It is funny you should mention that.
Clinton has foreign princes and potentates donate to her foundation and in return they got access to her as Sec’y of State but that was NOT a violation of the Emoluments Clause because SHE did not receive the gift.
Trump has foreign princes and potentates stay in his hotel as a normal matter of business (so is it really a gift or payment to him?). That money is (promised to be) going to the US Treasury and there has not yet been a case that that money curried any preferential treatment but since it is not in a blind trust it is a violation of the Emoluments Clause.
And my favorite - Representatives and Senators are not expected to put their assets in a blind trust. Has any foreign prince and potentate paid money to companies they own (like in stock) in the normal course of business? How is that not a violation of the Emoluments Clause when they pass laws, treaties, trade agreements, etc?
PLUS all of this is OK if Congress says it is. SO WTF is an actual violation of the Emoluments Clause?
I don’t know how voting works in your neck of the woods, but in Maryland, you give them your full name, and if it’s not on the list of registered voters, you’re out of luck. And if it is, they check your name off so you can’t come back and vote a second time. (I think they may ask you to give your address, but I can’t recall for sure.)
So vote fraud would have to entail voting under the name of a registered voter before they showed up. It would be noticed if the actual registered voter did show up. And sure, in each election, there are a lot of people who don’t vote, but if someone voted 100 times in 100 different precincts using the names of other registered voters, it’s hard to believe that there wouldn’t be at least a couple dozen voters who would be irate because someone had voted under their names already.
That’s exactly what happened when someone used my name to vote but no one at the poll cared (here’s your provisional ballot. move along sir) and even on this board many who deny that it happens ignore my story and those few that acknowledge it say that losing my right to vote doesn’t compare to the ten-thousand 115 year old grannies living in the bayous that don’t have a driver’s license.
And it certainly did not make the news.
For real. If you’re happy having Trump as an out-of-control puppet for the hard right, well, okay, that’s that. But if you’re expecting him to change his spots, I wonder what you’re basing that hope on.
There’s very little about Trump’s presidency I feel qualified to predict, except this: he’s gonna remain an asshole out of touch with reality.
Trump’s camp points to a 2012 Pew study as evidence to support their claim. The problem is that the Pew researchers, themselves, have repeatedly clarified that their study says nothing about fraudulent votes being cast – it’s about antiquated voter registration systems, which often don’t clear people from the registration rolls who have moved or died.
From the article:
The article also cites several studies which have been done on actual voter fraud, which concluded that the number of actual, credible fraud cases are extremely few.
I would be compelled to make that assessment, and wouldn’t you? Ten thousand grannies, one St. Cad? Unless your point is shadowed in an insinuation, that maybe those grannies don’t exist, just spectres of a Democrat conspiracy?
I don’t doubt you, I’m confident that what you say happened did, in fact, happen, under the universal principle that Shit Happens. Not quite sure why you think it is germane to our conversation here.
And if you make no such claim to relevance, that’s OK too. Step up to the bar and I’ll buy you a beer and listen to ten minutes of details. Twenty, if you buy the next round. Or two.
I was a pollwatcher in my precinct this past election. I live in Dupage County, Illinois.
There were three election judges for verifying eligibility, each taking a segment of the alphabet. A voter went to the judge as determined by the initial letter of the last name. The judge found the slip in the book for that voter, asking for address if there was more than one voter of that name. The judge then detached part of the slip from the book. The voter signed the slip. The judge compared that signature to the signature in the book. Assuming the signatures matched, the voter was approved, and the judge initialed the slip before handing it to the voter. A judge further down the table checked the slip and handed the voter the ballot, which that judge initialed. Another judge was stationed by the vote counting machine; that judge assured that the ballot was properly initialed by a judge and inserted the ballot into the machine. Other judges were there to handle other tasks; the judges switched jobs every hour or two.
Definitely a low-tech system, but one I think would be hard to manipulate.
Oh, and if judges did find any kind of anomaly they were required to call the County Board of Elections. This did not happen while I was observing.
Here in Baja Canada AKA Minnesota, the system is pretty open. If you can bring some sort of proof that Joe/Joan Jones lives at 123 Maple St, and a registered voter will attest (under penalty of perjury, mind you) that he knows you, and you are, indeed J. Jones of Maple St, you become a registered voter and you vote. Right there, right then.
It works. Not because its brilliant or anything, but because massive voter fraud is an absurd conspiracy, the logistics are simply impossible. Just posting a sign saying “No Fraudulent Voting Allowed!” would probably work about as well. Just like posting a sign forbidding unicorn stampedes.
The ghost story of voter fraud has haunted Republicans for years and years, it goes waaay back! I think it is anchored in their firm belief that they are, in fact, the majority of Americans, have been and continue to be. Therefore it follows that if they don’t win, some treachery is afoot. Since they are convinced of that, its an easy sell to convince them that somehow, masses of people are voting illegally. It wouldn’t be so hard to dissuade them from the second absurdity, if they were not so convinced of the first. If they didn’t already believe they were getting screwed, it would be easier to convince them that we aren’t doing it. Très duh, mais non?
