statutes.
As it currently stands, the MSM and tptb have placed the burden of proof on the people who watched the fraud occur, which is patently stupid. The burden of proof should be on election officials as well as any other government officials who claim that this was "the most secure election in history". If they are going to take that position, then the people should be given undeniable evidence that this is the case (which would be attained through thorough audits). We should not have to beg to have transparency.
You and I both know that this is the only reasonable stance as well.
Not really. At the baseline, the allocation of the state's electorate votes is entirely at the state's discretion — that's the "Article II, state legislatures should overturn their votes" argument from the MAGA crowd got so popular. In effect, Article II establishes a presumption of constitutionality once a state certifies their votes pursuant to it.
Outside of Article II, there are very few proscriptions on how a state conducts its voting, as I explain here (it's kind of long, sorry). You can fit an election fraud challenge into the Equal Protection proscription. However, since Article II establishes a presumption of constitutionality, the burden is properly on the party challenging fraud. Generally speaking, the presumption-burden shifting framework is how most of law works. If those people did indeed watch fraud occur, they should have no issue meeting this burden. The fact that they're unable to meet the burden isn't indicative of a flaw in the justice system, but rather a flaw in what they perceived.
Please Mr Newreddit, close your eyes and feel with your heart. Believe in the Twitter. While we hate it for it's censorship, anything not removed is should be taken as absolute truth until overturned by the supreme Court, unless the supreme Court is coerced via nuclear weapons like the Texas case.
Like most things, I'm going to hold my breath on this until a written report comes out on this. However, if this is true, and if "sending data" includes the ability to modify existing votes, this should be grounds for an in-depth audit.
A detailed forensic audit already happened when a "glitch" shifted 6,000 votes from Trump to Biden in some podunk (all red) MI county. The president tweeted out the forensic audit showing the vote totals being manipulated, and mentioned it in last speech.
Look, I get it, (that is your role here). It's a valid one, if annoying. But the issue isn't the evidence, but rather a lack of desire to confront it on the part of virtually the entire power structure of government. They are just trying to run out the clock, and it will likely work.
Welcome to post-democracy America.
I stand corrected
Yup
Shouldn’t there always be grounds for an “in depth audit”? Are we not a transparent society? That’s what has tipped me off that there was most likely fraud that altered the election outcome. If there was nothing to hide, we would have been able to audit these machines back in November. Why have Americans been stonewalled for two months when they are just asking for transparency?
Moreover, if Biden did win legitimately, wouldn’t he be calling for in depth audits of the election and election machines, to clear any doubt surrounding his presidency? I thought that was common sense.
"Common sense" had its meaning changed a while ago. All it means now is turn over your guns.
Whether or not to audit is ultimately a state issue. When I say "grounds" for an audit, I mean something that I could see a successful suit-in-equity being brought on to enjoin the state to do an in-depth audit. In purported fraud circumstances, that generally means you have to fit it into an Equal Protection claim. Prima facie evidence that votes were, in fact, modified after submission would be sufficient to mount an Equal Protection claim, in my opinion.
The issue is, none of the lawsuits thus far have sufficiently mounted that attack. If this tweet is true, in the manner I stated, I think it could work.
See I think that is moronic. When individual states are deciding upon outcomes that affect other states, then it should be their duty to prove that they in fact did act in line with federal statutes.
As it currently stands, the MSM and tptb have placed the burden of proof on the people who watched the fraud occur, which is patently stupid. The burden of proof should be on election officials as well as any other government officials who claim that this was "the most secure election in history". If they are going to take that position, then the people should be given undeniable evidence that this is the case (which would be attained through thorough audits). We should not have to beg to have transparency.
You and I both know that this is the only reasonable stance as well.
Not really. At the baseline, the allocation of the state's electorate votes is entirely at the state's discretion — that's the "Article II, state legislatures should overturn their votes" argument from the MAGA crowd got so popular. In effect, Article II establishes a presumption of constitutionality once a state certifies their votes pursuant to it.
Outside of Article II, there are very few proscriptions on how a state conducts its voting, as I explain here (it's kind of long, sorry). You can fit an election fraud challenge into the Equal Protection proscription. However, since Article II establishes a presumption of constitutionality, the burden is properly on the party challenging fraud. Generally speaking, the presumption-burden shifting framework is how most of law works. If those people did indeed watch fraud occur, they should have no issue meeting this burden. The fact that they're unable to meet the burden isn't indicative of a flaw in the justice system, but rather a flaw in what they perceived.
Please Mr Newreddit, close your eyes and feel with your heart. Believe in the Twitter. While we hate it for it's censorship, anything not removed is should be taken as absolute truth until overturned by the supreme Court, unless the supreme Court is coerced via nuclear weapons like the Texas case.
Don't forget the offset printed ballots.
I believe Seth Rich strikes again! He's hacking all over the place like a grandmother with Covid!