My argument is that your sources are cumulative, non-credible, and unconvincing. Feel free to argue otherwise.

In all fairness, it's your logic. Your earlier comment says there's no reason for printing and preparing the ballots. Thus, these ballots cannot be construed negatively or positively, as there is no reason to do so. Thanks again.

Exactly why I supported Biden.

Exactly, there's no reason for it, thus it's irrelevant. Thanks.

Who knows, we could speculate infinitely on both questions. Ultimately though, it's irrelevant. These are literally just blank — not fake — ballots. But whatever, I guess we're just gonna label it "BIG NEWS" anyways and we'll toss it into the endless portfolio of "election fraud."

Welp, this is going to get downvoted, like most of my comments do.

These pictures show excess voting ballots, one set party-specific and the other polypartisan. That's literally it. I don't know if Byrne believes ballots are made-for-voter or something, but there is nothing suspicious about excess ballots nor shredding those ballots after the election they were made to be used for has concluded. What a joke.

I've reviewed your sources, I'm not convinced. Feel free to mount an argument otherwise.

Oh right, I forget we label all Trump-appointed politicians "swamp" when it doesn't work out in his favor. How cute.

If everyone with a contrary opinion to you is a shill, you're gonna have a rough time in this world.

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.

That's not very nice.

That's likewise also not very nice. tsk tsk

Yes, I, do.

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.

Well that's not very nice.

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.

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.

All owned and operated by the very people running everything else.

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 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.

I love you too, don't feel left out.

clearly owned and operated by TPTB

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.

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,.

1. The Brennan Center for Justice (New York School of Law): Debunking the Voter Fraud Myth.
2. The Annenberg Public Policy Center (University of Pennsylvania): Nine Voter Fraud Claims, None Credible
3. 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."
4. United States Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) advisory website on "Rumor Control."
5. 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."
6. This.

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.

You keep assuming I'm a leftist and a shill. I'd tell you both are incorrect, but you probably won't believe me anyways. As I said, I shit on election fraud posts on this site because its hilarious, this is the most unfounded, cope-fueled conspiracy I've seen for a while.

I can't recall the left running a nationwide campaign of lawsuits to disqualify the election as fraudulent and install Clinton as president. However, feel free to cite to a source that says otherwise.

You're quoting SOX, which is a different law than the Whistleblower Protection Act. SOX, more specifically and relevant, 18 U.S.C. 1514A, was amended in 2010. § 1514A, as amended, only applies to companies registered as securities pursuant to 15 USC § 78l or required to file reports pursuant to § 78o(d) — Dominion, a privately held company, falls into neither category. The case you're citing to covers § 1514A, prior to amendment, i.e., not the current version of § 1514A that Carone's claim would be assessed under. The Court specifically acknowledged this:

[O]ur task is not to determine whether including contractor employees in the class protected by §1514A remains necessary in 2014. It is, instead, to determine whether Congress afforded protection to contractor employees when it enacted §1514A in 2002. Lawson v. FMR LLC, 571 U.S. 429, 456 (2014).

Could be, however this post makes no such allegation. Further, this site is largely right-aligned, so I don't really see what the conspiracy would even be there.

Regardless, the mere linkage of the mod to the identity of Ron Watkins, regardless of the truth of that link, does not furnish any evidence of a conspiracy. Seeking to identify a user should be done, if ever, in good faith pursuit of a conspiracy, which is not this.