Is “Inconceivable” Provable? The Justice Department Needs More Than a Vizzini Charge to Prosecute Trump

Below is my column in the Hill on the ongoing federal grand jury investigation reportedly looking into January 6th and potential criminal charges against former president Donald Trump. If there is an indictment, it cannot be based on a Vizzini charge that it is simply “inconceivable” that anyone would believe that there was widespread election fraud. Notably, a new Harvard study has found that most people who went to the Capitol on January 6th did so in loyalty to Trump rather than to engage in insurrection. Millions continue to believe that the election was stolen. However, any case would likely be tried in Washington, D.C., which constitutes arguably the worst possible jury pool politically for the former president.

Here is the column:

This week, CNN received a 282-page letter from former President Trump. The “Notice of Intent” to sue includes dozens of past transcripts and online stories of unrelentingly anti-Trump coverage on the network. However, there is one line that stood out; it stated that Trump “subjectively believes that the results of the 2020 presidential election turned on fraudulent voting activity in several key states.”

The line does not make a case for civil defamation — but it could offer a criminal defense if Attorney General Merrick Garland charges Trump as part of an ongoing grand jury investigation.

As a defamation lawsuit, the length of the exhibits does little to make up for the limited case law supporting Trump’s claim. Trump faces a difficult constitutional standard applied to public officials and public figures. Under that “actual malice standard,” he must show that CNN had actual knowledge of the falsity of a statement or showed reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.

Trump has long objected to that standard and called for it to be changed to allow greater liability for the media. Ironically, liberals such as Harvard professor Cass Sunstein also have called for the broader use of defamation to combat “fake news.” However, courts have not accepted such invitations. The standard is designed to make defamation actions more difficult, to give the free press “breathing space” to carry out its key function in our system.

CNN’s reporting in some stories that Trump lied about election fraud was clearly protected opinion. In other reports, it was based on the views of experts or sources. In either case, a defamation case cannot be maintained on the “I believed it to be true” claim. The question is whether CNN knew it to be false or didn’t care if it was false or true.

That claim, however, could have greater success in a criminal prosecution.

Some of us continue to question the basis for criminal charges against Trump on the current evidence. The House Jan. 6 committee promised to present compelling evidence to support criminal charges, but it has not yet presented that case after eight hearings. Even some Democratic figures, including former prosecutor and former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), do not believe a strong case has been made for an indictment.

I have long maintained that current or former presidents should be charged when there is clear evidence of a crime, including the cases of former Presidents Nixon and Clinton. The Justice Department, however, has long adopted a more cautious approach. Although a federal judge declared that Clinton committed perjury, which even some of his supporters admitted, he was not charged. There has been a recognition that such a prosecution — even a clear case like Clinton’s — could divide the nation at a time when it needs to move forward.

I have always disagreed with that view, believing that if a president commits a crime, prosecution strengthens the nation by showing its commitment to the rule of law.

However, that is not an invitation for improvisation or impulse. If a former president is going to sit in the dock, the case should be sufficiently strong to refute any question of political motive or influence.

That is not the current case against Trump.

While Trump was impeached for inciting an insurrection, there has been a notable shift away from that dubious basis for an indictment. Most of the current calls for prosecution focus on conspiring to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371) and corruptly obstructing an official proceeding (18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)).

Any prosecution will have to overcome significant constitutional headwinds, including free speech protections and the right to protest (and to call for such protests). However, the central problem remains Trump’s state of mind.

Trump maintains he believed the election was stolen and he had a legal basis to challenge its certification. Democrats in Congress (including some members of the Jan. 6 committee) have challenged certifications of prior elections, including Trump’s 2016 victory; past election controversies also involved rival slates of electors being presented to Congress. And Trump had a team of lawyers advising him these were valid claims.

Democrats have tried to undermine such a defense by referring to Trump’s personal lawyers as “Team Crazy” and noting that not only White House counsel but most legal experts disagreed with their analysis. They insist no one would believe these claims were credible. The committee’s case, however, was built without a modicum of balance in the presentation of evidence. Even in quoting Trump’s much-condemned rally speech, the committee routinely edited out his line that “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

Some insist Trump’s state of mind can be dismissed as “willful blindness” and that he had to know there was no evidence of widespread election fraud. It is true that willful blindness can be used by prosecutors when they cannot prove actual knowledge, but it remains highly controversial. As one expert noted, “There is tremendous confusion in this area of law and a lurking sense that something is fundamentally awry.”

When an administration prosecutes a former (and possibly future) political opponent, even more can appear “awry.” Even under the alternative showing, “willful” does not include politically delusional or defiant defendants. Millions of Americans still believe there is evidence of election fraud. Moreover, the Jan. 6 committee has portrayed Trump as a raving egomaniac who refused to accept that he could lose to President Biden. Even former Attorney General William Barr said Trump refused to entertain opposing views and added, “I thought, boy, if he really believes this stuff, he has, you know, lost contact with, become detached from reality.”

Perhaps, but Trump would not be convicted for losing a grasp on reality. He would argue that he had a host of lawyers around him supporting this view.

True, the odds of convicting Trump on most any crime before a Washington, D.C., jury is very high. In a city that gave Biden more than 92 percent of its vote (and Trump roughly 5 percent), the defense could not face a worse jury pool.

However, that does not mean it would stand up on appeal. In the interim, a weak or creative case for conviction would rip the country apart.

For the administration of his opponent to prosecute him, the case must be more than just plausible. It must be unassailable.

Prosecutors need more than simply repeating that it’s “inconceivable” that Trump didn’t know he’d lost the election. In the film “The Princess Bride,” that was the go-to line for the character Vizzini, who used it to avoid any self-questioning. For many Trump critics, it serves the same purpose.

They maintain that it is “inconceivable” that Trump believed what he said about the election being “stolen” — so what he said must have been criminal.

Yet as another character from the movie told Vizzini, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

It means even less in a criminal case against a past or present president. Garland will need more than a Vizzini charge to make a case stick against Trump.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

320 thoughts on “Is “Inconceivable” Provable? The Justice Department Needs More Than a Vizzini Charge to Prosecute Trump”

  1. There is an issue with claiming there was no widespread fraud in the 2020 election as by now every American should have seen with their own eyes the hours of video evidence showing the illegal ballot box stuffing that occurred in swing states. The various videos of people in the middle of the night with latex gloves taking pictures of stacks of ballots before they stuff them in the ballot drop boxes then remove the gloves and discard them in the trash. These activities were lamely excused by Reuters in an attempt to explain the videos away, but their incompetent defense of such clearly illegal activity has only led some believe the media could be involved in a wider conspiracy. When Al Gore sued for what he believed was voter fraud in Florida 2000, the media sent a consortium to Florida within days in an attempt to confirm it, yet nothing was found and most of the nation moved on. Is it possible the media didn’t do that this time because they know what they would find?

    1. Trump can use this video evidence, plus video of Democrat blm poll workers covering windows and shooing away GOP observers, along with the funky reporting numbers scrolling on media’s own screens to show that cnn and other media had knowledge and of possible wrongdoing, and this evidence to the contrary aside, they continue to falsely pillory Trump that he’s nuts and can’t possibly believe the election was stolen. Trump should, indeed, pursue and get discovery! Let’s see what they knew.

  2. Thomas Jefferson had a remedy.
    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. ”

    If you allow government to continue lawlessly we are headed to violence. Is that the action you want ?

    More from Jefferson
    “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”

    Or Chris Coumo
    “Now too many see the protests as the problem. No, the problem is what forced your fellow citizens to take to the streets: persistent, poisonous inequities and injustice, And please, show me where it says protesters are supposed to be polite and peaceful. Because I can show you that outraged citizens are what made the country what she is and led to any major milestone. To be honest, this is not a tranquil time.”

  3. What you should do is call a spade a spade, your party (You voted for this THUG) are Hitleresque thugs, who steal elections, despite your naive protestations, and use Gov. institutions to bully everyone else. So, lets see, the FBI/DOJ/CIA have been used to p after Trump since 2015, and not one person has seen jail time for these crimes, because people like you have stayed silent.

    We all know the facts, Garland is a commie THUG, the DOJ/FBI violated the law by going after Trump, they should be in jail, until you admit this you are just BSing on here.

  4. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

    Until the problems with 2020 are recognized, they will not be corrected.

    Absent inquiry and consequences we will repeat this – likely worse over and over until we are forced to fix the problems.

    The 2020 election set the nation back more than a century in terms of election security.

  5. We are working to make the system as safe and secure as it can be. Many of us have been doing so since 2000.
    This is not my first Rodeo.
    I have been fighting for election security since 2000.

    I have in the past fought against republicans who post 2000 thought the Diebold (now DVS) voting machines were a good idea.

    The problem is that too many like YOU are fighting AGAINST election security.

    In the same video with your deceptively edited quote – Derschowitz states that he is part of a court case arguing that AZ’s constitution requires in person voting. That mailin voting is unconstitutional in AZ.

    In the same Video Derschowitz notes that Mailin voting should not be allowed, it is too dangerous and prone to fraud.

    Some of Alan’s remarks are confused – he uses multiple different names for mailin voting and never distinguishes between actual absentee voting – which meets the secret ballot constitutional requirements, and can meet the needs of the elderly, handicapped or others that have problems voting at polls on election day, and mailin voting.

    This confusion is not surprising as far too many on the news, or even republicans use absentee voting and mailin voting interchangeably.

    In fact some state election laws call mailin voting absentee voting.

    The difference between mailin voting and absentee voting is what Derschowitz refers to as “chain of custody”
    With absentee voting there is always a chain of custody for every ballot. An election official gives you a ballot directly, you vote immediately and you return the ballot to the election official.

    That process can occur at a courthouse days before the election.
    Or it can occur with shutins by having an election official bring a ballot to you.

  6. Here is the actual video of Derschowitz making that statement – which you deceptively edited
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3LyOKiEOTw

    I would recommend viewing it to most everyone. Deschowitz makes a small number of errors – and the last half has nothing to do with 2000 mules or the election and is just Derschowitz pointlessly arguing with mostly stupid people mostly from the right who write him.
    You can skip the last 15min – or not if you do not trust me.

    Also in the clip is Derschowitz saying
    “it provided very persuasive proof that we just do not know what happens to these ballots [mailin ballots], that we just do not have the kind of security that we have when someone goes to the poll”

    You can agree with Dershowitz that 2000 mules does not prove that Trump won.
    The evidence for a Trump victory requires concluding that the fraudulent mailin ballots were votes for Biden.
    2000 mules does not prove that, but it is a reasonable assumption.

    But it does prove election fraud.

    It also proves that the courts FAILED, You do not need to conclude that this proves Trump won to accept that the election was obviously lawless and fraud ridden, and that the courts FAILED when they refused to inquire.
    In fact you do not even have to accept that this proves fraud, to grasp that it is EVIDENCE of fraud that REQUIRES the scrutiny of law enforcement and the courts.

    You assert that all claims of election fraud have been debunked.
    But Derschowitz ACTUALLY says that is not even close to true.

    1. Thank you, John. IMO ATS SHOULD BE THROWN OFF THE BLOG for intentionally lying and using the blog’s posting and deleting system to assist him in his lies. He posted the following: “Utterly unpersuasive on the issue that Trump won the election…” (at approximately 6:20)” with a video then automatically deleted while not being accessible to others.

      The rest of the video shows a different story. Dershowitz is talking about legal proof of a Trump win and Biden loss which isn’t proven solely by using the video even though it could be reasonably assumed, or proven by those involved in the ballot trafficking.

      IMO such actions should lead to ATS and all his aliases being permanently banned from the list.

      Anyone reading what ATS writes should know that he openly lies and hides the lies behind the electronic mechanisms meant to help the list function, not to aid ATS’ ability to lie and deceive. The use of such mechanisms in that way, alone, should IMO lead to ATS and all his aliases being banned from the list.

      The Dershowitz video is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3LyOKiEOTw

  7. “Yeah, yeah, yeah. Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

    It’s time for people to move on.”

    Your the one who keeps pretending that the election did not hinge on a small number of votes.

    Biden won an electoral college landslide, He won the popular vote by large numbers.
    But the electoral college landslide could easily have been a landslide for Trump with a very small change in the vote.

    It si actually very important to be honest about that – it is important not just to this elections but future elections.

    There are several driving forces that dictate the scale of election fraud.
    How close is the election – it is exponentially harder to add 1M votes than 100,000. And you are exponentially more likely to get caught.
    How tight are the election laws.

    There was likely fairly significant fraud in the Newsome Recall. There is plenty of evidence.
    But there is no massive challenge to the recall, because with or without that fraud – Newsome avoided recall easily. There was just not enough fraud to change that.

    While we should always care about election fraud. We can not acheive perfect elections. We can not have no fraud, we can not have no errors,

    And no one will care much if the election is not close. Had Biden won all the swings states by 5% of the vote – there would have been no recounts, no audits, no court challenges, no January 6. None of this would have happened – even with the current evidence of election fraud.
    We might look to put in jail those responsible for the fraud.
    We might look to tighten election laws.
    But there will be no civil war over the election results when the actual scale of victory dwarfs error and fraud.

    But more and more we have razor thin margins of victory in elections – not just presidential elections – but house, senate, governor, …

    Increasingly elections are close – and this is extremely dangerous. This hugely incentives fraud. And the lawlessness of the 2020 election enables that fraud.

    Absent serious tightening of election laws, as weall as meaningful enforcement of them BEFORE the election by the courts – n one of which occured in 2020 or after – we are headed for a disaster much worse than 2020.

    Fraud will continue and grow until there is an even worse mess.

    The mere rational belief by republicans that democrats cheated, will result in either tightening and enforcemnt of the laws, or cheating by republicans or violence, or all of the above.
    Lawless elections alone are certain to eventually lead to violence,
    the perception that there was large scale fraud will either get a remedy from government, or a response in either fraud or violence from those harmed.

    Again look to th 19th century – there was massive fraud – by both parties. and little trust in elections.

    Is that what you want ?

    1. 139 million registered voters in America in 2020. Trump 74 million of them . Biden 81 million ? of them. The math does not add up. Millions of fake votes created out of digital fog for the most unpopular senile president candidate ever. So many precincts in a couple swing states having 100% and higher voter turnout…an impossibility. Those swing states that stopped the count in the wee hours to all have the same mathematical curve of victory for joey when the lights came back on…… an absolute mathematical impossibility. We the citizenry are not fooled by that huge hoodwink and corrupt election.

      1. Your post reminds me of something those on the left keep getting wrong.
        Evidence and proof are not the same things.

        In your post you cite lots of evidence of fraud.
        Some of that evidence MIGHT have alternate explanations.
        But it is still evidence.

        Getting into court requires evidence – though not very much.
        Getting through discover, a trial, and to a verdict requires proof – though again far less than the left pretends.

        The massive failure of the courts was in not letting Trump through the door.
        Trump had everything required to get through the door.

        But the court decisions at least as argued by the left essentially said you have not proven fraud beyond any doubt as required to win,
        Therefore we will deny you the opportunity to build your case through discovery, witnesses and documents.

    2. “ We can not have no fraud, we can not have no errors,”

      Very true. How often are errors conflated as fraud? That should be scrutinized more. Trump often claimed basic errors as fraud to add to the scale of the fraud problem.

      Too many people don’t recognize errors by voters or officials and often claim fraud.

      1. ““ We can not have no fraud, we can not have no errors,”

        Very true. How often are errors conflated as fraud? That should be scrutinized more. Trump often claimed basic errors as fraud to add to the scale of the fraud problem.

        Too many people don’t recognize errors by voters or officials and often claim fraud.”

        The difference in importance between error and fraud is very small. We can not have perfect elections – but we are not even close to where we need to be.

        Conflating error with fraud is often valid. Even where error is not fraud – it nearly always makes fraud possible.

        Almost 50% of the ballots in AZ had errors of some kind. Few of these were the responsibility of voters.
        Nearly all of these errors made detecting and preventing fraud harder, even impossible.

      2. It is not all that hard to have an election that has a low error rate, a low fraud rate and a high trust rate.

        Vote only in person on election day with ID that verifies you are eligible to vote in the precinct you are in.
        Vote by secret ballot.
        Conduct all ballot handling and counting in the precinct and by hand, And do it all – not just with observers – but completely in public and report the totals from small batches publicly and immediate.
        And complete the count before midnight on election day.

        This is all possible. It is not even difficult.

        Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

        When the candidate for an office does not have a margin of victory greater than the margin of error have a snap runnoff.
        Not months later, but days later.

    1. What happens when there’s a miscarriage? How will the state know a woman is pregnant? Will there have to be some sort of proof? What about twins? triplets? They opened a can of worms for sure.

      1. Additional information, including return instructions to claim the personal exemption for an unborn child with a detectable heartbeat, will be issued later this year along with other tax changes impacting Tax Year 2022 Georgia individual income tax returns.
        https://dor.georgia.gov/press-releases/2022-08-01/guidance-related-house-bill-481-living-infants-and-fairness-equality-life

        What about twins? triplets?

        This is for each unborn child.

        They opened a can of worms for sure.

        That’s why I said it was interesting. I do tax returns for a living and I had all the same questions. Like every other tax law, there will be people that try to take advantage of it.

      2. They are called lives not worms. You never had children, huh? it shows

        Me thinks you really are White House Spokeswomyn KJP. Are you a black lesbian, paintchips, or just a flunky thespian?

        Karine Jean-Pierre roasted for calling overturning of Roe v. Wade ‘unconstitutional’
        White House press secretary said Supreme Court took ‘unconstitutional action’

        Fox News

  8. OT: If the Biden administration’s position is that the United States does not support Taiwan independence, then why would we defend Taiwan if China invaded them?

    1. Olly:
      “OT: If the Biden administration’s position is that the United States does not support Taiwan independence, then why would we defend Taiwan if China invaded them?“
      ************************
      Biden feels strongly both ways and Foster Pelosi slurringly agrees especially if slurring Paul Pelosi can make a few mil on semiconductor investments in Tieoneon. As for wars, the Dims only start ones they hope we’ll lose. We frustrated em so far after ‘nam but they are making a strong comeback with Afghanistan and Iraq.


  9. Here are some of the outrageous statements made by the Prosecution in their quest to pressure the judge for a maximum sentence for Reffitt:

    “This is not someone who was a lone wolf,” said Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey Nestler. “He (Reffitt) had a leadership role in his militia group, he (Reffitt) had reached out to Sen. Ted Cruz’s office, etc.”

    So now contacting your ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE, your Senator, is frowned upon by the DOJ? And last time we checked, Militias are CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED BY THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

    “They are attacking the Second Amendment, and not the part most people know about,” said Ryan of Citizens Against Political Persecution. “Not just guns, but militias now as well. By the end of it the entire country will be castrated if people do not wake up to the agenda.”

    “He was trying to take over our government,” continued prosecutor Nestler. “He wasn’t just trying to stop the vote… the terrorism enhancement is warranted by all of those factors. Not just the defendant’s conduct on Jan. 6, but afterward.”

    No need to explain that this is just plain ridiculous…the prosecution trying to convince us that Guy Reffitt supposedly thought he was going take over the country and start issuing Executive Orders.

    Lastly, the condescending Trump appointed Judge Friedrich lectured Reffitt for stating the necessity to “rebel against the tyranny of the government” while he was in jail. According to a courtroom observer, when the judge asked Reffitt where he heard ideas like this he said “Uh, in elementary school. From the founding fathers. You know like Benjamin Franklin and George Washington.” To which the judge replied with something along the lines of- “That is why we have to vote that stuff out.”

    The idea of being able to rebel against a tyrannical government has always been a staple in the American mindset. I guess after Biden took office and they got Trump out we all should roll up our sleeves and STFU. Soon enough they will erase the Revolutionary War and Founding Fathers from the failed Common Core Curriculum.

    In closing, the Judge said to Reffitt after he made a heartfelt statement for clemency “How do I know you’re not going to post tomorrow, ‘I’m really a patriot folks’, I just said all that to get a lower sentence’. How do I know you’re really heartfelt?”

    So now being a patriot is a negative thing.

    Welcome to One Party Rule. Welcome to Biden’s America.

    Please help Guy Reffitt pay for an Appeals attorney HERE. In the end GOD WINS. ”

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/08/guy-reffitt-sentenced-seven-years-3-months-january-6th-prosecutions-request-terrorism-upwards-departure-denied-son-jackson-asked-maximum-sentence-dad-letter-t/

    1. Thanks OKY. I have on comment for two statements made.

      1) “Judge Friedrich had described Guy Reffitt and those who committed similar acts a ***“direct threat to our democracy”*** and says they will be “punished as such”, according to a live courtroom witness.“

      2) “Lastly, the condescending Trump appointed Judge Friedrich lectured Reffitt for stating the necessity to “rebel against the tyranny of the government” while he was in jail. “

      The opposite of tyranny is not democracy. It is individual freedom and liberty. In a democracy two people can vote the third into slavery.

      1. I can’t understand many of those Judges. What nation did they swear an oath to?

        LOL. That one Ahole Judge had Dr Gold locked up for 2 months “supposedly” because she turned him down on an unwanted advance in law school.

        Thomas Jefferson – I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. .

        https://theysaidso.com/quote/thomas-jefferson-i-have-sworn-upon-the-altar-of-god-eternal-hostility-against-ev

        1. Oky1:
          “I can’t understand many of those Judges. What nation did they swear an oath to“
          ******************************
          Understand that most judges are the ultimate establishment tools since they perceive they are underpaid lawyers trapped into their jobs and lured by visions of prestige that was the hallmark of an earlier age. For most, their highest commitment to freedom extends to making sure that whomever signs their government pay and pension checks is free to do so. They come down hardest on folks who buck the establishment. Remember he who pays the piper calls the tune and judges have keen hearing.

          1. Thks!

            I hope those Judges learn Mandarin Chinese as their new owner could soon be consolidate their latest purchase from the US Traitors. McConnell, Willard Romney, etc.

            I’ve seen & known since after WW2/1946-7 CIA/etc., rapidly escalated selling off our economic lifelines, mfgs/farms/etc. & flooding agencies with Commie/Nazi types.

            Short of the Long, one big piece is old media & their Govt licenses, at this time no doubt they are fully ran by the govt. GWBush/Obama/Ck Frank Church Hearings.

            Watching what’s going on & witnessing the govt shutting down independent voices on the internet/air/print.

            We’ve seen this for more the decade with people like Julian Assange,, reporter on Barry Seal??? ( Gary Webb, 2 shots to the head), etc..

            Anyway, Alex Jones/Infowars, in Fed BK, will be forced now to change. Being more then 50 Lawfare lawsuits/other legal attacks in just the past 6-8 years they’ll have to move to another ship.

            Point is, just like Lawfare forced Remington into BK, other next will be everyone else, like Tucker Carlson, FOX, Joe Rogan, & flatten every Biz that they’ve left standing.

            Good Luck with those Judges Retirement Plan.

            ***********

            Main part from Alex, 4.5/5 mins/ck volume.

            https://banned.video/watch?id=62eae4379730eb418c6100e5

            **********

            https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/08/lawless-maricopa-county-stalls-release-primary-election-results-tweets-arent-100-ballots-counted-yet-follow-law/

  10. Say it ain’t so Liz.

    Yet Cheney herself seems to have orchestrated opposition to use of the military to quell election-related unrest, allegedly organizing a Washington Post op-ed on Jan. 3, 2021, signed by every living former defense secretary.

    “All 10 living former defense secretaries: Involving the military in election disputes would cross into dangerous territory,” the headline read. It went on to threaten any military official who thought any use of the military might be a good idea. “Civilian and military officials who direct or carry out such measures would be accountable, including potentially facing criminal penalties, for the grave consequences of their actions on our republic,” the op-ed warned.

    The op-ed was allegedly organized by Cheney, whose father was secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush before serving as President George W. Bush’s vice president. Eric Edelman, a national security adviser to Dick Cheney, told the New Yorker the Wyoming lawmaker “was the one who generated” the piece for the Post.
    https://thefederalist.com/2022/08/02/inside-liz-cheneys-coordinated-effort-to-prevent-troop-deployment-before-jan-6

    1. My, My Liz, you definitely are the evil spawn of Cheney the D*ck!

      She’s now tied to planing the Coup on the front side to the back side of it.

      About like that can of worms called 911

    2. Let’s look at the premise of those that are accusing Trump of fomenting insurrection simply by claiming the 2020 election was a fraudulent. Shouldn’t the first line of defense in this argument beg the question: “Is there irrefutable evidence that there was no election fraud and more specifically that there was no fraud that impacted the outcome of the election in any precinct(s) in the country?”

      1. 2000 Mules alone should be enough evidence to require an independent audit; not to try to overturn the 2020 election, but to make necessary changes in every state to ensure our elections are as secure as possible. I can think of two reasons why Democrats would oppose that. 1. It would confirm what everyone knew happened during the 2020 election. 2. It would prevent it from happening again.

        1. While we should have audits.
          In fact random audits should be a norm for all elections.
          GA considered that prior to the 2020 election but Raffensberger rejected it as costing too much – and it was not very expensive.

          But one of the things the AZ audit proved was that Audits can not proof fraud – espeically when election laws are violated left and right.

          There were hundreds of thousands of ballots in AZ that were not printed by the state. If election laws had been followed – everyone of those ballots could be tossed as a forgery. But in several places in AZ precincts ran out of ballots and instead of requesting more blanks from the election commission, they printed blanks on photocopy paper. This violates election laws. But once done – what are we supposed to do ?
          Once you have enough illegal but not fraudulent ballots you can not tell the forgeries from those that are merely error.

          The AZ audit found almost 50,000 ballots accepted for only 13,000 voters. This could be fraud, this could be error, but it is uncorrectable once the ballots are separated from the envelopes.

          Alot is madfe of signature matching and other validation of mailin and absentee ballots. But the big problem that an audit can do nothing about is that once the ballots are separated from the envelops – there is no remedy for errors found later.

          One of the problems with Mailin voting is that it violates the core precepts of secret balloting, and by doing so makes the problems secret voting was designed to fix WORSE not better.

          If you want Mailin voting, then you MUST end secret ballots, and that requires amending 38 state constitutions,
          Further it is a radical change to core principles of elections.

          When our congressmen vote – we know how each one voted. Legislative votes are the opposite of secret voting.
          Those who vote are accountable for their votes. We know how they voted.

          We want that accountability from those we elect. But we do not want it from ordinary citizens. We do not want them accountable,
          we do not want them subject to inducement or coercion. We do not want them subject to peer pressure.

          The price we pay for secret balloting is that once a ballot is accepted it can not be tied back to its source, and it can not be removed from the count.
          That is why much of election law is about stopping potentially fraudulent ballots from being accepted.

          We can prevent many forms of election fraud – after the fact, by eliminating secret ballots. But when we do so we enable fraud by inducing or coercing voters.

          1. Interesting that you mentioned mail-in ballots. Yesterday the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled mail-in voting to be constitutional.

            “ Pennsylvania’s mail-in voting upheld by state Supreme Court, likely keeping it in place for November election”

            https://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-state/2022/08/02/pa-mail-in-voting-law-changes-state-supreme-court-justices-ruling-case-mastriano-trump-tom-wolf/stories/202208020109

            It seems it wasn’t lawless after all.

            1. “Interesting that you mentioned mail-in ballots. Yesterday the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled mail-in voting to be constitutional.”

              And yet mailin voting is blatantly unconstitutional in PA. There are two separate provisions of the PA constitution that mailin voting can not meet. The most trivial being PA has a secret ballot requirement in its state constitution.

              All you are doing is proving the PA supreme court is politically corrupt.
              That is not a secret to Pennsylvanians.

              If you actually want people to trust government, to trust the courts,
              Then follow the constitution and the law.
              And if you do not like them change them.

              You commented on Kansas before.

              Kansas has a provision in its state constitution that guarantees a right to abortions.
              Kansas republicans – contrary to your claims – sought to strike that provision from the Kansas constitution.
              Yesterday they failed.
              Kansas legislators are barred from crafting laws that infringe on that constitutional provision so long as it remains in place.
              I expect them to comply.
              If the people of kansas wish to prohibit abortions they must change their constitution.

              If the people of PA wish to have mailin elections – they must change their constitutions.
              The actions of the PA supreme court in 2020 and in 2022 are LAWLESS,
              they undermine trust in the courts, and in government.

              It is not possible to fix the PA supreme court decision – without replacing the court.
              The people of PA can not get rid of mailin elections by chaning the PA constitution they already did that more than a century ago and the court is ignoring that. If PA passed a new constitutional amendment – why wouldn’t the court ignore that ?

              The reason that the courts must follow the law and constitution as written is that otherwise the court is a law unto itself.
              We might as well get rid of the legislature and governor. And even the people.

              One of the differences between the left and everyone else.

              Is that if the left gains power over a single part of government – not even a complete branch, they will use that to do whatever they please.
              They will change election laws, change immigration laws, whatever it is that the left seeks to accomplish they will do if they control a single part of government.

              The rest of us expect the legislature to write laws. The executive to enforce them, and the courts to strike laws that offend the constitution.

              Neither the executive nor the judiciary get to create laws.
              Neither the legistlature nor the judiciary get to conduct investigations.

          2. The cyber ninjas audit in Arizona confirmed that Trump lost by a few more votes. They also found issues that wouldn’t change the outcome of the election but were normal issues found in every election. Human error or in the case of cyber ninjas, incompetence and sloppy work.

            There is always going to be some “fraud” or more precisely just basic misunderstandings since most election laws are a mess of requirements and outdated rules. What has indeed been the case is that there is no massive, large scale, or coordinated voter fraud that has changed or affected the outcome of an election. Even in Arizona where claims of dead people voting has been investigated thoroughly and it turns out just one person out of 288 was indeed dead. The rest were very much alive and legally voting.

            “ If you want Mailin voting, then you MUST end secret ballots,.. “

            Mail-in voting doesn’t end secret ballots. They still remain secret. Several states have had state wide mail-in ballots without an issue.

            The one reason republicans don’t like mail-in voting is because it allows for more voters to participate and that’s been shown not to benefit their party.

            Look at what happened in Kansas yesterday. The constitutional amendment on abortion was specifically chosen to be on the primary when voter turnout is historically lower and benefits republicans. Turnout was over 60% and the voters chose to keep abortion rights in the state constitution by an overwhelming majority. High turnouts provide a better picture of what the voters really believe. In Kansas it turns out voters do believe abortion should be legal. I wouldn’t be surprised if the republicans in the legislature try to overturn the will of the voters. It has happened in other states.

            1. “The cyber ninjas audit in Arizona confirmed that Trump lost by a few more votes. ”
              Correct.

              “They also found issues that wouldn’t change the outcome of the election but were normal issues found in every election.”
              Incorrect. the amount of error they found was enormous, and could have tipped the election easily.
              The detection of 50000 votes cast by only 13000 people alone could have tipped the election.

              Further most of the problems that Cyber Ninja’s found can not be conclusively said to effect the outcome of the election.
              As an example because AZ photocopied some ballots – it is not possible to know if photocopied ballots were fraudulent or not.

              On many issues regarding mailin envelopes and voter registration – CN postulated that invalid mailin ballots by registered republicans were votes for Trump and those by demnocrats were votes for Biden. But if there was organized voter fraud occuring – there is no reason to presume that a forged ballot would reflect the party that voter is registered to.

              “Human error or in the case of cyber ninjas, incompetence and sloppy work.”
              Contra your claims CN’s work was excellent. There is far more reason to doubt Bnrovich who has done a piss poor job overall than CN.

              “There is always going to be some “fraud””
              Correct, and the easier you make fraud the more you will get, and the close that an election is likely to be the more that you will get.

              “more precisely just basic misunderstandings since most election laws are a mess of requirements and outdated rules.”
              This is just utter nonsense. Election laws are increasingly complex. That is because elections are increasingly complex.
              The requirements to secure an inperson election on election day are relatively simple. Add early voting. non-exuses absentee voting, mailin voting and each change complicates the legal requiremnts necescary to thwart fraud exponentially.

              Please cite what you think is an “outdated” requirement ?

              “What has indeed been the case is that there is no massive, large scale, or coordinated voter fraud that has changed or affected the outcome of an election.”
              Still false. Even the AZ audit does not refute the 2000 mules claim, and infact dovetails with it.

              “Even in Arizona where claims of dead people voting has been investigated thoroughly and it turns out just one person out of 288 was indeed dead. The rest were very much alive and legally voting.”

              The fact that you beleive that is proof of your own ignorance. I doubt there is a state in the country that does not have atleast a couple of hundred dead people vote with each election. I doubt there is a state in the country that does not have a couple of hundred dead people vote “in person”. The fact that Brnovich only found one actually dead person – is prima fasci evidence he did a piss poor job.
              I trust CN far more than Brnovich.

              “” If you want Mailin voting, then you MUST end secret ballots,.. “

              Mail-in voting doesn’t end secret ballots. They still remain secret. Several states have had state wide mail-in ballots without an issue.”

              Again false.

              Here are the requirements of a secret ballot according to wikipedia.

              1. an official ballot being printed at public expense,
              2. on which the names of the nominated candidates of all parties and all proposals appear,
              3. being distributed only at the polling place and
              4. being marked in secret.

              You can not meet 3 and 4 with a mailin ballot and as we saw with 2020 there are enormous problems with 1 in a mailin election.

              Being marked in secret requires that there is no way other people can find out how you voted.
              That is not possible with a mailin ballot.

              #3 means that a voter can not posses a ballot outside of the polling place.
              Again can not be done with mailin voting.

              “The one reason republicans don’t like mail-in voting is because it allows for more voters to participate and that’s been shown not to benefit their party.”
              False. there are many republicans that want mailin voting. It is actually quite popular.

              Those opposed to mailin voting are opposed because it is a gigantic oportunity for fraud that can not be foreclosed.
              It will return us to the massive fraud in the 19th centruy

              “Look at what happened in Kansas yesterday. The constitutional amendment on abortion was specifically chosen to be on the primary when voter turnout is historically lower and benefits republicans. Turnout was over 60% and the voters chose to keep abortion rights in the state constitution by an overwhelming majority.”

              While I have a major problem with the highly deceptive way the ballot question was asked. In PA they did the same thing in the 2021 primary on ballot questions limiting the emergency powers of the governor – but these still passed overwhelmingly.
              Regardless, those submitting a ballot initiative should control how it is presented on the ballot.

              That said changes to state constitutions should be difficult.

              And finally – all the Kansas initiative did was confirm that the supreme court was right in Dobb’s – that people are capable of making these decisions in their state.

              At the same time as the effort to ammend the kansas state constitution failed – Trump endorsed candidates in Kansas won.

              “High turnouts provide a better picture of what the voters really believe.”
              False, high voter turnout is historically associated with political instability.

              The US is becoming increasingly political unstable.

              Voting is an abysmally bad way to measure what voters beleive. Voting is inherently binary, and most peoples beleifs are NOT.

              Pick any ten people and divide them according to their views – and you will likely get 11 separate groups.

              This is another reason why markets are far batter ways to resolve issues than voting.

              If you have $100 and you have to decide how to spend it, your spending will fairly accurately reflect your values.
              How you vote will not.

              Voters rarely have any real immediate cost for their vote.
              Do you think anyone would have voted for Biden had they known that 800K more people would die from Covid ?
              Or that Russia would invade Ukraine ?
              Or that within 18months we would be in a recession ?
              Or that they would be facing near 10% inflation ?
              Or ….

              When we vote we do not know the cost our vote would impose on us.

              “In Kansas it turns out voters do believe abortion should be legal.”
              I have no problem with that outcome – though I would be more supportive if the ballot question was not deceptive.

              “I wouldn’t be surprised if the republicans in the legislature try to overturn the will of the voters. It has happened in other states.”

              The only way Kansas republicans could do that would be to ignore the state constitution.
              But then lefties like you ignore constitutional requirements for secret ballots,
              so I guess turn about is fair play.
              I do not expect Kansas Republicans to pass laws that violate the Kansas constitution.
              But if they do – I will oppose them in the same way I oppose those that pretend that mailin ballots meet secret ballot requirements – they do not.

            2. Here are the findings from the forensic audit from Arizona. Recall, Biden’s margin of victory 10k:

              • 255,326 early voters who
              have no matching voter records
              • 17,322 duplicate ballot envelops – 90%
              received after election day
              • 9,041 more ballots received than mailed
              out
              • 1,551 more ballots received than eligible voters
              • 399 mail in
              ballots received that were never mailed out • 23,344 ballots received
              from voters who were not eligible to vote as they had moved out of state
              • 2,382 in person votes received from voters who were not eligible
              • 5,295 voters voted in multiple counties
              • 282 dead people voted

              The reason republicans don’t like mail in ballots is because they are ripe for fraud. It’s like the same reason why democrats oppose voter ID, because without it, it’s easier to cheat.

              Abortion in Kansas is a bad example. Out of state dark money groups spent millions scaring the voters about the legislation. Anyone who wants a clear example of legislating against the will of the people, look at democrats efforts to remove Trump1 since he was sworn in.

        2. One of the lessons of the 2020 election is there are no consequences at all for violations of election laws.
          Law that has no consequences is no law.

          The WI Supreme court has ruled TWICE that ballot drop boxes in WI are illegal and unconstitutional.

          But no one in the WEC is being fined or charged, and the court refused to invalidate ballots received in illegal dropboxes.

          The WI Supreme court has done nothing that precludes the WEC from placing Ballot Drop boxes in 2022.

          There are fundimentally two ways to enforce election law:

          Fine or charge election officials for violations.
          Invalidate ballots.

          Without enforcement – law is meaningless.

          This is also a major problem with the 60 Election cases that left wing nut fixate on.

          Because there was no inquiry, there was no consequences.

          While we know the 2020 election was conducted lawlessly and fraudulently.
          And the left’s major excuse is “pandemic”

          You can accept or reject that excuse – but the great danger is that the lawlessness and fraud of 2020 become the norm.
          That is ultimately going to go very badly.

          We have already seen some unusual outcomes in primaries.

          In CO one candidate for Sec State was leading the closest competitor by 20pts on election day.
          The third place constestant had all but dropped out.
          Neither of the other candidates had any money nor had run adds in weeks.

          Yet on election day – the previously third place candidate won a variety of counties for no reason,
          And the 2nd place country won a bunch of traditionally democratic strongholds – in a republican primary.

          And again all this occured in an election that had been relatively quiet.

          The end result was the 2nd place candidate – one endorsed by the Zuckerberg 501C3 narrowly won, despite being down almost 20pts in the polls.

          We also have the Whitehouse issuing an executive order that essentially Federalizes the Zuckerbrg interferance in the 2020 election.

          Every department of the federal government is supposed to impliment a plan to drive Federal GOTV efforts.

          GOTV is illegal government electioneering.

          The government administers the election. It may not participate in any way.
          It is no the business of state or local or federal government to encourage people to vote.

          It is irrelevant whether they endorse a candidate, any government involvement in merely getting out the vote will impact the election.

          We do not know the exact extent of Zuckerberg meddling in 2020 – at the most benign Zuckerberg artificially increased the vote in very specific areas that skewed the election.

          That is perfectly proper for private parties acting as private parties.
          But Zuckerberg did it from INSIDE – acting as local government – and that MUST be illegal.

          The moment government takes a participatory role in elections – trust is destroyed.

          You can not have the federal government engaging in election related activities that will alter the outcome of the election.

          You can not have that – because it is illegal.
          But you also can not have it because it undermines trust in elections.

          1. “ But no one in the WEC is being fined or charged, and the court refused to invalidate ballots received in illegal dropboxes.”

            The question before the court was the legality of the drop boxes, not the votes themselves. The ballots themselves were not illegal.

            You can’t retroactively punish election officials because the action they took AT THE TIME was not illegal. All this ruling does is invalidate the method of collecting ballots. It does not invalidate the ballots themselves.

            “ The WI Supreme court has done nothing that precludes the WEC from placing Ballot Drop boxes in 2022.”

            That’s because it’s the legislature’s job. Not the court’s.

            “ This is also a major problem with the 60 Election cases that left wing nut fixate on.

            Because there was no inquiry, there was no consequences.”

            There WAS inquiry. The right keeps ignoring it because it is willfully denying a basic fact. In the majority of those 60 cases there was no evidence to present. It was in court hearings were that inconvenient fact often made it’s presence. Once a lack of evidence was mentioned the courts had no alternative but to dismiss. It’s just how the judicious system works. On other cases lack of standing which is also a legal doctrine supported even by conservative Supreme Court justices applied. This is just basic law.

            “ The end result was the 2nd place candidate – one endorsed by the Zuckerberg 501C3 narrowly won, despite being down almost 20pts in the polls.”

            You’re jumping to conclusions without all the relevant facts here. You don’t know what was happening locally. Some precincts could have been late in tabulating votes. There could have been a much bigger turnout than usual, etc, etc. you’re already sowing doubts about the outcomes before you have all the facts before you. Making assumptions is what gets you in trouble. Then add a little conspiracy theory and paranoia about zuckerburg and you got yourself a runaway conspiracy theory based on your biases.

            1. “The question before the court was the legality of the drop boxes, not the votes themselves. The ballots themselves were not illegal.”
              Of course they are.
              A vote cast illegally is illegal.

              “You can’t retroactively punish election officials because the action they took AT THE TIME was not illegal. All this ruling does is invalidate the method of collecting ballots. It does not invalidate the ballots themselves.”
              The actions they took AT THE TIME were illegal.
              The ballot boxes were illegal,
              the votes were illegal and the WI SCOTUS did say that, it also said there was no remedy.

              ““ The WI Supreme court has done nothing that precludes the WEC from placing Ballot Drop boxes in 2022.”
              That’s because it’s the legislature’s job. Not the court’s.”
              God you are daft. The ballot boxes are illegal because they are NOT authorized by the legislature.
              The WEC acted without legal authority – that is why the boxes were illegal.

              The rule of law is NOT the executive can do as it pleases until someone tells them they can not.
              What the court said was that WEC never had a basis in existing WI law to place ballot boxes.
              The WI SCOTUS said that the WEC pretended it was the legislature and it is not.

              Again the WI supreme court has done nothing to preclude the WEC from placing drop boxes in 2022.
              Nor can the legislature stop them.
              When the WEC will not follow the law there is no remedy – unless there is an enforcement mechanism – like sending them to jail.

              One of the problems with most election laws is that there is really no consequence for violating them.

              “ This is also a major problem with the 60 Election cases that left wing nut fixate on.
              Because there was no inquiry, there was no consequences.”

              “There WAS inquiry.”

              Nope. no discovery, no evidentiary hearing. no witnesses, no cross examination.
              That is what legal inquiry requires.

              “The right keeps ignoring it because it is willfully denying a basic fact.”
              The right keeps ignoring stupid claims like yours because they are false.
              Nor is this unique to the issue of election fraud.
              You constantly make claims that are patently false and ignore all the evidence that they are false
              and repeat them over and over.

              “In the majority of those 60 cases there was no evidence to present.”
              False. Affadavits were submitted. Those are evidence.
              Courts accept affidavits as proof prior to an actual hearing in which with rare exceptions the affiant must testify,
              and in that case the affdavit can be used in cross examination to discredit the witness.
              Until an actual hearing with witnesses judicial rules require the courts to accept affadavits as true.
              They are sworn statements subject to the same penalties as perjury.

              “It was in court hearings were that inconvenient fact often made it’s presence.”
              Nope. Thousands of affadavits of fraud. I doubt you are familiar with a single one.

              Nor am I aware of a single court oppinion that addressed a single affadavit – which judicial procedure require them to accept as true until an evidentiary hearing with witnesses.

              As is typical of those of you an the left – you are ignorant of the fact that we have worked out legal processes over atleast 2000 years.
              You constantly pretend that things work some way – just because that gives you the results you want.

              Lets use another example you are familiar with.
              The FBI applied to the FISA court for a warrant to surveil (spy on) Carter Page, the rules for these warrants typically allow spying on Page and anyone 2 hops away.

              Warrants are not issued because someone in the FBI goes to the court ans says – give me a warrant pretty please.
              The FBI must provide Evidence.
              The constitution requires Evidence of Two things. to grant a warrant.
              Evidence meeting the probable cause standard that a crime has been committed – Government can not investigate people for acts that are not crimes.
              Evidence meeting the same standard that the person the warrant is issued regarding committed that Crime.
              The entire warrant application must be SWORN by the FBI agent to be true.
              In the instance of the Page warrant – the Steele Dossier was used as part of that evidence.
              This is despite the fact that at the time the Steele Dossier was used as evidence the FBI and DOJ knew it was a hoax.
              Separately the FBI had asked the CIA if Carter Page had ever provided information to the CIA.
              The CIA responded that he had been an informant. But Klinesmith altered the CIA response to indicate that he had not.

              Regardless, the point is there is a formal legal process here. The FBI can not spy on whoever they feel like.
              To get warrants – they must provide evidence. And they must swear that evidence is true and correct to their knowledge.

              Everything in courts operates by often centuries long processes.

              The Trump campaign does not just walk into court and say – the election was fraudulent.
              It must file a claim. That claim must provide evidence to support that claim.
              The standard of proof they are required to meet is quite low. A single Sworn affadavit is more than sufficient.
              A cause can be started from allegations resting on claims based on information and beleif.
              The lawyers submitting those must swear much as FBI agents that the BELEIVE what they are presenting is true.
              Not that they know it is true.

              Regardless, so long as the claim is legally valid, as an example I can not sue my neighbor because he is beating up his neighbor.
              Because I do not have standing to raise a claim about harm to a third party.

              If a claim meets all the requirements of the law – THEN the court permits discovery. Discovery orders are limited to requesting information relevant to the claims being made. Discovery is typically requested and granted by both parties. Discovery in this instance would be requests for the video of ballot boxes or in the counting rooms. It would be requests for the chain of custody records, the ballot scans,
              the intermediate records. Many of these have been obtained – but only after FOIA requests followed by protracted court cases. It has taken almost 2 years to get the loading dock video from the detroit counting center. It has taken TTV a year and a half to get ballot box video. These are all things that the court would have required be turned over to the Trump campaign within a few weeks at most.
              But instead it has taken well over a year.

              AFter discovery is actual evidentiary hearings. Witnesses are called, adn cross examined. documentary evidence is admitted.
              Then and only then is a court permitted to rule on the evidence.

              Absolutely anything that you read in a court oppinion that occurs BEFORE evidentirary hearings is legally meaningless fill.
              Courts can and often do say that they do not think the plantif can prove their case. But that NEVER stops the case from proceeding.
              Trumps challenges before the election were shot down often because they were not “ripe” – the court refused to foreclose possible fraud, because the election had not occured. Essentially the court said – come back after the election when our refusal to force election officals to follow the law has resulted in harm. Then after the election claims were dismissed for lack of standing, for mootness, or for lack of a remedy. All of these are legal reasons – and bad ones, that have nothing to do with evidence. Editorial remarks in those oppinions about the evidence – are meaningless. Nothing a court says about evidence has any legal value until after discovery, and all testimony.

              That is the process – sort of, in reality it is even more complicated. But certain basics remain. Affadavits must be accepted as true until the witness testifies. All claims must be accepted in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. So in a motion to dismiss – all claims by the plantif must be assumed to be true.

              “Once a lack of evidence was mentioned the courts had no alternative but to dismiss.”
              False.

              “It’s just how the judicious system works.”
              Except that it is not at all how the judicial system works.

              “On other cases lack of standing which is also a legal doctrine supported even by conservative Supreme Court justices applied. This is just basic law.”
              I have no problems with the legal doctrine of standing. No one does. The problem is how it was applied.
              In every single controversy SOMEONE must have standing.

              This was an issue in the TX SB 8 abortion law. Which the courts ALSO got standing wrong on.
              TX passed a law limiting abortion that had an unusual enforcement mechanism designed to significantly delay the opportunity to challenge the law – by depriving plantifs of standing to sue the state.

              The Courts got this wrong (as did TX). Anyone should have standing to FACIALLY challenge the constitutionality of a law.
              A facial challenge is a claim that the law is unconstitutional on its face. There is no need to wait for it to be enforced to find out its effect is unconstitutional. Facial challenges can not have standing issues.

              “ The end result was the 2nd place candidate – one endorsed by the Zuckerberg 501C3 narrowly won, despite being down almost 20pts in the polls.”

              “You’re jumping to conclusions without all the relevant facts here.”
              I am reaching a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence available.
              It is in theory possible that the outcome was not the result of fraud.
              It is however unlikely.

              And that is my point. You do not have to prove fraud to get into court.
              It is possible that when what you call relevant facts are established – it will be clear there was no fraud.
              But the opposite is more likely.

              “You don’t know what was happening locally.”
              I have no idea what you mean. The previous polls are public.
              The amount of money raised is public.
              The actual reported vote is public.

              What is not known is why the vote changed radically accross three candidates in a few days.

              “Some precincts could have been late in tabulating votes.”
              Maybe, but not at all relevant.

              “There could have been a much bigger turnout than usual”
              The turnout matched expectations.
              Regardless, you are spitballing.
              If you are going to hypothesize plausible explainations – then you should make them consistent with known facts.

              We may not know everything. But we do know somethings and wild guesses inconsistent with known facts are FALSE.

              “you’re already sowing doubts about the outcomes”
              Correct – we should ALWAYS doubt implausible outcomes.

              The burden of proving elections trustworthy rests with Government.
              You rant about complex and “outdated” election laws. But the purpose of those laws is not just to prevent fraud, but to assure voters that fraud and error are not going to be factors. The failure of election officials to follow the law in 2020 destroyed over 100 million peoples trust in the election.

              “before you have all the facts before you. Making assumptions is what gets you in trouble. Then add a little conspiracy theory and paranoia about zuckerburg and you got yourself a runaway conspiracy theory based on your biases.”

              Again you are disconnected from reality. We NEVER know “all the facts”.
              We do not need to know “all the facts” to have doubts.
              Skepticism – especially with respect to government is the required norm.

              The problem here is YOURS.
              Trust is not a right.
              It is something that must be earned.

              Government,. you, democrats, elections are not entitled to our trust.
              That trust must be earned.

              Elections are trusted because:
              The laws that government them are seen as sufficient to prevent substantial fraud and error.
              Those laws are followed.
              The elections are conducted with sufficient transparency that we can see that the laws were followed,
              And we can see that there was not large scale fraud or error.

              Trust is always something that must be EARNED, it is not an entitlement.

              The 2020 election was conducted in nearly every way to destroy trust.
              And as a result the majority of people think it was likely fraudulent.
              But even if that was only 15% – that is far too high for stable government.

              The default with respect to giving other people the power to use force against you – that is what elections do,
              is DISTRUST, not trust.

              It is those conducting the election that are required to earn out trust.

      2. The responsibility to assure that elections can be trusted rests with Government.

        One of the most stupid argumnts of the left is that everyone who beleives the election was lawless and fraudulent is zombies duped by Trump.

        That is both Wrong and irrelevant. Clinton has been telling us the 2016 Election was rigged by the Russians for 6 years.
        She has been doing so despite the fact that she Knows that She faked the evidence that it might have been.
        Millions of people still beleive her.
        Several electors changed their votes because of her claims.
        Several congressmen objected to certification of the 2016 results.
        Some court cases were filled challenging the election.

        Clinton has been properly accused of many things – lying, fraud.
        But she is not guilty of insurection or sedition or criminally interfering with the election.

        Because her conduct was reprehensible, but NOT criminal.

        The responsibility to assure that elections are not merely trustworthy – but that we ALL trust them rests with the government.

        And they must do so by conducting the elections such that they are trustworthy
        Not by silencing those who claim they were not.

        If an election is not trusted – government failed.
        And the legitimacy of government is undermined.

        1. “ One of the most stupid argumnts of the left is that everyone who beleives the election was lawless and fraudulent is zombies duped by Trump.”

          Those arguments are turning out to be true. A lot of people including republicans are starting to realize they have been duped. When more and more of Trumps election fraud claims are debunked or are shown to be false by republicans themselves, more are realizing they have been taken for a ride.

          1. It’s nice watching a person looking through his rear view mirror. It’s a nice comedy skit.

          2. “Those arguments are turning out to be true. A lot of people including republicans are starting to realize they have been duped. When more and more of Trumps election fraud claims are debunked or are shown to be false by republicans themselves, more are realizing they have been taken for a ride.”

            And yet the fraud claims get stronger all the time.

            And Trump’s numbers rise.

            From the Hill yesterday

            “In a hypothetical Trump-Harris match-up, Trump’s lead expands to 7 percentage points. Forty-seven percent said they would support Trump, compared to 40 percent for Harris and 13 percent who were unsure or didn’t know.”

            Trump would win the popular vote if the election was held today.

            This is AFTER all the J6 hearings so far.
            This is after 2000 mules.

            Recent poll on 2020 Fraud
            “52% of Likely U.S. voters believe it is at least somewhat likely that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, including 36% who think it is Very Likely. Forty-three percent (43%) don’t believe it’s likely cheating affected the 2020 outcome, including 30% who say it’s Not At All Likely. “

          3. You keep missusing the term debunked.

            The collusion delusion has been debunked – That was a hoax concocted by Hillary.

            There are some specific election fraud claims that were leveled at the time of the election which are unlikely to be true.
            The claim that DVS systems manipulated counts was refuted = atleast with respect to AZ by the audit.
            And it is unlikely to be true anywhere else. The claim that there was some foreign manipulation of vote totals is pretty close to debunked.
            An early Bentham’s law claim was proved to be inapplicable to elections.
            That does not mean that DVS fared well – in NH they came very close to flipping a house of representatives election through one sided errors, that DVS had known about for decades.
            Their equipment proved trivial to hack in AZ,
            While the audit proved they got the count of ballots correct, it made clear DVS systems are incredibly vulnerable.

            The results of the GA Cobb County signature audit strongly indicate both significant error and sufficient fraud to flip the election.
            But the sample size for the audit was very small. That audit SHOULD have resulted in a much larger signature audit.

            Myriads of other claims have not had consequential scrutiny

      3. Is there irrefutable evidence that there was no election fraud that impacted the outcome of the election in any precinct(s) in 2016?

  11. I used to watch CNN Day & Night.. until.. one day a prominent anchor ‘quoted’ something Trump said in a FL speech that day that was blatantly Racist. This was not long after Trump became POTUS. Even though I voted for Hillary, I was SHOCKED that any POTUS would make such a remark. I researched the speech – the exact entire wording and found the paragraph where those words were cut from, a string of several words, when removed from their long sentence, indeed had the opposite meaning of the full sentence and paragraph, i.e., there was ZERO RACISM in any way shape or form there. WOW – AN EPIPHANY to see how DEMONIC this was to do such a thing!! TRULY…TO PAY THESE ANHORS $MILLIONS TO CREATE LIES SO DECEITFULLY. JUST LIKE THE DICING & SPLICING DONE BY THE J6 HEARINGS… REALLY A TRAVESTY. AGAINST DEMOCRACY…. regardless of who one voted for…

    1. 18th0:

      “Even though I voted for Hillary, I was SHOCKED that any POTUS would make such a remark. I researched the speech – the exact entire wording and found the paragraph where those words were cut from, a string of several words, when removed from their long sentence, indeed had the opposite meaning of the full sentence and paragraph, i.e., there was ZERO RACISM in any way shape or form there. WOW – AN EPIPHANY ”
      ********************************
      They say most of Satan’s servants don’t know they have the job. Put in your notice.

    2. 18thO;

      You might want to cut back on # of holes for a while, Fauci’ Monkey Pox Schlong flu is said to be going around in the Blue State Crap Holes.

  12. In PA, ballots were subjected to different legal standards in each voting district, in clear violation of the 14th Amendment. This impacted ALL of the millions of Pennsylvania voters.

    The merits of that case were never decided. Democrats gave so many death threats against the attorneys that brought it that they all petitioned to be excused. The last one was excused after Rudy Giuliani took over the case, and inexplicably drove it in an entirely different direction, focusing on allegations that only affected a fraction of votes, or that he couldn’t prove.

    The different legal standards was proven, documented, and clear. Had the original attorneys stayed on, without interference from Giuliani, that case would have had its day in court. Now it never shall.

    The death threats worked so well that attorneys gave up on numerous other cases.

    This is just one example of fraudulent or erroneous behavior that might have changed the outcome of the election.

    Since this case was never adjudicated, and evidence such as original ballots was destroyed, there is actually no way to tell if Joe Biden legitimately won the 2020 election. It must be noted that Democrats pushed nationwide mail in voting. Such a method is globally viewed as vulnerable to voter fraud. In addition, Democrat voters who would never have put in any effort for Joe Biden, such as going to a polling place, did legitimately vote for him by mail. He did get a boost from mail in voting.

    I reserve the right to be suspicious of the results of the 2020 election, but given the destruction of evidence and failure to adjudicate the strongest case, I don’t think we will ever know if Joe Biden won legitimately or through fraud. I have a right to my opinion, just like Donald Trump, and just like those adamantly sure that Joe Biden won fairly.

    1. “In PA, ballots were subjected to different legal standards in each voting district, in clear violation of the 14th Amendment.”

      – Aninny
      _______

      And “Crazy Abe” Lincoln and his successors were anti-constitution, egregious high criminals commencing the incremental implementation of the principles of communism.

      Lincoln was Karl Marx’s “…earnest of the epoch…” leading America toward “…the RECONSTRUCTION of a social world.”

      The 14th and the “RECONSTRUCTION Amendments” were Karl Marx’s then and they are Karl Marx’s now, with commensurate persisting illegitimacy.
      ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      Lincoln was a high criminal well beyond the unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus.

      To wit,

      “The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department.”

      “I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”

      “I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”

      – Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861

    2. Karen S: you are a perfect exampe of the danger of Trump in this country: your gullibility. You don’t understand the fundamental difference between a fact and an opinion. You may have the “opinion” that the outcome of 2020 was questionable, but that “opinion” isn’t based on facts–it’s based on your faithful devotion to Fox and blind acceptance of whatever drivel they tell you. Despite what Kellyanne says, there are NO “alternative facts”. There are just the facts. Anything else is not a fact. Elections aren’t decided on the basis of “opinions”: they are based on the vote counts. You cannot produce any proof for the diatribe you listed above, which you obviously got from Fox because it just isn’t true. You claim that in PA ballots were subject to “different standards”–so what? Does that prove that any of them are invalid? if so, where’s the proof? PA mail and absentee ballots were scrutinized and compared with voter registration rolls–and there was NO fraud found. NO ballots have been destroyed, and the yarn about Giuliani firing some attorneys is just some bull argument you got off of Fox. What’s truly concerning is that you not only blindly accept that the PA election results were never investigated, but “this is just one example of fraudulent or erroneous behavior that might have changed the outcome of the election.” They don’t even have to produce baseless theories to a disciple like you: Trump said his victory was stolen and you just believe it.

      I’ve never heard of any Democrats making “death threats” against anyone, but I have seen the sworn testimony of the Georgia poll worker and her aged mother whom Trump called “hustlers” accusing them of bringing in suitcases full of Biden votes into the counting place under the cover of darkness. The “suitbases”, turned out to be official ballots carriers used by all polling places in Georgia to transport ballots to the tabulation areas. In GA, mail ballots cannot be counted until Election Day. That woman and her mother HAVE been subject to death threats.

      Reasons why your “opinion” is nonsense include: 1. Trump was predicted by every single poll to lose; 2. he never got even a 50% approval rating in 4 years’ time; 3. He turned the stable, thriving economy he inherited into shambles: COVID out of control, the economy in the toilet, unemployment was above 10%, schools and businesses closed down, COVID infections and deaths set new daily records, a supply chain crippled by a trade war with China, resulting in shortages of consumer goods and computer chips; 4. According to Steve Bannon on his Oct. 31, 2020 broadcast (pre-Election Day), Trump was going to claim that the election was stolen from him when he lost. This was the plan all along–lie about it being stolen–AND he knew he would lose. Trump was told by everyone in his orbit, except Giuliani, that he had lost, and to just accept it and move on. This is according to all of the Trump insiders who testified to the Jan 6 Committee. Bill Barr said the “stolen election” yarn was bullsh*t.

      “We”, meaning most of us, KNOW Joe Biden won legitimately. There was NO widespread fraud: so says 60+ courts, Bill Barr, Chris Krebs, head of US Cybersecurity, Cyber Ninjas, who found no widespread fraud in Arizona, and 50 Secretaries of State who certified the results. You can “reserve the right” to be a delusional Trump fan all you want, but there are no legitimate grounds for your “opinion”, which is based on the massive ego of a narcissist who can’t stand to lose and who is willing to do anything he can to get power, except win over the majority of the American people with competent leadership and compassion.

      1. Democrats don’t threaten, you’re right there,..they kill people in the name of advocacy and reparations and women’s reproductive health.
        Critical thinking demands researching each stakeholder group and their claims. You’ve skipped that in your soap opera frenzy, Bad vs Good sells and raises the per minute price for commercials on every channel, fox and all the others included. Same with mags and newspapers. It appears you believe soap opera narratives or the J6 soap opera narratives are the only avenues for research to determine the facts. That’s tragic.
        Ask yourself how many lives could have been saved, 19?, and how many families would still have their homes and businesses if Americans would have looked into the BLM assertions, echoed by soap opera news outlets, that blacks were being shot and killed, murdered by Law Enforcement in large numbers? Researching DOJ/FBI and state websites and databases would have revealed a completely different reality. Statistics including age, race, crime committed, if the deceased was shooting, carrying a weapon, etc. etc. for each year for a generation would have shown the assertions were wrong, greatly exaggerated, wrong, made up.
        Soap opera news lit a fire using false statistics and narratives, created rage in the simple minded and 6 months of horror ensued cheered on by the aforesaid simple minded. Ignorance, laziness and loud mouths are the hallmarks of the propagandized.
        Try to relax and actually research the things you’re being told. Life is not a soap opera.
        Baaaaaa bye.

    3. Each state has its own election rules and each state legislature can grant each county in the state to have different standards if they wanted to.

      If you want to use the 14th amendment that means each state legislature cannot dictate how it conducts its election. Quite the opposite of what the states argue when it comes to federal rules.

  13. OT

    Nancy Pelosi panics, struggles to suture a pair on and take back her blink.

    Biden says military does not support Taiwan visit (can woke U.S. navy save Pelosi?).

    Will Xi “Macho Man” Jinping back down/bow down to Mrs. Pelosi?

    U.S. Foreign policy: Hysterical and Incoherent.

    God Bless America.

  14. ABJECT CORRUPTION IN AMERICA

    “Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

    – FBI Director James Comey, Hillary Clinton’s Obstruction of Justice and Destruction of Evidence

Leave a Reply