Posted on 11/08/2020 5:25:46 AM PST by Kaslin
The party about to lose the election by razor thin margins in the 11th hour in several states has asked for protection against vote fraud for decades.
The party about to win the election by razor thin margins in the 11th hour insisted vote fraud was rare, isolated and fought increased protections against fraud.
Whether or not the election is skewed by fraud, anyone unwilling to understand why the aggrieved party is skeptical and frustrated is acting in bad faith.
- Jeremiah MacRoberts
I’m surrounded by them. My kids are wondering why I think liberals are so evil. Lol!
THIS IS WHY.
If they can get away with this - our country is over. Finished.
I’m skeptical of Bedford’s Law being valid in a situation involving multiple precincts of approximately the same size.
It requires entries that span several orders of magnitude, but with precincts of similar size and one party expected to take a large percentage of the vote across the entire city, I’m not sure that the requirement is met. In fact, it seems like it would not be met.
For example, if most precincts were of 600 to 800 voters and one party was expected to get 70-90% in each, that party would have very few entries starting with “1” and a lot starting with 4,5,6, or 7.
>>Man, that’s fraud right there, out in the open for everyone to see.<<
No, it’s not fraud, but it did enable fraud. The fraud is the actual casting of illegal ballots.
That said, if Democrat-run cities overtly enabled fraud, those elections need to be voided by the Supreme Court and run again with federal oversight in place in every single one.
I don’t see any other way, unless state Supreme Courts step in first and order new elections where state laws dictating election processes were clearly violated.
You’re right about the impossibility of separating good from bad ballots once they’re commingled for counting. Therefore, recounts are not useful.
The answer is to prove conclusively that the Dems violated state laws in place to ensure election integrity. Once that’s proven, a court can order a re-vote.
And a re-vote, under federal supervision, is also the best way to convince most voters that the final election results are valid.
>>President Trump is going to need real evidence of fraud...<<
Not necessarily. He might just have to convince the Supreme Court (or state courts) that the election laws put in place to guard against fraud were aggressively and intentionally violated. Given that, a court could rule that fraud was enabled, whether it occurred or not, and order a new election in those cities.
For example, if it can be demonstrated that GOP poll watchers were not permitted to observe when clearly entitled to do so, that might suffice without having to provide actual evidence that fraudulent votes were actually cast.
I’m not a lawyer, but that seems to be a reasonable route.
Once again you miss a point. There are two separate frauds. Making deceptive statements to deny another party the right to observe the counting is itself fraud.
Jiggering the vote is a separate fraud. Having committed the first, the burden of proof as to the second shifts.
Solid point @ post 35
The Trump team needs to clean it up - Rudy needs to clean it up. He is all over the place. Yes, dead people voted. However, you must focus on one thing because they are going to lose the narrative for good.
People need to stop posting about watermark nonsense on the ballots and 4d chess stuff.
What we need is a comparison of votes in districts with similar demographics and put those numbers over the numbers of these districts where we had no observers.
The math does not lie. That is the point, as you stated clearly, that demonstrates fraud. Why is Philly so different than Cleveland or Cincinnati? This is where they need to focus because we KNOW that there were no poll watchers. It was deliberate. This is where the bar graphs come in and they are easy to understand.
Making deceptive statements to deny another party the right to observe the counting is itself fraud.
********
I realize it’s just semantics, but imo that isn’t a fraud, it’s a declaration of war and a “please come kill us now” request.
” I predicted President Donald Trump would win a huge electoral victory on election night; Democrats would try to steal it away from him; we’d spend weeks or months in court and eventually wind up at the Supreme Court; we’d suffer mass unrest and riots during one of the most tough, divisive periods in America’s history....”
As for the offer that Wayne wants Trump to make...just wait until the first few “winners” of the million dollar prize end up like Seth Rich. The rest, even if they’ve provided evidence, will suddenly act like mobster Frank Pentangeli when called to testify against Michael Corleone in front of the Senate committee - they’ll lie, they’ll “forget,” etc.
It is a great idea, but it simply won’t work.
And the idea that “IF the Democrats cheated” is something that only the most naive person could ever even think. Of COURSE they cheated - how could a senile, old man who rarely stepped out of his basement to campaign, and who is despised by a good portioin of his own party, possibly win more votes than Barack Obama at the peak of his popularity in the 2008 election - especially with Trump winning the highest percentage of blacks and Latinos of any Republican since 1960? It isn’t possible, not without MASSIVE cheating.
>>Given that Biden got an overwhelming majority in most precincts, you wouldn’t expect many of his vote totals to start with a 1. More 2s, 3s and 4s make sense.<<
I think you’re right. One of the requirements of Bedford’s Law is that the input numbers have to span several orders of magnitude. Precinct counts within a single city wouldn’t seem to satisfy that requirement.
>>Once again you miss a point. There are two separate frauds.<<
Maybe I do. I’m no lawyer. But, from the definition of fraud: “The purpose is to gain something of value, usually money, by misleading or deceiving someone into believing something that the perpetrator knows to be false.”
No one believed anything the Dems asserted about election procedures, but many now seem to be accepting the results of what was very likely a fraudulent election.
They broke election laws right and left. Obviously, their purpose in breaking them was to convince everyone that Biden got more votes than he did. That was the fraud, assuming it actually occurred. Proving it occurred will be harder than proving that election laws were violated, which is my point. Get them on that and hold a do-over election in those cities because potential fraud was enabled. Of course, it helps the case if people who committed fraudulent voting testify to that effect or can be shown to have done so, but that might not be necessary is all I’m saying.
In the swing states...Red precincts have the clues to the nature of the fraud
Verifying each ballot and observing the count was a legal right.
>>Verifying each ballot and observing the count was a legal right.<<
True, but there was nothing deceptive about it. Their actions were blatant. Everyone saw that they were not letting GOP poll workers see what they were doing. They clearly broke election laws. Fraud requires deception, by definition. At least that’s how I understand it. I could be wrong.
I don’t think you can match the envelope to the voter (because then it is no longer a secret ballot); do you want a Biden administration to have access to lists of people who voted for his opponent?
Outside of a “re-vote” I see no other way besides putting it in the House.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.