Since we don’t know how this gentleman voted, the only fair remedy is to cancel the election.
I mean, you may think I’m being sarcastic, but can anyone be sure that Sidney Powell won’t make this argument?
And thus, we will never know who those other 69,999 fraudulent votes were for either. Based on the apparently-known sample of fraudulent votes we have here, our best assumption is to extrapolate that they all were for Trump!
[quote=“Acsenray, post:1, topic:928683, full:true”]A Pennsylvania man has been charged with illegally casting a ballot for President Trump in the name of his deceased mother . . . .
[/quote]
Trump being Trump, voting for his deceased mother was quite reasonable.
No, that’s the report from law enforcement describing a confession. Normally those are taken as true.
We know he’s a registered Republican. We know he registered the dead relatives as Republican. We know that he is himself a Trump supporter. We know that he said he was trying to help Trump be elected. And we know that the vast majority of people will make a vote for President, and that registered Trump supporting Republicans are unlikely to have voted for Biden or third party.
That is enough information to be beyond a reasonable doubt. And the actual trial will not care who he voted for, and thus such will not be investigated, so what we describe is all the information we will likely ever have (unless he ever flat out says who he voted for.)
Heh, exactly. Brilliant strategy!
If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck, has parents that are ducks, has a DNA test confirming it’s a duck, claims it’s a duck, it might just be a zebra. I mean, who can tell?
I like the extrapolation idea – Claim: there are tens of thousands of fraudulent votes in PA. Evidence: this guy admitted to committing election fraud and (@D_Anconia “may have”) voted for Trump twice. Conclusion: All fraudulent votes were for Trump.
Your vote is secret. You have an absolute right to secrecy in casting your own ballot. But if you are fraudulently casting someone else’s ballot, do you have a right to privacy in regards to the fraudulent ballot?
I don’t know whether there is precedent for this, but I suspect there is a good argument to be made that you do not have a right to privacy in casting a ballot you had no right to cast in the first place.
The reason for the right to privacy has to do with the fact that no one is allowed to influence your own vote by threat, coercion, bribe, and what-have-you. But those things are irrelevant in regard to a vote you do not have the right to cast.
I believe that if this goes to court, the allegedly fraudulent ballot might be entered into evidence, making it a public record.
However, as stated above, the charge doesn’t require proving whom the fraudulent ballot was cast for, so it’s possible that this fact might never be established by the finder of fact.
Also, given that the defendant has already admitted to doing this, and the lawyer’s statements don’t seem like the defense is going to be denial, the question might not actually come up in this case.
It’s very unlikely that this case is going to go to trial. If the defendant takes a plea, I wonder whether the plea will include any admission of this particular fact.
At this point, though, it seems silly to think that there’s any likely chance that this guy didn’t cast a fraudulent vote for Trump.
Sidney Powell will dispute it, taking it to the Supreme Court if necessary, with @D_Anconia filing an amicus brief.
This is the point I was making rather more sarcastically above. And if there’s no clear precedent, it’s probably for good reason - that nobody other than @D_Anconia would imagine that anything hinges on this.
Ok, my guy voted illegally. But your guy violated the secrecy of his illegal vote. Both sides do it!
Sounds more like strategery.
You forgot that it’s a support of l’orange.
From the article cited in the OP:
They didn’t catch the fraud before the ballot was processed. That means it’s been removed from its outer envelope and they can’t tell which one it is. It’s been counted and they can’t do anything about it. I’d be surprised if they could legally reduce Trump’s vote count even if he’s convicted.
…covered in secret sauce.
Well, to be fair: a Trump supporter would consider it a brilliant strategy to be able to say: I could let my dead mother vote for Biden so all Biden votes must be fraudulent!
Mod note: What the hell is that all about. Anyway, inappropriate. No warning.
My interpretation:
Euphonius was making an elliptical comment on D_Anconia’s apparent naivete. D_A was, of course, being facetious and not naive at all. And Euphonius knew that, hence the ellipticallity (and also facetiousness) of his comment. It’s all just in fun and moderation is not really needed.
I think what D_Anconia meant was that despite the obvious plan (“I can get Trump two more votes by registering the dead and voting for him! HAHAHAHA!!!”), there could be a sneakier side to this: what if he registered two dead women to vote, but then used those votes for Biden instead? Then, he could alert the authorities to the “widespread voter fraud perpetrated by the radical left”, and point to the evidence he knows exists (since he, himself, carved the roast beast) to prove that it happened.
It doesn’t sound like a carefully-crafted plan, but … everybody knows that the world is full of stupid people.
False flags; everything is a false flag. Ask any taxi driver; he’ll tell ya!