But I’m sure there’ll be good people on both sides.
In all honesty, he is not. “Purporting to be certificates” isn’t a phrase meant to allow any nut case to send crayon-scribbled electoral votes that have to opened. It’s meant for legitimate disputes.
The implication here is that it’s an equivalent but mirrored situation - but it’s not. The Diebold thing was certainly something Democrats groused about, but you didn’t see them filing crank lawsuits, having tens of millions of their voters quite literally believe psychotic conspiracy theories, whipping people into frenzies of violence, and having prominent people associated with the Presidential candidate openly call for martial law and the summary arrest of Republicans.
Others have addressed it, but as to specifically which flavor of BS it is, it’s the “technobabble” flavor.
Other examples of that include “machines connected to the internet because the network icon showed it had an IP address” (that just means it was connected to a LAN, not the internet), fractional voting must have been used because the pattern of results was too consistent (implying vote batches should not be correlated when common sense tells you that they are), etc.
It has a little bit of the flavor of “process flaws” BS as well in the sense that it purports to show (I don’t believe it actually shows this, tbh) that Dominion software allows a nefarious user to change ballot results by sending them to adjudication where they can be overridden. It does not attempt to show that this actually happened, just that it could happen.
But the main point, which was the last one in the MI response, is that all Dominion systems in MI (and GA) produce a paper ballot. This can (and has been, in GA) be counted by hand without using Dominion software at all. So to believe that a nefarious agent used DVS software to change the tabulation by sending Trump ballots to adjudication and then marking them as Biden you would also have to believe that they then destroyed those Trump ballots and then created Biden ones so the hand count would match. All while being observed by multiple people from both parties.
And I would add that one thing the Diebold uproar did was force states to move to systems that produce paper ballots so the voter can immediately verify their ballot was marked correctly. And so you can always go back and count the things by hand if you have to. Some Diebold systems did not do that - there was no way to verify that the voters intent was accurately captured.
ETA: My point in this comment was that the correct way to address perceived flaws in the voting process is to attempt to mobilize for changes to the system for the next election, like the Democrats did in response to the issues and suspicions with Diebold. Not whip up your supporters to attempt to completely overturn the results of a national election.
Moscow Mitch is reported to be calling senators/representatives to tell them not to object on January 6. Mitch is done with this presidency.
Mitch is likely afraid that if the “we can’t trust the voting system” narrative continues to be promoted in right-wing circles, Republicans won’t turn up for the January 5 Georgia run-off, the Democrats will win both seats and he’ll have to change his letterhead to “Senate Minority Leader”.
He doesn’t want them to have to go on record with a vote against democracy or a vote against Trump. They look bad to a lot of people either way they go. I heard a caller on the radio this morning musing that a democratic senator might take one for the team and try to force a vote.
This was suggested in another thread as well, but I think it’s a terrible idea. Democrats would be stepping all over their messaging that Republicans are endangering our democracy through reckless, disingenuous objections to the legitimate electors. Sure, they could try to explain it that they’re just trying to get everyone on record but the headline will be, “Democratic Senator objects to Biden electors.”
Nah. The machines use special inks so that any votes for Trump were in disappearing ink and votes for Biden were in invisible ink. When you check the printed ballot it looks like your intended Trump vote; by the time it is counted the Trump vote had disappeared and the Biden vote had appeared. Simple!
I agree. And it almost certainly won’t happen.
I wish this were strictly tongue-in-cheek but I did have someone earnestly explain to me that the printed ballot (with the filled in rectangles) might not agree with the QR code printed at the bottom (which is likely what the machine would read). So a voter might think they voted Trump but the machine would tabulate it as Biden.
Then there was some talk about how the hand-counters might have been trained to use the QR code when doing the recount so that the numbers would match. Or perhaps the tabulation machines would automatically print out a new ballot that matched the QR code and shred to original one or something.
It’s pure insanity, but that’s where we are.
The first question.
“State your name for the record”
"“John Barron”
“No sir, your actual name”
“John Miller”
“Please sir, this is a serious trial. State your name”
“David Dennison”
Judge: “Take him away. 30 days in county jail”
That simply PROVES that this conspiracy goes deeper than anyone thought. The absence of evidence shows that the fraud was untraceable, this proving that there was fraud.
It’s indisputable!
Oh gawd yes.
Did they use disappearing re-appearing ink, ala ACME?
Hey, it worked for Dubya in 2003. The inspectors didn’t find any evidence of WMD? Saddam has hidden it more cunningly than we thought possible! We must invade!
“We KNOW he has them (because we gave them to him)”.
I always think of Bill Hicks. “How do we know? We have the receipt!”
Trump went to the school of Saddam - right down to hiring Press Secretary’s that graduated from the ‘Baghdad Bob School of Journalism’.
We sold/gave nerve gas to Saddam? Cite?