Patterico's Pontifications

6/28/2021

Your Crazy Uncle Donnie: RINO Bill Barr Was “a Disappointment in Every Sense of the Word”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:29 am



Crazy uncle Donnie is at it again. This time he’s lashing out at “RINO former Attorney General Bill Barr”:

The reporting in question is here.

To McConnell, the road to maintaining control of the Senate was simple: Republicans needed to make the argument that with Biden soon to be in the White House, it was crucial that they have a majority in the Senate to check his power. But McConnell also believed that if he openly declared Biden the winner, Trump would be enraged and likely act to sabotage the Republican Senate campaigns in Georgia. Barr related his conversations with McConnell to me. McConnell confirms the account.

“Look, we need the president in Georgia,” McConnell told Barr, “and so we cannot be frontally attacking him right now. But you’re in a better position to inject some reality into this situation. You are really the only one who can do it.”

“I understand that,” Barr said. “And I’m going to do it at the appropriate time.”

Just the Attorney General (lawyer) conferring with the Senate Majority Leader about the best way to promote the agenda of their party. Unfortunately, it puts the crazy guy in a bad light. Here’s the part Trumpy Trump especially did not like:

“My attitude was: It was put-up or shut-up time,” Barr told me. “If there was evidence of fraud, I had no motive to suppress it. But my suspicion all the way along was that there was nothing there. It was all bullshit.”

I think the whole episode puts Barr in a bad light, too, and so I can’t help but chuckle at reading Trump’s insane broadside. Barr deserved this, and nobody should accept his efforts at rehabilitation. We can be grateful that he wasn’t as hacky as he had the power to be, but it’s not like the man covered himself in glory.

147 Responses to “Your Crazy Uncle Donnie: RINO Bill Barr Was “a Disappointment in Every Sense of the Word””

  1. He may be crooked, but is he crooked enough!?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  2. One also wonders what a rock-ribbed Republican is, in the mind of Trump. Or the color of the sky.

    Hey, thanks for the judges. Now piss off.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  3. good thing we don’t have a republican ag promoting an agenda in georgia

    rest assured we fixed that by having a democrat ag promoting an agenda in georgia

    JF (e1156d)

  4. And, how’s that Maricopa County audit coming? If there were piles of non-citizens voting — or the data could be fabricated — do you suppose that would have leaked by now?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  5. Why won’t Liz Chaney move on so that we can focus on the dumb stuff Biden is doing?

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  6. Why won’t Liz Chaney move on so that we can focus on the dumb stuff Biden is doing?

    Trump’s calendar must be absolutely filled with two-minute-hate sessions.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  7. isn’t feinberg’s tweet a violation of twitter’s trump ban?

    i mean, isn’t it hard to move on when so many keep running up to the guy and handing him a bullhorn?

    JF (e1156d)

  8. Has The Donald paid his June rent yet? 😉

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  9. Barr isn’t absolved. Last September, he was carrying Trump’s water on mail-in voting:

    “People trying to change the rules to this, to this methodology — which, as a matter of logic, is very open to fraud and coercion — is reckless and dangerous and people are playing with fire.”

    Turns out his comments were full of sh-t, along with Trump’s, so much so that he couldn’t cross that line and jump onto Trump’s Big Lie Bandwagon.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  10. @9 barr’s position on mail in voting has been the position of the republican party for decades, before republicans voting democrat championed the democrat position

    JF (e1156d)

  11. Barr only looks good compared to Trump, which is an extremely low bar (pun intended).

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  12. It’s alive!

    nk (1d9030)

  13. Better this than that, I suppose.

    urbanleftbehind (4dcc7a)

  14. More like They Live!

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  15. @9 barr’s position on mail in voting has been the position of the republican party for decades, before republicans voting democrat championed the democrat position

    Except Florida!

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  16. More Crazy Uncle…

    Seated in the Situation Room with [Attorney General Bill] Barr, Milley, and [Secretary of Defense Mark] Esper, Trump exaggerated claims about the violence and alarmed officials … by announcing he’d just put Milley “in charge.”

    Privately, Milley confronted Trump about his role. He was an adviser, and not in command. But Trump had had enough.

    “I said you’re in f—ing charge!” Trump shouted at him.

    “Well, I’m not in charge!” Milley yelled back.

    “You can’t f—ing talk to me like that!” Trump said. …

    “Goddamnit,” Milley said to others. “There’s a room full of lawyers here. Will someone inform him of my legal responsibilities?”

    “He’s right, Mr. President,” Barr said. “The general is right.”

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  17. That just proves he was a feline term, unless Jared really got into his head about not losing the red pill walkaways.

    urbanleftbehind (4dcc7a)

  18. Between Russiagate, Hillary’s emails, the DNC email hack, and Hunter Biden I think it’s pretty obvious that the upper levels of the DOJ are corrupt and/or compromised. If Barr can fit right into that system then a disappointment on some level seems to be valid.

    frosty (f27e97)

  19. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/28/2021 @ 9:26 am

    And, how’s that Maricopa County audit coming?

    As the system is constructed there’s no way to validate the results. You can believe one side or the other but it’s a matter of faith either way. The agnostic position is the only one with reason on its side.

    or the data could be fabricated — do you suppose that would have leaked by now?

    Do you remember all of those conspiracy nuts who, before Snowden, said the government was engaged in widespread surveillance? Do you remember how everyone said they couldn’t keep something like that secret? Without Snowden we’d still be in the “do you suppose that would have leaked by now” phase.

    The same DOJ who is telling you that no election fraud was found told you that there was no evidence anyone hacked into HRC’s personal emails when the server wasn’t secured.

    frosty (f27e97)

  20. Frosty, their are many many steps in the electoral process to validate the results. None of them have shown evidence of widespread fraud. Trumpers can’t accept that he lost so they keep looking for ever increasing levels of proof and when some arbitrary requirement isn’t met they claim that means there was fraud..

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  21. OT Breaking-

    Federal court tosses antitrust suits seeking Facebook’s breakup
    …….
    In a ruling that goes to the heart of the case, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C., said prosecutors didn’t offer enough explanation for how they determined that Facebook controls more than 60 percent of the social networking market.

    Social networking “services are free to use, and the exact metes and bounds of what even constitutes [social networking] — i.e., which features of a company’s mobile app or website are included in that definition and which are excluded — are hardly crystal clear,” Boasberg ruled in an opinion dismissing the FTC’s complaint. “The FTC’s inability to offer any indication of the metric(s) or method(s) it used to calculate Facebook’s market share renders its vague ‘60%-plus’ assertion too speculative and conclusory to go forward.”
    ………

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  22. “Well, I’m not in charge!” Milley yelled back.”

    ‘Milley Vanilley.’

    “White Rage,” eh, General?!

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  23. @19: Galileo was denounced* as a heretic and a fraud by the Church, but proved right. That does not mean that every whackjob “scientist” who thinks Venus was burped out of Jupiter is similarly right.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  24. * the funny thing is that the Church’s reasoning was scientifically sound. If the Earth revolved around the Sun, there should have been stellar parallax between January and June due to the Earth having moved to the other side of the Sun. They just had a low estimate of the distances involved.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  25. Between Russiagate, Hillary’s emails, the DNC email hack, and Hunter Biden I think it’s pretty obvious that the upper levels of the DOJ are corrupt and/or compromised

    It’s funny how basically everyone in government and the media — and almost every institution — is corrupt and/or compromised, while Donald Trump is pure as the driven snow and honest as the day is long, and the only other trustworthy people are those who support him unconditionally.

    Barr was considered a good guy in MAGA Land because he routinely spun things in Trump’s favor — until Trump went too far even for him. Then the MAGA heads all decided that Barr “was never trustworthy,” as my Trumpy neighbor put it when I told her that Barr had said he saw no evidence of widespread election fraud.

    Radegunda (33a224)

  26. Time123 (9f42ee) — 6/28/2021 @ 12:49 pm

    their are many many steps in the electoral process to validate the results.

    Are there? Can you describe them? I’m familiar with the process in my district and in some of the surrounding areas. It’s not a secure system or one that can be validated. It relies on a lot of people trusting a system that few of them understand and it ignores the incentive to rig it.

    None of them have shown evidence of widespread fraud.

    You can keep saying this and assuming that anyone who complains about the election is just complaining about the result. The system is flawed. It’s designed to not show any evidence of fraud. This is the equivalent of the IRS trying to go after hookers for tax evasion by studying their credit card transactions. Nope no credit card transactions, these hookers must not have any unreported income.

    Trumpers can’t accept

    Sure. And there are people on the other side that have abandoned all reason and critical thinking to support a position because they believe doing anything less will give people they hate any ground. The fact that some crazy people are saying some crazy things doesn’t mean something else isn’t true. Again, the system is flawed. The rabid denial of any sort of reform including things as simple as removing dead people from the voter rolls should give you a hint that this is all tribal games.

    frosty (f27e97)

  27. it’s a matter of faith either way

    Actually, it’s a matter of choosing whether to believe:

    a) the (Republican) officials whose professional charge is to run a fair election
    or
    b) the “auditors” with no election-auditing experience whose primary qualification for the job was having already taken the position that the election was stolen, and who have been looking for bamboo fibers in the ballots.

    Going with a) has a lot more reason on its side than going with b).

    Radegunda (33a224)

  28. Frosty at 18… you can lead the donkeys to water, but you can’t force hydration upon them.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  29. You can keep saying this and assuming that anyone who complains about the election is just complaining about the result. The system is flawed. It’s designed to not show any evidence of fraud.

    Nevertheless, if you’re making the claim of fraud, then it’s on you to prove. The states and counties have already certified to the accuracy and appropriateness of the vote and, to date, almost eight months after the election, there is still no legitimate evidence of serious fraud, and this after multiple counties and states have audited the results.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  30. Frosty, I haven’t memorized the rules for every state. I have learned a lot about MI and GA though.

    ALL systems flawed in some way. The Republicans complaining about the election aren’t asking for continuous improvement. They’re asserting, without evidence, that Trump got more votes and the outcome was determined by fraud.

    Your analogy is dumb on several levels; starting with the fact that IRS can and does prosecute people in cash intensive businesses that under-report income and ending with the fact that many of the safeguards happen in real time.

    Your point about incentives is a good one. Since several of the contested states were run by the GOP, why would. I expect that only Dem’s cheated? I can find you several examples of republican voterfraud. None large enough to swing the outcome.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  31. Time123 (9f42ee) — 6/28/2021 @ 2:10 pm

    The Republicans complaining about the election aren’t asking for continuous improvement. They’re asserting

    Yes, but I’m not in this boat, as much as you are trying to put me in it. But I’m sure that if the election would have gone the other way we’d be hearing non-stop from D/NeverTrump/etc about voter fraud and stolen elections. We had 4 years of “Russia stole the election for Trump” the first time.

    Your analogy is dumb on several levels; starting with the fact that IRS can and does prosecute people in cash-intensive businesses

    Yes, which is why my analogy is not dumb. It might not be the best but you’ve misrepresented it. They prosecute people in cash-based businesses by understanding the systems being used to move money and tracking it. They don’t do the sort of “auditing” we’ve seen in some of the districts.

    Since several of the contested states were run by the GOP, why would. I expect that only Dem’s cheated?

    So, you are pretending I’m saying something I didn’t say. At best this is a strawman. But I’ll play along, we’re pretending that all R’s wanted Trump to win? We’re pretending that there isn’t a group of R’s who are doing their best to boot Trump? But more importantly, we’re pretending that “states were run by the GOP” has anything to do with the cheating?

    You’re familiar with GA? Do you think Fulton Co is run by the GOP?

    frosty (f27e97)

  32. Paul Montagu (5de684) — 6/28/2021 @ 2:09 pm

    Nevertheless, if you’re making the claim of fraud then it’s on you to prove.

    If you are making either claim it’s on you to prove. Neither side can do that. Anyone stomping their feet and pounding their fists about free and fair is just as delusional as the Trump supporter doing the opposite.

    My claim is that it can’t be validated and that you’ve got to trust a flawed system.

    I’d have more trust in a system that required ID, required in-person voting, and enforced a rule requiring all in-process ballots to be always within sight of at least one person from all of the political parties on the ballot. I’d also want all of the software for the voting machines to have open-source code and digitally signed executables. I’d prefer more but honestly, I don’t think I’m going to get even the simple things on my list so the rest isn’t worth mentioning.

    frosty (f27e97)

  33. Baby, baby, baby yo outta time…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  34. They’re so confident in the integrity of the last election, they will brook no dissent – much less audit – and you’d better stfu or you’ll be labeled an insurrectionista.

    Nothing says confidence quite like that.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  35. @27 it’s as if “trust the experts” exudes credibility these days

    JF (e1156d)

  36. I like Presidents who don’t get shot down by their Attorneys General. Twice.

    nk (1d9030)

  37. For two-hundred and thirty years America’s elections worked just fine. Until a pervy Fifth Avenue poofter boy who was almost certainly buggered by Roy Cohn lost one. Right.

    nk (1d9030)

  38. Frosty, I did misunderstand your point. What you described would be more secure. It would also be impossible to execute.

    There have been audits, recounts, multiple lawsuits, and none of that has produced any evidence of fraud sufficient to impact the outcome. Yet we still have liars like Haiku pretending that something is being hidden.

    There’s no proof that the conspiracy theorists will accept.

    Time123 (9c0366)

  39. Trumpmuffins are traitors. They have made America and America’s elections a laughingstock in the eyes of the world for the sake of a degenerate orange dickwad from a New York dung-heap. It’s as simple as that. And so are they.

    nk (1d9030)

  40. nk (1d9030) — 6/28/2021 @ 3:51 pm

    Kennedy was also widely thought to have been an arraigned election. There was also something about 2016. But sure, let’s keep pretending that anyone complaining is just motivated by 2020.

    frosty (f27e97)

  41. nk (1d9030) — 6/28/2021 @ 4:10 pm

    It was already a laughingstock. I can’t believe anyone didn’t notice before.

    frosty (f27e97)

  42. I like Presidents who don’t get shot down by their Attorneys General. Twice.

    Overheard from the Clinton table: “Yes, but only once!”

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  43. Kennedy was also widely thought to have been an arraigned election.

    LBJ’s 1948 election to the Senate was rife with fraud. Something that was admitted by many in later years.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  44. Trumpmuffins are traitors.

    I disagree. Trump is the traitor. The minions are party members, fellow travelers and/or useful idiots. Sometimes all three.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  45. Sooo much confidence!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  46. Time123 (9c0366) — 6/28/2021 @ 3:53 pm

    Nothing I mentioned is impossible. Everything I listed isn’t even that hard. Undesirable? Sure for obvious reasons. But not impossible.

    There’s no proof that the conspiracy theorists will accept.

    In my case I’d say there is no proof that can be produced. If the process is flawed from the start you can’t trust the output. That doesn’t mean it was rigged. It means you’ve got no way to know either way.

    frosty (f27e97)

  47. A number of US elections have been shambles.

    There was 1960, where JFK was not even on the ballot in some states and where Mayor Daley “won” him the Illinois electoral votes that it turned out he didn’t need.

    There was Florida 2000, of bitter memory.

    There was the election of 1876, with competing elector slates and a cooked result (Both parties agreed to sacrifice the freedmen to the South, in return for Hayes getting the job).

    There was the election of 1860, with fractured parties, a victor with less than 40% of the vote and a major party that one only 1 1/2 states. Not to mention the secession thing afterwards.

    There was the election of 1824, where the clear popular vote victor (a 10 point margin) was denied the office when all the other candidates ganged up on him. You think Trump is vindictive, imagine Andy Jackson after the rerun in 1828.

    There was the election of 1800 where, due to a glitch in the electoral college process, Jefferson’s VP (Burr) had just as many electoral votes as Jefferson, and forced the election into the House.

    Pretending there were no hiccups along the way to 2020 is just silly.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  48. *won

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  49. In my case I’d say there is no proof that can be produced. If the process is flawed from the start you can’t trust the output. That doesn’t mean it was rigged. It means you’ve got no way to know either way.

    If you didn’t already know that millions of more people were going to vote for Joe Biden in November simply because Trump spent a year actively trying to kill as many Americans as possible, then you have a problem.

    Bill Barr knew it, Melania knew it, JaVanka knews it, any sentient human knew it…

    Then there are the Trumpsters, the poor stupid deluded Trumpsters. Long may they drool.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (1367c0)

  50. Klink, I think you have the reason wrong. He spent a year discouraging all who would listen to him from doing the easy mail-in ballot thing (and convincing all who hated him to do just that).

    So, Biden voters had a month to vote, Trump’s people about 12 hours. Assuming it was convenient. And sure, Trump overwhelmingly won day-of votes, but they were crushed by the “fraudulent” sea of early and mail-in votes. Schmuck.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  51. (Trump being the schmuck, not Herr Klink).

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  52. Hey, two things can be true.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (1367c0)

  53. Frosty, we make decision every day in the real world with imperfect data. At the level of doubt you’re proposing all you can really know is cogito ergo sum.

    Time123 (9c0366)

  54. Time123 (9c0366) — 6/28/2021 @ 5:33 pm

    Yea, picking the president is equivalent to deciding whether that local taco food truck is worth the risk.

    frosty (f27e97)

  55. Crazy uncles everywhere:

    MSNBC anchor Joshua Johnson suggested that the tragic Surfside condominium building collapse can be leveraged to justify the “price tag” of infrastructure spending amid tense negotiations between lawmakers and the Biden administration.

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-joshua-johnson-surfside-infrastructure

    Yes, folks just a few trillion dollars and we can all be safe in our homes! And those nasty Republicans want you all to die in your sleep!

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  56. Yea, picking the president is equivalent to deciding whether that local taco food truck is worth the risk.

    Given the choice in 2020, I think the local taco truck is more important.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  57. Then again, the way Biden spends newly-printed money, drunk sailors on leave are impressed.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  58. Given the choice in 2020, I think the local taco truck is more important.

    And at the end of the day, you’d have at least had a taco.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (1367c0)

  59. Yea, picking the president is equivalent to deciding whether that local taco food truck is worth the risk.

    Given the choice in 2020, I think the local taco truck is more important.

    It was a thing during the 2016 campaign: Taco trucks on every corner.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  60. Taccos don’t exist. Many ppl clain they do but there really isn’t sufficient proof.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  61. @47. A number of US elections have been shambles.

    Indeed; 1968 and 1972 gave Lady Liberty a thorough Dicking. And, of course, the 1980 and 1984 Hollywood productions were financial disasters.

    “Now go do that Voodoo, that you do, so welllll!” – Hedley Lamarr [Harvey Korman] ‘Blazing Saddles’ 1974

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  62. Speaking of taco’s. Took my wife to a Pho/Banh Mi place, and she ordered taco’s. First off, they had taco’s, so bonus I guess.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (1367c0)

  63. 57.Then again, the way Biden spends newly-printed money, drunk sailors on leave are impressed.

    Did anybody wake him and tell him his staff launched an attack in Syria– and they launched one back?? 😉

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  64. This will make arguing much easier. Anytime I don’t like the facts I’ll just insist that they can’t be proven sufficiently and that because of that my position is equally valid and likely.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  65. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lawyer-says-wont-be-charged-manhattan-da-first-indictment-2021-6

    Trump’s lawyer claims the former president won’t be charged in the Manhattan’s DA’s first indictment

    ‘Former President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer told Politico on Monday that the Manhattan district attorney’s office does not plan to bring criminal charges against Trump in its first indictment, which could come as soon as this week.

    “They just said, ‘When this indictment comes down, he won’t be charged,'” Ron Fischetti told Politico. But he added that the DA’s office said its investigation is “ongoing,” meaning the former president may not be out of hot water just yet.

    Hilarious: once again the ‘rule of law’ is ruled a joke.

    LOL Catch him if you can.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  66. Time123 (9f42ee) — 6/28/2021 @ 5:59 pm

    It works for things that can’t be proven and have to be taken on faith. Not so much for things that can. Then it just makes you look passive aggressive. Like the taco thing, I can go get one, and yep, sure enough tacos are a thing.

    But keep it in your back pocket. There are a lot of things in the first category that have moved from faith to fact based on nothing more than a common agreement. Like that immutability thing in the other thread.

    frosty (f27e97)

  67. its investigation is “ongoing,” meaning the former president may not be out of hot water just yet.

    Jeez, this will never end. Those walls are still closing in. All of the Trump “the vote was rigged crowd” will be dead and gone but generations from now there will still be people “investigating” Trump and promising a posthumous conviction to prevent the R’s from electing his corpse.

    frosty (f27e97)

  68. I agree. It does make you look passive aggressive. 😀

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  69. All of the Trump “the vote was rigged crowd” will be dead and gone but generations from now there will still be people “investigating” Trump and promising a posthumous conviction to prevent the R’s from electing his corpse.

    A lot of folks still deny the ‘single bullet theory’ 58 years on. And believe in alien visitations aboard UFOs, too.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  70. If you are making either claim it’s on you to prove.

    That’s burden-shifting, frosty. No one alleged wide-scale fraud in any other race in 2020 but for Trump, so it’s on him and his followers to back up their claim. After almost 8 months, bupkes. Put up or shut up.

    Paul Montagu (3de38d)

  71. #65 – I won’t say that, as some cynics do, that we should never believe anything until it has been officially denied — but that denial did make me think a Trump indictment is more likely than I thought before.

    (I don’t have enough knowledge of the details to produce a probability estimate for that case, but there are so many cases that I expect he, his grifter family, and his foolish followers will lose some of them. As some of the 1/6 followers already have. That many of these cases will be tried in DC and New York will not help him.)

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  72. Paul Montagu (3de38d) — 6/28/2021 @ 6:48 pm

    That’s burden-shifting, frosty.

    It would be if I were claiming it’s something that can be proven. I’m claiming that appeals to authority and consensus aren’t proof of a thing. If the context were different you’d be making the same argument but you’ve picked a side.

    No one alleged wide-scale fraud in any other race in 2020 but for Trump, so it’s on him and his followers to back up their claim.

    I completely agree. And there’s another group asserting “free and fair” making a different claim because they can’t tolerate any uncertainty. They can’t support their claim either and are trying very hard to claim absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

    That’s why I said the 3rd option was more supported, i.e. the we can’t prove it option.

    Given how important something like national elections are you’d think people actually concerned about confidence in them would, maybe, do something to improve confidence instead of ridicule people pointing it out. But there’s a downside to improving election integrity and propaganda is so much easier.

    frosty (f27e97)

  73. @71. America will never indict and toss a former POTUS in the pokie. Bad form.

    Staff, sure. But not the POTUS. See the The unindicted co-conspirator Big Dick and Reagan’s Iran-Contra crowd for details.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  74. Given how important something like national elections are you’d think people actually concerned about confidence in them would, maybe, do something to improve confidence instead of ridicule people pointing it out.

    In addition, don’t forget that the Biden Junta and congressional Dimmies choose instead to make it much easier to cheat.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  75. 73… never gets old, Pops…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  76. Frosty, you have no evidence that the process was determined by fraud. Claims about specific instances of fraud have been investigated and debunked. You don’t have any specific accusations of how or where the outcome was determined by fraud. Instead you’ve established a post hoc standard of proof and are asserting that since that isn’t met the results can’t really be known and uncertainty that the outcome is legitimate is the only reasonable decision. A position which implies that no elected official has ever been legitimately elected, anywhere, ever.

    The people who are asserting the election was legitimate do have evidence; the electoral process. A process which has numerous checks, balances and processes to challenge and investigate. Prior to the election this was agreed to be a sufficiently robust way to determine the will of the voters. A determination that rightly takes into account multiple competing goods. In addition there have been investigations of fraud in many places. NONE that has found fraud large enough to determine the presidential election.

    Further there have been incidents of error, Windham NH is one. Antim MI is another. Together they show that our. Systems can identify and respond to irregularities.

    I know you. I know you’re smart and reasonable. But i can’t get my head around your POV here.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  77. Time123 (9f42ee) — 6/28/2021 @ 7:57 pm

    I think you’re trapped in a binary choice. For example,

    A position which implies that no elected official has ever been legitimately elected, anywhere, ever.

    is an extreme. It’s a straw man. The choice isn’t between all are always legitimate and none ever are. My point is that at best it’s just a guess. When the outcome is obvious you don’t need to verify it. When it’s close you can’t.

    You don’t have any specific accusations of how or where the outcome was determined by fraud.

    That’s because I’m not making this claim. I’m not sure how I can say it any differently. You’re equating my position that it can’t be proven with the claim that it was decided by fraud. My claim is about the process itself and you’re fixated on the outcome.

    uncertainty that the outcome is legitimate is the only reasonable decision

    Because it is. This isn’t the same as saying it was illegitimate. There’s a difference between I don’t know and I know one way or the other. If Trump would have won under this same situation I’d be saying the same thing and you’d be agreeing with me only because it’s what you wanted to believe.

    A process which has numerous checks, balances and processes to challenge and investigate.

    I remember when I voted. There was an elaborate process to give me confidence that my vote was counted. There was a guy there whose job it was to basically point out the new things as if to say “see, your vote was counted correctly”. I chuckled and the guy seemed confused. I had no way to verify what had happened. There was no human readable thing produced by the process. The entire process had zero way to be verified. So, sure let’s count those ballots again. Garbage in garbage out.

    Prior to the election this was agreed to be a sufficiently robust way to determine the will of the voters.

    I’m not sure that means what you think it means but that’s a different discussion. I’ll assume you meant an acceptable way to count votes. Except we did things in 2020 that we didn’t do before. And people rightly pointed out that some of those things would undermine confidence in the process. And this is a problem for your theory. You don’t get to change rules for 2020 and then rely on the trust in the previous rules. Another problem is that D/NeverTrump spent four years undermining the trust in the previous process because it gave us Trump. That’s actually a reasonable reason to lose faith in the process but not for the reasons D/NeverTrump gave.

    A lot of people had no issue with 2016 being illegitimate but now claim doing that in 2020 is basically seditious. Like I said before, the broken process is a feature. It’s easier to claim outcomes you don’t like are illegitimate and then use propaganda for the ones you do. You’ll see. Going forward anytime a D loses its illegitimate and all D wins can’t be questioned. It’s baked into the system now for anything that is remotely contested.

    I understand why you don’t understand my POV. Especially given how you’ve mischaracterized it. It’s important to you that the results be legitimate. It isn’t as important to me. You don’t have to agree with the Trumpers but at least be honest enough with yourself that you’re taking it on faith. Then you’d be closer to understanding my POV.

    frosty (f27e97)

  78. @75. =Haiki= Gesundheit! Just like ‘conservative’ SCOTUS personnel never fail to disappoint… ‘conservatives.’

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  79. Indeed; 1968 and 1972 gave Lady Liberty a thorough Dicking. And, of course, the 1980 and 1984 Hollywood productions were financial disasters.

    Reagan now rates in the top 10 and Tricky Dick is rising, too. So is Grant. Contemporary views are often colored by partisan animus, but after a time people can give that a break.

    Newer scores to right.

    I think that Obama will be judged mediocre, as will W. But Clinton will be seen as a fairly good President, much as Nixon has recovered. Not much hope for Carter, Ford or Coolidge.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  80. A position which implies that no elected official has ever been legitimately elected, anywhere, ever.

    I think that some Congressfolk in secure districts may have received votes from a majority of registered voters. Not all that many as gerrymandering politicians tend to think 75% is good enough and want to spread your support elsewhere.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  81. OT: I am of the opinion that all candidates fro high office (president, senator, supreme court justice) should be required to take a standardized test. IQ, SAT, high school basic knowledge. Not to disqualify them — idiots need their representatives too — but so that the voter can see what lies behind the ads. Does anyone doubt that Trump would have been caught cheating?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  82. generations from now there will still be people “investigating” Trump

    It’s like JFK’s assassination.

    Which reminds me: Oliver Stone looks at the newly released files

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  83. It would be if I were claiming it’s something that can be proven.

    One, no one has demanded your level of proof in prior elections, frosty, and I doubt you’ve demanded such.
    Two, you’re still burden-shifting. It’s not like previous elections haven’t been investigated for fraud. The reality is that fraud for in-person voting has been rare this century, and only slightly less rare for mail-in voting. Dr. Hasen at UCI did that work.
    In WA State, which is 100% mail-in, only 142 fraudulent/illegal ballots were unearthed out of 3.1 million cast in 2018.
    Three, if you had a case after almost eight months, then folks in the Trump Big Lie camp should’ve found a significant number of illegal/fraudulent ballots. So far, nuthin’, so it’s on you to show me all those illegal votes that were not only significant in number, but significant enough to alter the outcomes in three, maybe four, relevant battleground states. Show your work, friend.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  84. Barr in his pontoon plane kissing the arse of the eskimo was the doj at its best.

    mg (8cbc69)

  85. . The choice isn’t between all are always legitimate and none ever are. My point is that at best it’s just a guess. When the outcome is obvious you don’t need to verify it. When it’s close you can’t.

    You don’t have any specific accusations of how or where the outcome was determined by fraud.

    That’s because I’m not making this claim. I’m not sure how I can say it any differently. You’re equating my position that it can’t be proven with the claim that it was decided by fraud. My claim is about the process itself and you’re fixated on the outcome.

    If I understand your claim it’s that we can’t know if the outcome was decided by fraud or not because the election was too close.

    You are not asserting that any specific cases of fraud or error have been found.

    Do i have that correct?

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  86. the jokers who put us through two years of russiagate nonsense are now all about proof

    JF (e1156d)

  87. The proof of the pudding is what Santa left in your stocking. Biden got the White House, Trump got Palookaville. We’re getting the tantrum on Christmas morning.

    nk (1d9030)

  88. NK, Well, the loser does have a toddler’s emotional maturity.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  89. Trump really proves my theory that nobody over the age of sixty-five should be allowed to run for election or reelection.

    Nixon was 47 when he lost to JFK. He conceded gracefully. He did not shout. He did not cry. He did not pout. You know why. He could wait eight years to run again. And win. Trump ain’t got no eight years. For him this is the end, and those sour aren’t even helping his daily regularity.

    nk (1d9030)

  90. sour *grapes*

    nk (1d9030)

  91. 78-75-73…The battle we’ve all been waiting for has been rejoined!

    urbanleftbehind (dde6d2)

  92. Paul Montague – If I may add to your general point #83 — One of the reasons, perhaps the most important reason, that we have had less election fraud in the 21st century, is that reformers, almost all of them Republicans, have tightened up the rules and, more important, the enforcement of the rules, since the 2001 election.

    The improvements have been uneven, for obvious reasons, but they are real, nonetheless.

    Our partisan press won’t give Republican reformers credit for those improvements, but rational, decent people should. And we should all be wary of Putin’s efforts to undermine faith in our elections.

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  93. Time123 (9f42ee) — 6/29/2021 @ 4:15 am

    Essentially. It’s within the margin of error for the system we have and we increased the possible margin of error in 2020 with the rule changes.

    I don’t personally think it was stolen in the sense that you and Paul seem to be trying to box me into. That entire back and forth is just meant to be a distraction for the Trumpians and the D/NeverTrumpers to argue about. It also serves to poison any discussion of improving the process.

    But it’s not about my personal opinion on what happened. It’s about what definitive statements can be made and what needs to be improved. We can’t fix a problem if we can’t acknowledge that we have one. Right now there are a lot of people unable to even contemplate the possibility of increasing election integrity because of what that might imply for 2020. But if we keep having elections like that it will be increasingly harder to that argue that we’re getting legitimate results.

    frosty (f27e97)

  94. 20. Time123 (9f42ee) — 6/28/2021 @ 12:49 pm

    their [sic] are many many steps in the electoral process to validate the results. None of them have shown evidence of widespread fraud.

    What there is, is a lot of cross checks. Every vote must be assigned to a voter who was registered and signed (or logged in so to speak) While how an individual voter has voted is secret, it is not so at the precinct level (batches of 100 to 30 or so) and the number of votes and the numbe of people who signed in must match exactly. You can’t just dump ballots. There’s no time to “vote” the people who didn’t sign in. There are styles of ballots (paper ballots where the candidates are different. You’d have to steal ballots and substitute them, but not too many per precinct, or it would be obvious. Where hand marked, voters mark them with different instruments; they can’t look identical.

    Any significant cheating is a big operation. Where are the witnesses and the evidence?

    The things that Donald Trump claims are mostly violations of or (improper) changes in election law. Or things that would be indicative of fraud. But they can’t stand alone. Other things would have to happen to complete the fraud. He says dead people were on the rolls in Georgia. But did they “vote?” He complains that in Wisconsin too many people did not have photo ID (on the grounds they were indefinitely confined at home.) I assume we’re dealing with absentee ballots here. Are any of these people nonexistent? In many states, nobody uses photo ID! Is voting there unreliable?

    https://punchbowl.news/wp-content/uploads/1.4.20-2020-Presidential-Election-Challenges-in-Arizona-Georgia-Michigan-Nevada-Pennsylvania-and-Wisconsin-and-Our-Const.pdf

    The issues litigated related to absentee ballot procedures during the pandemic in the two specific
    heavily democratic counties selected by the President’s counsel. The case did not address similar issues
    state-wide, or in other counties with vote totals predominantly favoring the President. One issue related
    to a county determination that, pursuant to the Governor’s “Safer at Home” pandemic order, voters could
    qualify as “indefinitely confined” due to illness, and thus vote by mail or drop box without showing
    identification in person. The President’s counsel sought to disqualify every absentee ballot in the two
    counties of an “indefinitely confined” person regardless of whether that “confinement” related to the
    pandemic or not. Another issue related to ballots collected by volunteers at various events in Madison,
    Wisconsin named “Democracy in the Park.”
    Judge Hagedorn, appointed by former Republican Governor Scott Walker, wrote the majority
    opinion. The majority first ruled against the Plaintiff as to the application of the definition of “indefinitely
    confined” – “The challenge to the indefinitely confined voter ballots is meritless on its face.” As a concurrence explained:
    “Although the number of individuals claiming indefinitely confined status has increased throughout the state, the Campaign asks us to apply this blanket invalidation of indefinitely confined voters only to ballots cast in Dane and Milwaukee Counties . .

    . . The Campaign’s request to strike indefinitely confined voters in Dane and Milwaukee Counties as a class without regard to whether any individual voter was in fact indefinitely confined has no
    basis in reason or law; it is wholly without merit.”

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  95. Sooooooo much confidence…

    Meanwhile in teh City of teh Windbags… Beetlegeuse! Beetlegeuse! Beetlegeuse!

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xc6mbKojLEY

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  96. 24. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/28/2021 @ 1:52 pm

    They just had a low estimate of the distances involved.

    And were misled by the apparent size of the discs of the stars. Galileo also was completely wrong about tides.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  97. 50. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/28/2021 @ 4:54 pm

    So, Biden voters had a month to vote, Trump’s people about 12 hours. Assuming it was convenient.

    In many states they also had early voting. Trump switched from casting an absentee ballot in Florida to voting early because he was ampaigning against mail voting (although not too much in Florida)

    And sure, Trump overwhelmingly won day-of votes, but they were crushed by the “fraudulent” sea of early and mail-in votes.

    Early votes were usually combined with day-of votes in releasing the results, but sometimes with absentee ballots.

    But yes, the lead in close states switched depending on what was counted first.

    In North Carolina the absentee and early votes were counted first, the election day votes later, and in Virginia the election day votes were counted first and the early votes and absentee votes later.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  98. Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c) — 6/29/2021 @ 7:43 am

    What you’ve described doesn’t fit my district or the nearby ones I’m familiar with. My district relies on ballots that are not capable of being verified by a person. And definitely not by the person casting the vote. It would probably take a small team of people in the appropriate place to tweak the numbers for the entire state. They wouldn’t need to stuff ballots. They could do it and have the ballot count exactly match the signed in people. That’s before you even have to worry about whether the mail-in votes are counted correctly.

    Whether I think that happened or not is, again, immaterial. That it can happen is enough to cause distrust in the system. People yelling and stomping their feet about how 2020 couldn’t have been stolen when so many of the same people did the exact opposite in 2016 on less evidence doesn’t help the case.

    That Trump is all over the place making all sort of claims doesn’t mean the current system is acceptable. I can agree that Trump hasn’t proven his case and still want improvements to the system.

    My guess is the people who have faith in the checks and balances in the system also think it’s their front door and the lock on it that keeps them safe at night. Most of them just have faith because it gave them the outcome they wanted. If Trump would have won they’d be wailing a different tune.

    frosty (f27e97)

  99. Dont blame me, my remnant Chicagoans voted for Jerry Joyce. He/Bill Daley/Paul Vallas should have pulled a Tom Hynes and left 1 white guy in the running.

    urbanleftbehind (1cfcdc)

  100. Paul Montagu (5de684) — 6/29/2021 @ 1:11 am

    This is 100% bulls41t. You’re imagining an extreme version of what you think I’m saying because that’s the argument you really want to have. Voter ID laws and a lot of the other topics I’ve mentioned are not new. They weren’t invented in response to 2020. It wasn’t like some people didn’t lose their minds over 2016 and assert all sorts of things based on no evidence.

    In fact 2016 should have been a wake up call for any rational and honest person concerned about election integrity. That it was so easy to assert insane claims based on laughable “evidence” and that it was taken seriously for so long should have given more people cause for concern. Based on 2016 there was zero chance the losing side in 2020 wasn’t going to copy the strategy.

    Stop being dishonest and intentionally misrepresenting what I’m saying.

    frosty (f27e97)

  101. Frosty, I have a better understanding of your position now. I’ll attribute my confusion to the large number of people making claims similar to yours in what appears to be a motte and Bailey argument in support of the stop the steal conspiracy theories.

    Motte: Dems stole 2020
    Baily: I’m just saying there’s uncertainty and we need more election integrity.

    I’m not accusing you of making this claim.

    I will say that if someone attempted to steal the election in. GA, WI, AZ or. MI in the manner you describe a manual recount would show a discrepancy. There have been recounts in many parts of those states. And none of them showed a mismatch between the vote totals. All of those states have risk limiting audits where that process is done on samples of ballots and none of those have shown an issue either.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  102. Nixon was 47 when he lost to JFK. He conceded gracefully. He did not shout. He did not cry. He did not pout. You know why. He could wait eight years to run again.

    He could also lie:

    “You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference.” – The Big Dick concedes on loss to Pat Brown in CA governor race, November 7, 1962

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  103. Stop being dishonest and intentionally misrepresenting what I’m saying.

    You’re trying to claim a higher standard to voting security than has ever been done in history, frosty. To me, that’s not honest because it plays into Trump’s undermining the election through his lies about stealing and fraud. It’s little different Ron “just asking the questions” Johnson’s ploy.
    If you real evidence that serious irregularities happened, then bring it.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  104. Paul Montagu (5de684) — 6/29/2021 @ 1:01 pm

    because it plays into Trump’s undermining the election

    And that is the beginning, middle, and end to any critical thought you’re capable of bringing to the topic.

    Even if it were a higher standard you don’t think 2016 and 2020 justify discussing at least some improvements? Are you so dominated by your emotions that you can’t tolerate it? Is the idea giving you anxiety? Are you so afraid of even discussing the potential for irregularities that the best you can do is personal attacks?

    There are a lot of people in glass houses throwing rocks at Trumpers for being irrational.

    frosty (f27e97)

  105. Time123 (9f42ee) — 6/29/2021 @ 9:07 am

    All of those states have risk limiting audits where that process is done on samples of ballots and none of those have shown an issue either.

    These kind of double checks have been around for a very, very long time. The process is thought out. The people who designed them were familiar with real election fraud.

    There has been vote fraud, but those cases don’t resemble most of the fantasies they come up with. It usually involves adding voters and votes behind the scenes. When they only had paper ballots sometimes it involved spoiling ballots or erasing pencil marks. To do any of that one party had to be in charge of the voting machinery.

    When not in charge of the voting machinery, there might be, for once, in person vote fraud or adding absentee ballots, but you still need to have very little active political opposition because too many people would know it is going on.

    This is easier to do in far down ballot races and in primaries.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  106. frosty – If you want people to take your ideas seriously, it is best to avoid ad hominem attacks, which are, more often than not, fallacious.

    Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

    For example, if you think the official reports from 50 secretaries of state are fatally flawed, explain why, giving evidence. If you have some ideas for improving election security, describe them in detail.

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  107. Evah seen in same room at same time?!?!

    file:///var/mobile/Library/SMS/Attachments/a5/05/C6EFCFDD-5925-4F98-AB8B-2DB012AF7477/IMG_1394.jpeg

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  108. As it is with Barr, the majority of lawyers truly believe the JD following their name signifies Justifiable Deity.
    Barr, Wray, Holder, and others of their ilk are nothing more than smug and arrogant people who prove the world is filled with educated derelicts.

    mg (8cbc69)

  109. Paul Montague – If I may add to your general point #83 — One of the reasons, perhaps the most important reason, that we have had less election fraud in the 21st century, is that reformers, almost all of them Republicans, have tightened up the rules and, more important, the enforcement of the rules, since the 2001 election.

    We agree, Jim. I favor vote ID for in-person voting (as long as it doesn’t exceed the “undue burden” threshold established by the Supreme Court) and there should be sufficient controls for mail-in voting. I brought up WA State because the system works.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  110. Jim Miller (edcec1) — 6/29/2021 @ 3:17 pm

    You think I’m attacking the character of the 50 Secretaries of State? Can you point to a single example where I’ve done that? Can you point to a single example where I’ve claimed the election was stolen or fraudulent?

    If you have some ideas for improving election security

    I’ve done that in a previous comment. I was told it was impossible.

    If you want people to take your ideas seriously

    I’d be fine if you didn’t take me seriously.

    frosty (f27e97)

  111. Even if it were a higher standard you don’t think 2016 and 2020 justify discussing at least some improvements? Are you so dominated by your emotions that you can’t tolerate it? Is the idea giving you anxiety? Are you so afraid of even discussing the potential for irregularities that the best you can do is personal attacks?

    Ooh, touchy, frosty.
    This is what you said, and it’s a convenient way for you impugn the integrity of our voting systems without getting your hands dirty by actually trying to establish that fraud affects electoral results.

    As the system is constructed there’s no way to validate the results. You can believe one side or the other but it’s a matter of faith either way. The agnostic position is the only one with reason on its side.

    Despite Putin trying to hack and influence a 2016 election, he couldn’t break into voting machines and he couldn’t create fraudulent ballots, and there’s scant evidence that other folks tried and got away with it as well. Trump alleged that, if he lost to Hillary, the election was “rigged”, without a shred of evidence. These “questions” you’re oh so concerned were raised basically by one serial liar.
    The 2020 election was clean. For all the partisans and hyperpartisans out there trying to expose fraud, they failed miserably because it wasn’t there, and it wasn’t there because Trump lied to America for months on end. The only reason 2020 became an issue was because of Trump’s Big Lie (yes, I said it) and the pervasive attempts of his loyal cadres to backfill his Big Lie.
    I brought up UCI prof Rick Hasen for reason because he’s actually researched incidences of vote fraud, and once fraudulent acts are identified, then prescriptions can be found to address them. It’s a much better approach than yours, which is basically waving your arms around saying fie on the whole system.
    Am I concerned about vote fraud? Yes. Is there enough fraud out there in this century to be alarmed about? No, not even, show me otherwise.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  112. Dough Boy / unfit mitt / 2024

    mg (8cbc69)

  113. frosty – You misunderstood; I was suggesting that you explain why you disagree with Paul Montagu, rather than attacking him personally.

    I take you seriously enough to suggest that, if you have evidence to support your argument, you present it.

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  114. Paul Montagu (5de684) — 6/29/2021 @ 5:11 pm

    So many definitions of stolen it’s easy to lose count.

    Also this one is nice because it includes this little gem:

    Carter said that in his view Trump lost the 2016 election and was put in office by the Russians.

    In case your wondering that would be former president Jimmy.

    One serial liar? You’re saying Clinton and Carter didn’t question 2016? I’m guessing that whole thing with Abrams being the real GA gov didn’t happen either?

    We’re just going to memory hole all of that and 2020 is when people started questioning election outcomes.

    frosty (f27e97)

  115. Paul – I suspect we would agree on other election measures, too. I was appalled, for instance, when software folks began talking about voting on line. Not so much because it couldn’t be made relatively secure, but because so many would never accept it, if the wrong people won.

    Incidentally, though it is hard to be sure, I think the few cases where fraudulent votes make a difference these days are usually in low-turnout Democratic primaries.

    (I thought Christopher Caldwell’s op-ed in the NYT a couple of weeks ago was a good general summary.)

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  116. Jim Miller (edcec1) — 6/29/2021 @ 5:57 pm

    I did that earlier in the thread. We then passed the point where Paul is misrepresenting my POV several times.

    We’re now at the point were you and Paul are telling me what I’m really saying. And it’s not the honest “this is the logical consequence of your statement” sort of thing but the mind reading “I know what you really mean because you’re one of the Trumpers” sort of thing.

    It’s not ad hominem to say someone is misrepresenting your point. If I tell you as clearly as I can what I’m trying to say and you then say that I’m knowingly making deceptive comments that’s just a different way to call me a liar. Then we’re not disagreeing over the original point are we?

    frosty (f27e97)

  117. frosty- I looked through the thread quickly, and found no evidence to support your arguments about elections in any of your comments.

    Perhaps I missed your evidence. If you have some, would you be kind enough to present it again, please?

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  118. Jim Miller (edcec1) — 6/29/2021 @ 6:41 pm

    What exactly do you think I’m saying?

    frosty (f27e97)

  119. Jim Miller (edcec1) — 6/29/2021 @ 6:41 pm

    If there’s some confusion about what I’ve been saying there’s another thread discussing how maricopa county is making the same basic argument I’ve been making.

    frosty (f27e97)

  120. frosty, your response to me about “stolen” is odd because I never said that word. What does “stolen” mean to you? What’s your proof? Show me the fraudulent/illegal ballots. I’ll await your answer.
    Also odd is that “validated” is apparently an important word to you but you never specified what that actually means. Because of that, I’ll fall back on the best dictionary definition: “to support or corroborate on a sound or authoritative basis.”
    Every county of every state certified that the results were sound and accurate. What’s your evidence otherwise? Can you “validate” that there was enough fraud to change the outcome? I’ll go out on a limb and say “no”.
    The beauty of our federalist system is that every county of every state gets to set up an electoral system and decide what is a validated result, which has been done and has worked well, given the rare number of actual illegal/fraudulent ballots unearthed. They don’t have to filter their procedures through your big ego as what is validated or not.
    The other beauty of our system is that we’re so decentralized that dictators who are hostile to our interests, like Putin, are unable to hack our elections and affect the results. The Mueller report concluded that he tried and failed.
    As for whatever Hillary said, whatever. The fact is that she conceded the next day. Anything after that is sour grapes, and she’s been predictably sour and grapey, and Carter, too. Trump not only not conceded, he remains the sorest one-term loser in presidential history.
    So here’s an exit question for you: Who won, Trump or Biden?

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  121. Sammy, great comment at 105

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  122. Paul Montagu (5de684) — 6/30/2021 @ 12:27 am

    A system that can be validated would allow for the voter to verify their ballot and would allow for a manual recount. All of the systems that are completely electronic can’t be validated. A system that breaks the chain between verifying the person voting, casting the ballot, and the counting of the vote also creates issues, for those worried about chain of custody at least. There are several ways to create a system where the inputs can’t be verified against the outputs.

    because I never said that word

    Ah, so you can infer my motives but that’s something only you get to do? That makes sense.

    every state gets to set up an electoral system and decide what is a validated result

    Not exactly. I think you’re overstating this.

    As for whatever Hillary said, whatever.

    Yep, whatever, the goal after all is to get everything to fit a narrative and confirm your biases and we can redefine words like validate as needed and it’s very important that only Trump and Trumpers are doing a thing.

    Anything after that is sour grapes

    Well, it seems that some grapes are sour and some are sedition. Whatever right?

    Who won, Trump or Biden?

    Biden won and is POTUS. Only in your very active imagination am I saying otherwise. I’ve never actually said otherwise, I’ve actually answered this question already, and I’ve said in several comments that I’m not claiming Trump really won. But since you’re the election right think police every time you ask I’ll answer.

    frosty (f27e97)

  123. 121. Paul Montagu (5de684) — 6/30/2021 @ 12:27 am

    The other beauty of our system is that we’re so decentralized that dictators who are hostile to our interests, like Putin, are unable to hack our elections and affect the results. The Mueller report concluded that he tried and failed.

    To actually get affect the voting is a long drawn out process. In 2016, he started too late. Russia just did some preliminary hacking.

    As for whatever Hillary said, whatever. The fact is that she conceded the next day.

    Them she tried to get faithless electors to change their svstesm and quietly encouraged recounts requested by Jill Stein. Jill Stein was a Putin puppet, but Putin was having second thoughts about Trump because Trump was openly considering making (anti-Russia) Mitt Romney Secretary of State. That’s how I figure it out.

    (That’s also why in 220. China couldn’t make any decision about whom they wanted for president.

    Trump didn’t care about human rights, but he had other animus against the government of China which seemed extremely strong; while Biden was more interested in negotiating rather than confronting, but on the other hand, seemed to back human rights and not disliking China’s human rights record was the most important thing to the government of China because without the president and Congress not caring about human rights, they wouldn’t be able to get any other good outcomes from the USA. China limited itself to helping out candidates in some down ballot races.)

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  124. Frosty, The degree of difference between Hillary’s whining and Trump’s dishonest assault on what happened in the election amounts to a difference in kind.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  125. Sammy… you and others here would do well to read Josh Rogin’s book… Chaos Under Heaven: Trump, Xi, and the Battle for the 21st Century.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  126. Time123 (9f42ee) — 6/30/2021 @ 8:08 am

    amounts to a difference in kind

    Not if Sammy is correct

    she tried to get faithless electors to change their svstesm and quietly encouraged recounts

    Quietly vs dishonest assault is basically the definition of difference in degree especially when you consider the faithless elector stuff.

    Are you going to try Paul’s trick of ignoring the post I linked where she is making stolen claims in 2019 and pretend she stopped rocking the boat the day after the election?

    frosty (f27e97)

  127. A system that can be validated would allow for the voter to verify their ballot and would allow for a manual recount. All of the systems that are completely electronic can’t be validated.

    That doesn’t make sense, frosty. To date, 95% of all ballots are of the paper variety, so there’s a trail, and it’s on voters to review their work before they drop their ballots in. Your point is only relevant for the 5% that are paperless. Two, if there are issues about irregularities, there are provisions for manual recounts, which have been done all across the country. To date, bupkes.

    Only in your very active imagination am I saying otherwise.

    I never implied that, frosty. It was just a question. Touchy, touchy.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  128. Frosty, She would occasionally say something whiny in an interview. I don’t know if Sammy is correct or not. From what I recall there wasn’t a dem effort to steal the election from Trump in 2016 with faithless electors.

    Trump had a 50K person rally on Jan 6 where hundreds of people assaulted the US capital to stop the steal. A majority of republicans think the election was determined by fraud and it’s a major theme of the GOP leadership.

    The behaviors aren’t even remotely close. If you see them as similar there’s probably nothing I can say or show you to change your mind.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  129. Them she tried to get faithless electors to change their svstesm and quietly encouraged recounts requested by Jill Stein.

    That’s true, Sammy, but the ploy backfired. Out of the seven faithless, five turned their backs on Clinton/Kaine and picked someone else. In WA State, three went with Colin Powell and the fourth picked Faith Spotted Eagle.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  130. hillary and friends pulled off the trick getting the full force of government on the taxpayer dime to stop the 2016 steal

    JF (e1156d)

  131. The equivalency argument that frosty is making about Hillary’s whining and Trump’s sore-loseriness is beyond silly.
    Hillary conceded the next day, she didn’t allege that “massive fraud” took place, she didn’t lie for months on end about “fraudulent” results, and she didn’t assemble tens of thousands of followers on January 6th to protest and march to the Capitol. She did complain about Putin’s interference, and that his hacking-propaganda operation affected the outcome, alluding that Trump was not legitimately elected, but no one could back up her claims, including her. Putin didn’t tell Hillary not to go to Wisconsin in the final months, and he didn’t instruct her to be a charmless crappy candidate.
    If there’s anyone Hillary should blame for Putin’s attack on our election, it should be Obama for his lack of taking any serious action against Putin. I think the worst he did was give Vlad a mean look. Obama put politics over country, believing that Hillary was going to win, so he decided to wait until after the election to deal with Putin. It was a stupid and unpatriotic and un-American mistake that will forever stick to his legacy.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  132. @133 fisa warrants weren’t doctored by anyone marching on the capitol

    JF (e1156d)

  133. At least a half-dozen Democratic electors have signed onto an attempt to block Donald Trump from winning an Electoral College majority, an effort designed not only to deny Trump the presidency but also to undermine the legitimacy of the institution.

    The presidential electors, mostly former Bernie Sanders supporters who hail from Washington state and Colorado, are now lobbying their Republican counterparts in other states to reject their oaths — and in some cases, state law — to vote against Trump when the Electoral College meets on Dec. 19.

    Even the most optimistic among the Democratic electors acknowledges they’re unlikely to persuade the necessary 37 Republican electors to reject Trump — the number they’d likely need to deny him the presidency and send the final decision to the House of Representatives. And even if they do, the Republican-run House might simply elect Trump anyway.

    But the Democratic electors are convinced that even in defeat, their efforts would erode confidence in the Electoral College and fuel efforts to eliminate it, ending the body’s 228-year run as the only official constitutional process for electing the president. With that goal in mind, the group is also contemplating encouraging Democratic electors to oppose Hillary Clinton and partner with Republicans in support of a consensus pick like Mitt Romney or John Kasich.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  134. That’s an interesting article, but it doesn’t say, or even imply, an organized effort by dem leadership to steal the 2020 election

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  135. Always there to throw shade on Rs and cut Ds slack. Dishonesty.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  136. I assume you a shared it the context of Sammy’s prior assertion that HC tried to organize this and the broader point that what Trump has done with the 2020 election is different from the sour grapes and fringe acts/statements in the past. I further assumed from context that your point was that the actions of the Dem’s and GOP are roughly similar in trying to overturn the election.

    Let me know if I’ve misunderstood what you’re trying to say.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  137. lol… 4 years long worth of crazed attempts by Democrats and their media stenographers to change the 2016 election result with their ginned up fictions and false allegations are well-documented.

    It has done lasting damage to the country and has no equal. Ponder that.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  138. CH, in another thread you asked for 1 example of a lie. I had time to look it up. See below

    @188, You must not have been a colonial in a military service with a code of conduct around lying.

    Colonel Haihu,
    You said this:

    So… per the Crowdstrike CEO when under oath, no evidence ever found that the Ruuskies hacked the DNC.
    Nada.
    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/13/2020 @ 5:16 pm

    It’s been point out that what was actually said is:

    MR. HENRY: So there is circumstantial evidence that it was taken.
    MR. STEWART OF UTAH: l understand, but not conclusive.
    MR. HENRY: We didn’t watch it happen. There’s not a network sensor that actually saw traffic actually leaving, but there’s circumstantial evidence that it happened.

    CH, are you going to admit your initial claim isn’t what he said or will you continue to lie?

    That’s just one spot, he lays out a lot of evidence in other parts of his testimony, nut you don’t care because you’re a liar.

    Time123 (f5cf77) — 5/15/2020 @ 2:13 pm

    http://patterico.com/2020/05/14/unmasking-is-routine-and-the-effort-to-portray-it-as-sinister-is-very-stupid-propaganda/#comment-2359114

    We’d been talking for a while about the evidence presented and this is when I realized that you were happy to flat out lie about facts if they didn’t support your point. Which was odd, because you could easily have modified your claim from “he testified there was no evidence” to “he testified the evidence was only circumstantial and I don’t find that sufficient.”But, you clung to the lie. I must have been pretty frustrated with you from all the snide insults. In retrospect those are embarrassing. But i said them so they’re there.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  139. There wasn’t four years of trying to change the election result – there was only about six weeks of that – and she knew it was a longshot. But, from her point of view, why not? She didn’t want to be associated with it, though. It actually backfired, as far as she personally was concerned,as people whoo defected were looking for alternatives that might be elected by the House of Representatives..

    https://www.npr.org/2016/12/19/506188169/donald-trump-poised-to-secure-electoral-college-win-with-few-surprises

    Trump secured 304 electoral votes — two fewer than he earned in November, according to the Associated Press, which tracked results from capitol to capitol. That was despite a pitched effort by some on the left who wrote letters to Trump electors trying to persuade them to switch their votes or not vote at all and keep Trump short of the 270 needed.

    Not only did it not happen, but more electors tried to defect from Hillary Clinton Monday than from Trump, by a count of eight to two. Three Democratic electors in Maine, Minnesota, and Colorado tried to vote for candidates other than Clinton. The electors’ votes, however, were disallowed because of state rules binding them to the statewide popular vote winner.

    After that there was an attempt o claim that Trump owed his election to Russia and maybe had collaborated with Putin. That was in order to affect the next election, and the midterms.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  140. Hillary had made this an issue before the election.

    https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/presidential-debate-the-university-nevada-las-vegas

    TRUMP:….Now we can talk about Putin. I don’t know Putin. [*] He said nice things about me. If we got along well, that would be good. If Russia and the United States got along well and went after ISIS, that would be good.

    [* In a Republican debate Trump had claimed that he got to know Putin very well – because they had been on the same episode of 60 Minutes! Which tapes its interviews in advance. Neither Marco Rubio nor Carly Fiorina caught its falsity]

    He has no respect for her. He has no respect for our president. And I’ll tell you what: We’re in very serious trouble, because we have a country with tremendous numbers of nuclear warheads—1,800, by the way—where they expanded and we didn’t, 1,800 nuclear warheads. And she’s playing chicken. Look, Putin…

    WALLACE: Wait, but…

    TRUMP: … from everything I see, has no respect for this person.

    CLINTON: Well, that’s because he’d rather have a puppet as president of the United States.

    TRUMP: No puppet. No puppet.

    CLINTON: And it’s pretty clear…

    TRUMP: You’re the puppet!

    CLINTON: It’s pretty clear you won’t admit…

    TRUMP: No, you’re the puppet.

    CLINTON: … that the Russians have engaged in cyberattacks against the United States of America, that you encouraged espionage against our people, that you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do, and that you continue to get help from him, because he has a very clear favorite in this race.

    So I think that this is such an unprecedented situation. We’ve never had a foreign government trying to interfere in our election. We have 17—17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin and they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing.

    WALLACE: Secretary Clinton…

    CLINTON: And I think it’s time you take a stand…

    TRUMP: She has no idea whether it’s Russia, China, or anybody else.

    CLINTON: I am not quoting myself.

    TRUMP: She has no idea.

    CLINTON: I am quoting 17…

    TRUMP: Hillary, you have no idea.

    CLINTON: … 17 intelligence—do you doubt 17 military and civilian…

    TRUMP: And our country has no idea.

    [The 17 agencies was a real exaggeration – a typical Clinton tactic of an argument from authority and making an assertion seem too overwhelming to be contradicted. But it was Russia because they were ted to the leak to Wikileaks.]

    CLINTON: … agencies.

    TRUMP: Yeah, I doubt it. I doubt it.

    CLINTON: Well, he’d rather believe Vladimir Putin than the military and civilian intelligence professionals who are sworn to protect us. I find that just absolutely…[crosstalk]

    TRUMP: She doesn’t like Putin because Putin has outsmarted her at every step of the way.

    WALLACE: Mr. Trump…

    TRUMP: Excuse me. Putin has outsmarted her at every step of the way.

    WALLACE: Mr. Trump…

    TRUMP: Excuse me. Putin has outsmarted her in Syria.

    WALLACE: Mr. Trump…[crosstalk]

    TRUMP: He’s outsmarted her every step of the way.

    WALLACE: I do get to ask some questions.

    TRUMP: Yes, that’s fine.

    WALLACE: And I would like to ask you this direct question. The top national security officials of this country do believe that Russia has been behind these hacks. Even if you don’t know for sure whether they are, do you condemn any interference by Russia in the American election?

    TRUMP: By Russia or anybody else.

    WALLACE: You condemn their interference?

    TRUMP: Of course I condemn. Of course I—I don’t know Putin. I have no idea.

    WALLACE: I’m not asking—I’m asking do you condemn?

    TRUMP: I never met Putin. This is not my best friend. But if the United States got along with Russia, wouldn’t be so bad.

    Let me tell you, Putin has outsmarted her and Obama at every single step of the way. Whether it’s Syria, you name it. Missiles. Take a look at the “start up” that they signed. The Russians have said, according to many, many reports, I can’t believe they allowed us to do this. They create warheads, and we can’t. The Russians can’t believe it. She has been outsmarted by Putin.

    And all you have to do is look at the Middle East. They’ve taken over. We’ve spent $6 trillion. They’ve taken over the Middle East. She has been outsmarted and outplayed worse than anybody I’ve ever seen in any government whatsoever.

    WALLACE: We’re a long way away from immigration, but I’m going to let you finish this topic. You got about 45 seconds.

    TRUMP: And she always will be.

    CLINTON: I—I find it ironic that he’s raising nuclear weapons. This is a person who has been very cavalier, even casual about the use of nuclear weapons. He’s…

    TRUMP: Wrong.

    CLINTON: … advocated more countries getting them, Japan, Korea, even Saudi Arabia. He said, well, if we have them, why don’t we use them, which I think is terrifying.

    But here’s the deal. The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There’s about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so. And that’s why 10 people who have had that awesome responsibility have come out and, in an unprecedented way, said they would not trust Donald Trump with the nuclear codes or to have his finger on the nuclear button.

    TRUMP: I have 200 generals…

    WALLACE: Very quickly.

    TRUMP: … and admirals, 21 endorsing me, 21 congressional Medal of Honor recipients. As far as Japan and other countries, we are being ripped off by everybody in the—we’re defending other countries. We are spending a fortune doing it. They have the bargain of the century.

    All I said is, we have to renegotiate these agreements, because our country cannot afford to defend Saudi Arabia, Japan, Germany, South Korea, and many other places. We cannot continue to afford—she took that as saying nuclear weapons.

    WALLACE: OK.

    TRUMP: Look, she’s been proven to be a liar on so many different ways. This is just another lie.

    CLINTON: Well, I’m just quoting you when you were asked…

    TRUMP: There’s no quote. You’re not going to find a quote from me.

    CLINTON: … about a potential nuclear—nuclear competition in Asia, you said, you know, go ahead, enjoy yourselves, folks. That kind…

    TRUMP: And defend yourselves.

    CLINTON: … of language—well…

    TRUMP: And defend yourselves. I didn’t say nuclear. And defend yourself.

    CLINTON: The United States has kept the peace—the United States has kept the peace through our alliances. Donald wants to tear up our alliances. I think it makes the world safer and, frankly, it makes the United States safer. I would work with our allies in Asia, in Europe, in the Middle East, and elsewhere. That’s the only way we’re going to be able to keep the peace.

    WALLACE: We’re going to—no, we are going to move on to the next topic, which is the economy….

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  141. Sammy, what I’m looking for is some evidence that a faithless elector strategy was lead, or even pushed, by the Dem leadership and wasn’t a fringe-nut activity.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  142. Time123 (9f42ee) — 7/1/2021 @ 6:58 am

    You’re thinking the specific individual electors all acted independently and went a little nutty one by one?

    What’s the bar on this evidence? Would we need sworn statements under oath from each of them that they only acted based on specific threats or pressure from D leadership? What constitutes D leadership? Would this need to be specific and credible threats made directly by HRC to each elector in person?

    We’re getting a little out there with the need to distinguish D activity in 2016 and 2020 from Trumpers in 2020.

    frosty (f27e97)

  143. Frosty, Pretty low bar honestly. So far what’s been reported is that a moderate number of electors (a dozen or so) from CO and WA lobbied to get GOP electors to betray their oaths. Some of these people themselves betrayed their oaths and refused to vote for Hillary. I haven’t seen any news articles that attribute this to Hillary or Dem leadership.

    A dozen nutters acting on their own would be substantially different from party leadership pushing for unethical acts.

    I view being a faithless elector as highly unethical.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  144. So far what’s been reported is that a moderate number of electors (a dozen or so) from CO and WA lobbied to get GOP electors to betray their oaths.

    I won’t speak for CO, T123, but the WA State faithless electors were all Democrats, not Republicans.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5079 secs.