Now that the 2020 Election is over....

[MaddogLutheran]

Since a couple of the usual suspects on this thread are still all bent out of shape about Trump not conceding, I share this summary series of tweets from an account called @decunningham2 ("Eric Cunningham" not a blue checkmark verified Twitter user)

• The Vice-President elect of the United States claimed that Florida and Georgia's gubernatorial races were fraudulent and that Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum are the rightful governors.  Brian Kemp won by 54,000 votes and Ron DeSantis won by 32,000 votes
  Newsweek: 05/06/2019 Kamala Harris Says Stacey Abrams, Andrew Gillum Would Have Won 2018 Elections Without Voter Suppression
  
  
• Hillary Clinton, who narrowly lost the 2016 election, claimed that she lost Wisconsin because of voter suppression. She also claimed Stacey Abrams lost because of voter suppression
  Politifact 03/06/2019: Clinton on the hot seat with claim that thousands were turned away from the polls in Wisconsin
  Our rating:  We rate the claim Pants on Fire.
  
  
• Senator Tammy Baldwin seems to think Clinton lost Wisconsin because of voter ID.
  Politifact 05/24/2017:  "Voter turnout in 2016 was reduced by approx. 200,000 votes because of WI’s photo ID laws."
  Our rating:  We rate Baldwin’s statement Mostly False.
  
  
• Senator Cory Booker claimed Michigan flipped because of the Russians
  Washington Post 08/02/2019:  Booker's claim that Democrats lost Michigan because of Russian and GOP suppression
  The burden of proof is on Booker, and he failed to back up his claim.  He earns Four Pinocchios.
  
  
• What Trump is doing right now is batsh!t crazy and he would have done this without these past examples. But the fact of the matter is, it's now normalized in both parties to claim elections were fraudulent - and that's a very sad thing for this country.
  
  People who have lost need to admit they lost. Period, end of story. Starting right now with President Trump, who lost.
  

I agree with his conclusions, with the qualified exception that I believe the legal proceedings need to play out to their inevitable conclusions, if there is any chance of dissuading Trump supporters that election was not in fact stolen.  If they get stomped down prematurely, that will only feed talk of conspiracy.

But as his tweets demonstrate, unfounded beliefs will linger to some degree regardless.  I know people say that it's especially bad because it's the president of the United States fanning these falsehoods.  That is certainly true, but my point remains it's not just in the fevered swamp of the lefty internet bunch of nobodies where competitive untruths are stoked.  Many prominent Democrats also traffic in this, to feed the prejudices of their supporters.

This did not start with Trump.  He's just so much better at it than other professional politicians...and I think they are jealous.  It continue to fascinate that our media elites, even as they report on these stories, continue the pretense that Trump is somehow unique.

[Charles Austin]

Concern about voter suppression is different from voter fraud. Less overt. Less illegal. A Republican tool rather than a Democrat effort.

[Jim Butler]

Concern about voter suppression is different from voter fraud. Less overt. Less illegal. A Republican tool rather than a Democrat effort.

So you are saying that voter fraud is a "Democrat effort"?

Never thought you'd be so honest about it.

[Charles Austin]

No. But Republican efforts to make voting difficult for certain people are known.

[Charles Austin]

I take this as good, relaxing news.
A federal judge in Pennsylvania dismissed on Saturday night a lawsuit by the Trump campaign that had claimed there were widespread improprieties with mail-in ballots in the state, ending the last major effort to delay the certification of Pennsylvania’s vote results, which is scheduled to take place on Monday.
   In a scathing order, Judge Matthew W. Brann wrote that President Trump’s campaign, which had asked him to effectively disenfranchise nearly seven million voters, should have come to court “armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption” in its efforts to essentially nullify the results of Pennsylvania’s election.
   But instead, Judge Brann complained, the Trump campaign provided only “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations” that were “unsupported by evidence.”
   After legal defeats in nearly all of the key swing states — Michigan, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona and Wisconsin — Mr. Trump’s path to overturning the results of the election through the courts has all but vanished.\
Now, can we say that it is over? All those legal routes traversed?

[Dan Fienen]

I take this as good, relaxing news.
A federal judge in Pennsylvania dismissed on Saturday night a lawsuit by the Trump campaign that had claimed there were widespread improprieties with mail-in ballots in the state, ending the last major effort to delay the certification of Pennsylvania’s vote results, which is scheduled to take place on Monday.
   In a scathing order, Judge Matthew W. Brann wrote that President Trump’s campaign, which had asked him to effectively disenfranchise nearly seven million voters, should have come to court “armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption” in its efforts to essentially nullify the results of Pennsylvania’s election.
   But instead, Judge Brann complained, the Trump campaign provided only “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations” that were “unsupported by evidence.”
   After legal defeats in nearly all of the key swing states — Michigan, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona and Wisconsin — Mr. Trump’s path to overturning the results of the election through the courts has all but vanished.

You must be very happy.

[Charles Austin]

Whatever I feel is tempered by the sadness I feel that our country had to go through this unnecessary nonsense. Phony allegations. Meaningless lawsuits. Vengeful harassment of the President-elect. And a cynical ploy to get attention for himself.

[Julio]

Pennsylvania lawmakers criticizing Dominion Voting Systems after it backs out of hearing

Pennsylvania Representative Seth Grove did not mince words in Harrisburg Friday after a roundtable discussion with Dominion Voting Systems was canceled overnight. Dominion says it is under litigation and can not answer questions at this time.

"Today I am saddened to report to the taxpayers of Pennsylvania and the 1.3 million voters who used Dominion voting that Dominion has hung you out to dry and slapped you in your faces," Grove said.

Dominion Voting Systems first came under fire shortly after the election. President Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani has attempted to say the software Dominion uses has ties to Venezuela, and there were glitches in the software that might have switched votes.

GOP lawmakers say software and transparency were two big topics they were hoping to touch on.

Pennsylvania GOP moves on legislature election audit; committee chair says Dominion is 'hiding'

York County Republican state Rep. Seth Grove, the acting chairman of the House State Government Committee, on Friday defended his push for a legislative audit of the general election and questioned why a voting systems supplier pulled out of its appearance before his committee.

“My job is to figure out what happened and how we do it better,” Grove told the USA TODAY Network following a press conference in Harrisburg during which he called out Dominion Voting Systems officials for canceling an appearance before the State Government Committee.

“If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding from us?” Grove said during the press conference.

Dominion voting systems a no show at Pennsylvania hearing today A 5 minute interview on concerns with Dominion voting systems in Pennsylvania ... Dominion backed out of appearing before PA law makers ... because of “pending litigation.”

Pennsylvania Law makers have no idea who owns and runs the company.

Again, remember The State of Texas on multiple occasions over the years, prior to Election Day, refused to certified Dominion voting systems for use in the state.

Texas Rejected Use of Dominion Voting System Software Due to Efficiency Issues

Evaluations show Texas officials had concerns about Dominion Voting Systems product's efficiency and reliability when they rejected their use in January of this year.

Texas has three times rejected use of ballot counting software from the company Dominion Voting Systems (DVS), according to a report from the Secretary of State’s (SOS) office dated January of this year.

The report of review for the latest software, “Democracy Suite 5.5-A,” by Deputy Secretary of State Jose Esparza states, “Specifically, the examiner reports raise concerns about whether the Democracy Suite 5.5-A system is suitable for its intended purpose; operates efficiently and accurately; and is safe from fraudulent or unauthorized manipulation.”

Attorney General Ken Paxton, whose office was involved in the decision to reject the software, said on a radio show this week, “We have not approved these voting systems based on repeated software and hardware issues. It was determined they were not accurate and that they failed — they had a vulnerability to fraud and unauthorized manipulation.”

But each of the Secretary of State’s three reports — conducted in August of 2012, January of 2019, and October of 2019 — indicate potential security issues were, at most, a secondary concern.

Fifty years ago ... on the way to the moon the phrase ‘Houston, We have a problem’ was spoken beginning a life or death effort to save three astronauts...

Today the phrase ‘America needs confidence in its voting process’ should ring equally loud ...

Why can experts in one state reject voting equipment on multiple occasions that others would even consider putting into use? 

How can anyone have confidence in election results when questionable voting systems are used?

Thankfully the head of the GSA is above the fray ... cool headed awaiting reliable election results.

[Charles Austin]

Q. Why can experts in one state reject voting equipment on multiple occasions that others would even consider putting into use?
A. Because there are many reasons to choose one type of equipment over another. Choosing another system does not mean "rejecting" other systems because they are flawed. Dominion has been used for years in numerous states without any difficulties. They are used in states that went heavily for Trump. (Source: Washington Post, 11/20)

Q: How can anyone have confidence in election results when questionable voting systems are used?
A: There are risks, as there are with any machine anywhere, but this year cyber-security experts and election administrators this year have said that there is no evidence that the machines have been compromised in November's voting. Dominion has replied, sometimes on its website, to all questions. Much of the hysteria declared by Trump and his allies, including erroneous (but often repeated) allegations that the company has ties to Venezuela, has been proven false. Cyber-security experts, including those appointed by the President, have not found flaws in the vote counting. The president and his lawyer, without giving any evidence, rejects their conclusions.

Q: Thankfully the head of the GSA is above the fray ... cool headed awaiting reliable election results.
A: This is a relatively minor matter, but worth a quick look.
Emily Murphy has been in her job for less than three years. The GSA has always made transition funds available to the President-Elect shortly after the voting and well before all results were "certified."  Two days ago, senior members of the House of Representatives said they may ask Murphy to testify before them on why she refuses to release the funds, contending "there is no legal basis" for withholding transition funds.
And it is also interesting that a month before the election, Trump issued an executive order giving his lawyers a "higher step on the ladder" of GSA decision-making and transition matters; and just a week before the election, Trump moved a White House lawyer into the position of GSA Counsel.

Q: Is Murphy "Cool-headed? Awaiting reliable election results?"
A: No. "Reliable election results" exist, showing Biden wins. She is a Trump flunky doing his bidding without regard to law and precedent, as part of his "scorched earth" policy, causing as much damage as possible before he leaves (or is ushered out) of the White House.

[peter_speckhard]

I take this as good, relaxing news.
A federal judge in Pennsylvania dismissed on Saturday night a lawsuit by the Trump campaign that had claimed there were widespread improprieties with mail-in ballots in the state, ending the last major effort to delay the certification of Pennsylvania’s vote results, which is scheduled to take place on Monday.
   In a scathing order, Judge Matthew W. Brann wrote that President Trump’s campaign, which had asked him to effectively disenfranchise nearly seven million voters, should have come to court “armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption” in its efforts to essentially nullify the results of Pennsylvania’s election.
   But instead, Judge Brann complained, the Trump campaign provided only “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations” that were “unsupported by evidence.”
   After legal defeats in nearly all of the key swing states — Michigan, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona and Wisconsin — Mr. Trump’s path to overturning the results of the election through the courts has all but vanished.\
Now, can we say that it is over? All those legal routes traversed?

No. WE can't say that. You can say whatever you want.  But until all the legal challenges are over, why say that they're all over? Why the hurry? If and when Biden is sworn in, THEN we will all agree that he is the president. NOW we can all agree Trump is the president and is contesting his apparent loss in his bid for reelection. Some of his legal attempts are and will be seen as far-fetched, others likely have some degree of merit. Since we're done have anying influence on how things shake out, why not treat it like a spectator sport? Your team appears to be cruising to victory. Enjoy it. Just don't insist there is no time on the clock. 

[Charles Austin]

People keep asking, Peter, the same questions over and over again even when they have been answered.
And certain people vocally denounce the rulings of the referees, if you want to use a sports image, which I don’t.
“Your  case is nonsense, with no evidence, get out of here.“ says the court. That doesn’t seem to end it.
“There has been no evidence, under our surveillance, of voter fraud,“ says Republicans and Democrats running the state elections, and the government’s top cyber security expert.
“I don’t believe you,“ says the president.”
“GSA Should fund the transition,” says anybody who’s ever had any dealings with it.
“No,” says the president.
So long as this man is in office, which is until 20 January, we need to be very watchful, very careful about what he might do. There is no “cruising to victory“ when you’re playing against a cheater.

[peter_speckhard]

People keep asking, Peter, the same questions over and over again even when they have been answered.
And certain people vocally denounce the rulings of the referees, if you want to use a sports image, which I don’t.
“Your  case is nonsense, with no evidence, get out of here.“ says the court. That doesn’t seem to end it.
“There has been no evidence, under our surveillance, of voter fraud,“ says Republicans and Democrats running the state elections, and the government’s top cyber security expert.
“I don’t believe you,“ says the president.”
“GSA Should fund the transition,” says anybody who’s ever had any dealings with it.
“No,” says the president.
So long as this man is in office, which is until 20 January, we need to be very watchful, very careful about what he might do. There is no “cruising to victory“ when you’re playing against a cheater.

Fair enough. Be watchful. But so far he hasn't cheated. Throwing the challenge flag is not cheating. Arguing the call is not cheating.

[Charles Austin]

Irrelevant, I suppose, but our president left the online meeting of 20 world leaders yesterday just as they were to discuss the pandemic.
He left to play golf. (I suppose that’s the only tee time he could get. Oh, wait! He owns the golf course.).

[Julio]

Q. Why can experts in one state reject voting equipment on multiple occasions that others would even consider putting into use?
A. Because there are many reasons to choose one type of equipment over another. Choosing another system does not mean "rejecting" other systems because they are flawed. Dominion has been used for years in numerous states without any difficulties. They are used in states that went heavily for Trump. (Source: Washington Post, 11/20)

The following should give cause for pause for all ...

Specifically, the examiner reports raise concerns about whether the Democracy Suite 5.5-A system is suitable for its intended purpose; operates efficiently and accurately; and is safe from fraudulent or unauthorized manipulation.”

In elections ... the appearance of being beyond reproach is as important as the count of votes ... if the count is correct ... but there is doubt ... does confidence exist in the vote count?

Q: How can anyone have confidence in election results when questionable voting systems are used?
A: There are risks, as there are with any machine anywhere, but this year cyber-security experts and election administrators this year have said that there is no evidence that the machines have been compromised in November's voting. Dominion has replied, sometimes on its website, to all questions. Much of the hysteria declared by Trump and his allies, including erroneous (but often repeated) allegations that the company has ties to Venezuela, has been proven false. Cyber-security experts, including those appointed by the President, have not found flaws in the vote counting. The president and his lawyer, without giving any evidence, rejects their conclusions.

Dominion responding without independent vetting of their claims is nothing more than the fox guarding the hen house.

The State of Texas has absolutely nothing to gain from what they wrote ... Dominion on the other hand has everything to gain by what they write ... trust but verify ... there has been no independent verification of Dominions claims.

Q: Thankfully the head of the GSA is above the fray ... cool headed awaiting reliable election results.
A: This is a relatively minor matter, but worth a quick look.
Emily Murphy has been in her job for less than three years. The GSA has always made transition funds available to the President-Elect shortly after the voting and well before all results were "certified."  Two days ago, senior members of the House of Representatives said they may ask Murphy to testify before them on why she refuses to release the funds, contending "there is no legal basis" for withholding transition funds.
And it is also interesting that a month before the election, Trump issued an executive order giving his lawyers a "higher step on the ladder" of GSA decision-making and transition matters; and just a week before the election, Trump moved a White House lawyer into the position of GSA Counsel.

How was transition handled in 2000?  Unless funding was released to both Bush and Gore during the litigation process, there is no precedent to expect funding at this time.  By the way, senior members of the House of Representatives is hardly a neutral non biased group of people ..they are acting at the behest to their political party and persuasion.

Q: Is Murphy "Cool-headed? Awaiting reliable election results?"
A: No. "Reliable election results" exist, showing Biden wins. She is a Trump flunky doing his bidding without regard to law and precedent, as part of his "scorched earth" policy, causing as much damage as possible before he leaves (or is ushered out) of the White House.

As evident by on going legal proceedings, election results are in question ... there is no harm in letting these inquiries run their course ... they either will prove the validity of the election results .. or confirm that there is reasonable doubt in the results now presented.

Again ... the union survived and in many ways the voting process was improved following the 2000 vote and litigation process ... if nothing changes here but addressing the doubt about Dominion voting systems and standardizing when ballots are counted, the country as a whole will be better off.

[Charles Austin]

I am giving up, as I’m sure people will be glad to hear, any further comments in this line of discussion about the validity of the election. I shall watch carefully what the president tries to do until 20 January, but I see no point in continuing to discuss the validity of the elections.
No one has found any evidence of fraud or other misbehavior in the elections.
No one. Repeat no one. The court cases have all been turned down or laughed out of court or the lawyers presenting them were scathingly criticized by the courts.
Outside the court room, where in his mind truth doesn’t matter, Giuliani continues to sprout outrageous lies. We need to pay no attention to his madness.
Yet in this modest forum, someone today is foolish enough or deluded enough to try and lead us astray by saying: “As evident by on going legal proceedings, election results are in question.”
No. The election results are not in question. And there are no serious ongoing legal actions.
On this part of the topic, over and out.