RiceLad15
Hall of Famer
Posts: 16,660
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town |
RE: Here is the Evidence--for all to see w/ charts/graphs
(12-16-2020 01:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (12-16-2020 12:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (12-16-2020 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (12-16-2020 11:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (12-16-2020 11:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: No smoke at all from the lad. Glad we got that out of the way and buried. /sarcasm off
Again, read the many, many affidavits -- not direct proof, but in any viewpoint at least circumstantial evidence of actual physical activities that tend to indicate fraud. But in lad-world, those affiants really dont amount to a hill of beans. That is your prerogative, not mine but it apparently does you well.... (wink)
But, watch lad jump up and down and scream about how much smoke there is in Russiagate. Apparently even at this late date.
Note how you cant even admit that when legislatures (and sometimes governors and state courts such as Pennsylvania) changed the voting rules to allow expanded mail-in voting, and the cascade of related vulnerabilities that followed, that that in no way maximized the window of fraud. You cant even admit to the very basic, and absolutely true, first premise there.
It truly is laudable how any and all smoke in your worldview is tinted blue. Lolz.
What are the allegations? You seem to have read the affidavits, can you summarize the evidence here?
And you're 100% right that changes by Republican AND Democrats to expand voting access (which I noted above) increased the vulnerability of the system. I hadn't "admitted" that because we weren't talking about that - we were talking about actual fraud. So while there are more chances for systems to be taken advantage of, that increase in risk doesn't inherently mean there was an increase in fraud. And since both parties expanded voting, I don't see why that is even related to Democrat-induced voter fraud.
Take the last Wisconsin lawsuit for example --- only in the Democratic strongholds the receiving clerks were told, and did, and in contravention of state law, that they were to 'correct and fill in' any deficient addresses of mail in votes.
This is patently false!
This wasn't a practice only employed in Democratic strongholds, the Trump legal team only file suit focusing on select strongholds.
A memo to ALL Wisconsin clerks was sent out on Oct 19 telling the clerks how to handle the signature issue:
"“Please note that the clerk should attempt to resolve any missing witness address information prior to Election Day if possible, and this can be done through reliable information (personal knowledge, voter registration information, through a phone call with the voter or witness). The witness does not need to appear to add a missing address."
https://elections.wi.gov/sites/elections...0.2020.pdf
In fact, this guidance was put in place in 2016:
"The WEC has determined that clerks must take corrective actions in an attempt to remedy a witness address error. If clerks are reasonably able to discern any missing information from outside sources, clerks are not required to contact the voter before making that correction directly to the absentee certificate envelope."
https://elections.wi.gov/sites/elections..._38089.pdf
Really hard to argue that this is an issue, against state law, when the Wisconsin Election Commission provided said guidance too all County and Municipal Clerks in October 2020, and the process has been in place since 2016.
Quote:The processes were legislatively expanded in many Democratic (and some Republican) legislatures, but the addition of 'on the ball local clerk offices' to do like the above (or, in some cases mass mailing ballots where a request was needed) exacerbated the loosened legislative standards.
And yes, when a ballot is 'corrected' by a third party, and when the law says a deficient ballot is not to be considered, there *is* a fraud. No matter how you jump it.
See above - the WEC explicitly told clerks to do this. So it's now fraud to follow the state election commission?
Quote:And in the case of Pennsylvania, the Democratic governors sua sponte rewrite of the election code, and the Democratic Supreme Court there upholding in light of contravening law from the legislature is, again, an act of fraud.
Republicans in Pennsylvania were negligent in not making an issue of the above sooner.
There are replete cases in the suits detailing both the 'governmental maneuvers' to loosen the checks, and many issues detailing lower level functional 'irregularities' within the tally offices in at least 14 jurisdictions in 9 states.
Source?
Quote:But, I doubt you have read a single complaint, or for that matter a complete decision in any of the cases. So be it.
But, dont tell me (or anyone else) for that matter that there is no evidence of fraud. I will agree that the evidence is not sufficient to overturn the results in the minimum of three states needed to turn the election -- especially when the complained of items occur either at the moment the tally is done, or when delivering ballots via 'harvesting' with massively loosened checks at that juncture.
In fact, many of the Democratic jurisdictions seemed to think the election was their version of a Juarez whorehouse in the lax stringency in the invitation to 'come one, come all' when it dealt with the franchise. But, political machine cities are set up to do that -- they have been doing so for 150 years.
It is ludicrous to think that the invitation wasnt taken up at the first invitation by the brothel owner to not just keep doing, but not massively expand the activity.
It seems like our definition of fraud is different. I agree that BOTH republican and democratic states made voting easier during the pandemic, and that could have increased the chance for fraud to occur. But that loosening isn't, itself, evidence of fraud.
And given that you just flapped your arms about a fraudulent claim of fraud above, I'm going to take your certainty of it occurring with a grain of salt.
And that doesn't even touch on the fact that Dems didn't overwhelming outperform expectations down ballot - pretty crappy attempt at fraud by Dems if you ask me.
Perhaps you should read a tad:
Wisconsin Stat. § 6.87(2) provides that absentee ballots must be accompanied by a certificate. The certificate may be printed on the envelope in which an absentee ballot is enclosed.
Section 6.87(2) provides a model certificate, and directs that certificates must be in "substantially" the same form as the model. The model provides:
Quote:The witness shall execute the following:
I, the undersigned witness, subject to the penalties of s. 12.60 (1)(b), Wis. Stats., for false statements, certify that I am an adult U.S. citizen and that the above statements are true and the voting procedure was executed as there stated. I am not a candidate for any office on the enclosed ballot (except
in the case of an incumbent municipal clerk). I did not solicit or advise the elector to vote for or against any candidate or measure.
......Printed Name
..... Address
Signature
The plain language of the statute requires that the person affix the address, nor does the statute render to the any other person (let alone an election official) taking *any* action.
This is supplemented with Wisconsin Stat. § 6.87(9), which explains what an election official *may* do if an absentee ballot is received with an improperly completed certificate or no certificate:
"[T]he clerk may return the ballot to the elector, inside the sealed envelope when an envelope is received, together with a new envelope if necessary, whenever time permits the elector to correct the defect and return the ballot within the period authorized under sub. (6)."
Section 6.87(9)'s plain language authorizes election officials to return the ballot to "the elector" to correct "the defect." It does not authorize election officials to make corrections, i.e., to write anything on the certificate.
In addition, Wis. Stat. § 6.87(6d) provides that "[i]f a certificate is missing the address of a witness, the ballot may not be counted."
So contrary to your pipsqueak that it is 'hard to argue it is against state law', it is pretty fing easy to argue its against state law when one actually reads the fing laws in question. But you know me, I guess it is horribly old fashioned to think that 'words matter' in such things like the law to the progressive set.
Maybe click on the memos I linked to.
From the 2016 memo...
Quote:One of the components of 2015 Wisconsin Act 261 is the requirement for an absentee ballot witness to provide their address when signing the absentee certificate envelope.
SECTION 78. 6.87 (6d) of the statutes is created to read:
6.87 (6d) If a certificate is missing the address of a witness, the ballot may not be counted.
In implementing this requirement, the first question that comes to mind is “What constitutes an address?” The Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) has set a policy that a complete address contains a street number, street name and name of municipality. But in many cases, at least one component of the address could be missing; usually the municipality...
The WEC clarified the law you're talking about in 2016 and told clerks that they MUST add in information about addresses if they are "reasonably able to discern any missing information from outside sources."
|
|
/
Here is the Evidence--for all to see w/ charts/graphs/and now pics of the fraud!
