Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 6
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/535237-pol...

A majority of voters support a bipartisan congressional commission to investigate potential irregularities in the 2020 election, a new Hill-HarrisX poll finds.

Fifty-nine percent of registered voters in the Jan. 8-11 survey said they support setting up a bipartisan congressional commission to investigate potential irregularities in the 2020 election.

Eighty percent of Republican voters support a Congressional commission to investigate the 2020 election along with 56 percent of independents.


Now we know what the US populace believe. Will it happen? Fat Chance.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Now we know what the US populace believe. Will it happen? Fat Chance.

It is buried behind Spankee's Health Care Plan.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Where is the evidence?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I affidavits are not evidence then they should be eliminated entirely from our court system.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Additionally evidence is found as a result of investigation which is what is being supported here, an investigation.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

Additionally evidence is found as a result of investigation which is what is being supported here, an investigation.

Go for it! Investigate! While you're at it let's look into Benghazi, I don't think we ever got all the evidence there either.

I have no problem with an investigation... I'll tell you right now, the people that are gonna have the biggest problem with the investigation are all those people and companies and news media outlets that are being sued by dominion
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Additionally evidence is found as a result of investigation which is what is being supported here, an investigation.

Perhaps - but it's worth remembering that we just did this. We've already had an investigation of voter fraud, during the Trump Administration.

Recall that Trump (and some other Republicans) were convinced that there was rampant voter fraud in the 2016 election as well, so in 2017 the the White House impaneled a special commission to investigate these claims, headed up by Kansas Secretary of State Republican Kris Kobach. The commission disbanded in 2018 without ever releasing any findings of widespread voter fraud. Kobach also was given the opportunity to try to demonstrate widespread voter fraud in Kansas (his home state and one with an overwhelmingly GOP state government) in litigation challenging some anti-fraud measures, and failed utterly to provide evidence of same.

https://apnews.com/article/f5f6a73b2af546ee97816bb35e82c18d
https://www.propublica.org/article/kris-kobach-voter-fraud-k...
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/kris-kobac...

There's virtually no reason to think a new investigation would be any different. Predictably, the different sides offered different reasons for why the investigation failed to uncover any material amounts of voter fraud. Democrats argued that they failed to find such evidence because it doesn't exist - while it's universally agreed that there is individual small -cale voter fraud in many elections, such fraud never takes place (and cannot take place) on a large enough scale to swing a presidential election undetected. Republicans argued that the Commission failed because state Secretaries of State (including many Republican Secretaries of State) fought it at every turn, litigating access to confidential information that the Commission said it needed.

But regardless of which theory you subscribe to, there's no reason to think the result would be any different this time. State laws governing release of personal information from elections officials - and state election leaders' bristling at the intimation that they're allowing massive widespread fraud - haven't changed much. And of course, if the reason that no evidence of fraud comes to light is because the many laws and procedures we have in place to prevent people from getting away with fraud work and people don't commit widespread election fraud, then this new investigation will come up as blank as the previous one.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If Trump had one witness willing to say he saw fraud taking place, he would have been able to get courts to accept his lawsuit in that state.

Apparently his staff tried hard but a credible witness could not be found.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
If Trump had one witness willing to say he saw fraud taking place, he would have been able to get courts to accept his lawsuit in that state.

Trump had DNA-type evidence of voting fraud, such as surveillance videos and TV broadcasts of vote counting showing vertical lines in the count, evidence showing subtraction of votes from Trump and addition of votes to Biden - evidence that it is superior to witnesses, Brady type evidence - because it speaks for itself!

It is this kind of evidence that the courts ignored to support the stolen election and give the presidency to Dementia Joe.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Right. No affidavits, no Georgia videos, no lawsuits dismissed for lack of standing rather than on merit.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I really believe that judges were fearful of what the consequences of finding election fraud sufficient to shift an election. They could not fathom what a possible remedy would look like and whether or not our Republic could withstand it. In addition there were judges complicit in the fraud by ordering key states to violate their own election laws. So they just stuck their collective heads in the sand.

I mean the mere fact that several key states violated their own laws by edict of bureaucrat's and judges was enough to at least bring a case but the judges circled the wagon's.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
I mean the mere fact that several key states violated their own laws by edict of bureaucrat's and judges was enough to at least bring a case but the judges circled the wagon's.

It was enough to bring a case, and the Trump campaign brought that case. They just lost the case. The judges didn't "circle the wagons" - they simply disagreed with the Trump campaign's (and your) interpretation of the law. They specifically held that the voting procedures adopted in those states did not violate state law.

You can disagree with those rulings, of course. But it's hard to argue that this is 'fraud' (or that you need a Commission to investigate them). These were rules and procedures that were put in place, publicly, by the officials in charge of running elections, pursuant to authority delegated to them by the state Legislatures, and which both the authority and the rules were later adjudged by courts of competent jurisdiction to be lawful at every level of appeal. When voters and election officials then follow those rules and procedures, that's not really 'fraud.' It's just that you dispute whether the rules were lawful, not whether someone was committing skullduggery to avoid the rules.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
It’s still what I believe. No wordsmithing will change my mind. I’ll now live with it because that’s the way it is.
Print the post Back To Top