DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Republican Right Wing Nuts - Part ????

I didn't want to post anything today or anytime soon because of the news of GM - I still feel like I've been punched in the gut.

With that said - Trump's absolutely absurd claim of bribing Americans with $5K to vote for him made me come and post this article:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62kzr1jg0jo

I doubt it's legal, I doubt it is possible - even if it were I doubt Trump would come through .... and for a country $40 Trillion in debt - it would make perfect sense for the Liar and Grifter in Chief to propose to add another 2.5% - $1.3 Trillion.

======

In regard to the separation of Church and State - and separation of State and Church. I just wanted to post this:

the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, unanimously ratified by the U.S. Senate and signed by President John Adams, famously stated that:

“the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”

OK. I'm out. I'll let the Psuedo Christian and Genocide Supporter have at it and write whatever lies and B.S he wants.

How Many of the Founding Fathers Went to ‘Seminary’?

A staple of “Christian America” history is the claim that “half,” or “twenty-nine” of the signers of the Declaration of Independence had “seminary” or “Bible college” degrees. This claim unfortunately shows up in Fourth of July sermons and even the occasional megachurch pastor’s tweet.

The claim is, on a literal basis, easy to refute. In fact, there were no seminaries in America, in a modern sense of a graduate school of theology, until 1807, when Andover-Newton Theological School was founded. (ANTS was originally a traditionalist Calvinist school founded in opposition to Harvard’s theological liberalism. In 2016, having long since become theologically liberal, the ANTS campus was closed, and the school was folded into Yale Divinity School.) Princeton Theological Seminary, arguably the most influential American seminary of the 19th century, was founded as a separate institution from Princeton’s undergraduate college in 1812.

If you wanted “graduate” theological education in the 1700s in America, you could stay on for extra study with someone like Princeton’s John Witherspoon, which is what James Madison did (he may have been considering the pastorate at the time). But Witherspoon is really the only signer who had a recognizable seminary education, since he did graduate study in theology at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland prior to coming to America.

The idea of Founders going to a “Bible college” is a more slippery concept, but it is also easy to refute on a simple factual basis. “Bible colleges” began to appear in the late 19th century, as part of the early fundamentalist-modernist controversy. Nyack College (originally called the Missionary Training Institute) was arguably the first such college, founded by A. B. Simpson in 1882 in New York City, before relocating to the New York village of Nyack in 1897. The most recognizable Bible college in America was probably Chicago’s Moody Bible Institute, founded in 1887.

So in the modern sense of the term, no Founding Father went to a Bible college, either. It is hard to know whether Christian America polemicists are intentionally misleading their readers about these claims, or whether they simply don’t understand or care that they’re being anachronistic. These types of overinflated assertions obscure the profound, if quieter, role that Christianity and Christian education did actually play among the Founders.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/evangelical-history/many-founding-fathers-went-seminary/

Joe diGenova abruptly resigns from DOJ after overseeing "grand conspiracy" probe into Biden and Obama officials

Joe diGenova, the prosecutor who was tapped by Attorney General Todd Blanche to supervise the "grand conspiracy" investigation targeting Obama- and Biden-era officials, abruptly resigned on Thursday.

In a brief call with CBS News, diGenova said he had turned in his resignation letter to Blanche at 3 p.m. on Thursday.

"It was an honor and a privilege to serve the president and the department," he said. He added that his wife, attorney Victoria Toensing, who also worked with the team of federal prosecutors in Fort Pierce, Florida, will be leaving the Justice Department on Friday.

diGenova declined to comment on the reasons for his sudden departure, which was first reported by ABC News. CBS News has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.

His exit comes just days after lawyers representing some of the witnesses in the investigation received emails alerting them that their clients would be receiving grand jury subpoenas, sources familiar with the matter told CBS News.

Recently, diGenova's investigators also reached out to lawyers who represent former FBI agents who investigated President Trump for his retention of classified records to request voluntary interviews, two other sources briefed on the matter said.

diGenova was tapped earlier this year to oversee a sprawling "grand conspiracy" probe being run out of Fort Pierce, Florida, that is examining whether Obama- and Biden-era officials were part of a long-running conspiracy to keep Mr. Trump out of political office.

He was also overseeing a criminal probe into whether Obama-era CIA Director John Brennan lied to Congress in 2023 about the U.S. intelligence community's assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 election.

diGenova was tapped for the role in April, after Maria Medetis Long, the prosecutor who had been overseeing the two cases in the U.S. attorney's office in Miami, was abruptly removed after she had expressed some concerns about the strength of the evidence.

Prosecutors have not brought charges in either of the probes.

The investigations have drawn criticism from law enforcement veterans who worry the probes are being stacked with politically motivated personnel, CBS News has previously reported. Brennan sued over the investigations earlier this year, alleging the Trump administration has "adopted a policy of using criminal process and prosecution to punish the President's perceived adversaries."

diGenova returned to the Justice Department in April, more than three decades after he served as U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., from 1983 to 1988.

More recently, diGenova represented Mr. Trump's campaign in its failed attempt to overturn the 2020 election results.

He has long railed against Brennan's role in assessing that Russia tried to meddle in the 2016 election, referring to him in one interview as the "primogenitor of the entire counterintelligence investigation."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-di...a-biden/?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us

FACT FOCUS: A look at false and misleading claims during the Republican midterm convention

President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and other Republican officials came together for a two-day convention this week to rally voters in advance of midterm elections in November. But in celebrating their accomplishments, they made several false and misleading claims, many of which have been stated repeatedly during Trump’s second term.

They covered topics including the economy, immigration, healthcare and the 2020 election. Trump spoke both nights and Vance gave the keynote on Thursday.

Here’s a closer look at the facts.

Exaggerations about the economy

TRUMP, discussing investment in the U.S.: “We have more money being spent from outside countries and companies — over $20 trillion.”

THE FACTS: Trump has cited an increasingly higher number of investments in the U.S. throughout his second term, claiming on Wednesday that the number could go up to $25 trillion. But he has presented no evidence that he has secured this amount of funds from either foreign or domestic sources.

Based on statements from various companies, foreign countries and the White House’s own website, that figure appears to be highly speculative and far higher than the actual sum.

The White House website offers a far lower number, $11.2 trillion, and that figure appears to include some investment commitments made during the Biden administration.

SCOTT BESSENT, treasury secretary speaking Wednesday: “Under this president, more Americans are working than ever before.”

THE FACTS: This is true, but missing context. The economy adds jobs most months, so U.S. payrolls are continually hitting new highs. Jobs have increased in the United States 65 of the past 80 years.

In Trump’s second term, however, job growth has slowed considerably. Last year, companies, government agencies and nonprofits added just 9,700 jobs a month — the weakest hiring outside a recession since 2002. So far this year, they’ve been creating 92,000 jobs a month, considerably better but unimpressive by historical standards.

During President Joe Biden’s four years in office, employers added an average of nearly 329,000 jobs a month. Those totals were inflated by a record-breaking hiring surge in 2021 and 2022 that followed the end of COVID-19 lockdowns. But even in Biden’s last two years — 2023 and 2024 — job growth averaged 166,000 a month.

High interest rates, Trump’s own immigration crackdown and the retirement of Baby Boomers are contributing to lower job growth.

MIKE JOHNSON, House speaker on Thursday: “At the end of the first Trump administration, the inflation rate was 1.4%. Yeah. But Joe Biden came in and he reversed the policies and brought us to a 40-year high of 9.1% inflation.”

THE FACTS: This is missing context. Inflation was at 1.4% in 2021 as Biden assumed the presidency, having risen from a low of 0.1% in May 2020, two months into the COVID-19 pandemic. It continued to increase steadily in the first 17 months of Biden’s presidency, reaching a peak of 9.1% in June 2022.

However, it had dropped to 2.9% in December 2024 as Biden prepared to leave office. During Trump’s second term so far, inflation rose to a high of 4.2% in May. As of August, it was at 3.4%.

TRUMP: “The stock market has set 80 all-time record highs.”

THE FACTS: It’s unclear what exact stock market measure Trump is referring to. But the S&P 500 — an index for the biggest public companies in the U.S. — has hit a record 66 times since the start of Trump’s second term in January 2025, including 27 new highs since the start of this year, per a count from investment research firm CFRA. It’s hit 76 records since the 2024 presidential election. U.S. stocks soared to their last record on Aug. 13, as part of a broader rally driven by a surge in company profits and then-easing oil prices. But renewed fighting between the U.S. and Iran, as well as an escalation in supply chain disruptions elsewhere, has led to more market volatility since. This week, for example, the international benchmark for crude oil soared past the $100 mark for the first time in months.

Beyond the war, some of the biggest market swings this year have resulted from the frenzy ( and skepticism ) around the value of artificial-intelligence technology.

The reality of healthcare costs

VANCE: “We actually took on big pharma and lowered drug costs for all of our citizens.”

THE FACTS: Federal data shows that U.S. prescription drug prices fell 0.9% in July and are down 3.1% from a year ago, the steepest year-over-year drop since 1963. The White House said these plunging prices resulted from Trump’s “most favored nation” drug deal with pharmaceutical firms and the TrumpRx website, which it said are “delivering real relief to American families and putting patients first.”

But drug pricing experts say the real picture is more complicated, noting that other factors, including a law from Biden’s time in office that allowed Medicare to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies, are potentially more significant contributors to the latest consumer price index figures. Also at play are generic and biosimilar products that have come onto the market, offering competition that drives down the prices of expensive brand-name and biologic drugs.

Plus, consumers may not see this price drop in what they pay for medication, as it reflects what pharmacies get paid for the drugs, both by insurers and consumers.

TRUMP: “I’m giving you the largest prescription drug price cuts in history, with differences of 400, 500 and even 600%.”

THE FACTS: It is mathematically impossible for drug prices to drop by more than 100%. This would theoretically mean that people are being paid to take medications.

Geoffrey Joyce, director of health policy at the University of Southern California’s Schaeffer Center, called a similar statement from Trump last year “total fiction” made up by the Republican president. He agreed that it would amount to drug companies paying customers, rather than the other way around.

Immigration under the Biden administration

TRUMP: “The Dumocrats gave us the worst and most dangerous border in American history, with 25 million illegal aliens pouring in.”

THE FACTS: This number, which Trump cites frequently in reference to the Biden administration, is highly inflated. U.S. Customs and Border Protection reports more than 10.8 million arrests for illegal crossings from Mexico from January 2021 through December 2024.

That’s arrests, not people. Under pandemic-era asylum restrictions, many people crossed more than once until they succeeded because there were no legal consequences for getting turned back to Mexico. So the number of people is lower than the number of arrests.

In his second term, Trump has taken to pejoratively referring to Democrats as “Dumocrats.”

2020 election redux

TRUMP: “When I’m on the ticket, Republicans always do very well. We won the presidency three times.”

THE FACTS: Trump won the presidency in 2016 and 2024, but he did not prevail in the 2020 race, despite his repeated claims otherwise.

Biden earned 306 electoral votes to Trump’s 232, achieving victory by prevailing in key states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia. The Democratic candidate also earned over 7 million more popular votes than Trump.

Trump’s allegations of massive voting fraud have been refuted by a variety of judges, state election officials and members of his first administration who were in office during the 2020 election.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-che...fd434250?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us

2020 was a stolen election plain and simple. We all watched and Trump was leading and ballots were found, dumped, etc... after 2am in a few very key areas. I do not believe in coincidence, but I believe the election was stolen there was tactics used to cheat. I will never agree with early voting, mail in ballots that is not absentee, people not registered by a certain date being illegible. Allowing voting with no ID, ETC....

Nothing in your post is true or factual.

Not one single, damned thing.

It seems that you two think that you are omniscient and know his beliefs better than he does.

He stated his beliefs plainly. What part of that did you miss?

There were claims that nothing in his post was true. If he believes it, it's true that he believes it.

Again, it's certain posters false absolutist approaches that annoy me.

The 2020 election was not stolen.
There was no mass voter fraud.
No secret fraudulaent ballots were "found" after 2. a.m. in a few key areas.


Those are all lies and not factual.

If you disagree feel free to provide me the details and proof. You'll be the first person on the planet to do so.

If you can't provide proof or even some details - then you're free to belive in fairy tales and make up scenarios where you dismiss completely and entirely the details and facts as we know them. That's a you problem not a me problem.


On the larger picture of mass voter fraud and if there are election results being altered by fraud - we have agreed that the only "proof" and evidence we have shows conclusively that there is no such fraud. . . . Your position seems to be that the process of these findings **might*** be tainted: they might not know what they were looking for, the people investingating had a bias towards the findings, the people were idiots, the process itself was faulty or corrupt. And - in general I would say all of those things are possible even if I don't think them to be probable or likely. But they are possible. What I find improbable to the point of being probably impossible - is voter fraud being present in sufficient numbers that it might even sniff at the possibility of changing the outcome of an election - and somehow multiple states - some of whom had a reason and hoped to find fraud - and 60 plus different court cases in different juristictions with all the different individuals (left, right, neutral, competent and incompetent and every chade in between) .... NONE OF THEM FOUND A DAMN THING. The Heritage Foundation which is right wing and has an agenda - has tracked and researched voter fraud and it's own data shows that same thing. So yes - while in a single sample, a small sample size, what you suggest might be possible even if not probable .... but we have a large sample size. 12 million+ ballots. Some of it analized at a very detailed level - some of it at surface level only. 64 court cases - not a small number given the process and (hopefully if we want to have some faith in the nation) given the quality of individuals involved in the courts .... and NOTHING. Statistically even when looking for the unlikeliest of events and probabilities .... what you are clinging to desperately "JUST BECASUE" is a non-starter. But as I said - you can believe what you choose and that's a you problem not a me problem .... to engage me on this again or make me reconsider you need to bring something of substance, which to date you have absolutely not done.

Believing something doesn't make it true.

I'm glad that you are finally willing to admit that pointing out that your "feelings" don't make things true annoys you. That helps explain a lot.

If you want to point out what you believe are individual lies, I won't complain. When you make logically flawed blanket statements, I'll point out that they're BS.

Claiming that someone else doesn't believe what they say they believe as a matter of fact is BS.

If you want to claim that you don't believe anything in his post is true, I'd still be annoyed, but probably wouldn't bother responding.

It's the trying to simplify everything into one absolute "factual" denial that I find bothersome when a post includes things you couldn't possibly know.

I find your belief in "data" and the courts expressed as a certainty as annoying as I find his beliefs. I don't see anything plain and simple about the 2020 election despite what the data you choose to believe makes it seem to you. The data isn't the whole truth. The data is a curated selection which may or may not be accurate. No one is going to say this is how we cheated, let us show you how. They're, in my opinion/experience, going to try to hide it. Bury inconvenient data, try to block others looking for it, create data with an outcome in mind. As a society, "we" have gotten good at deception/"marketing"/propaganda. To me, People put too much belief in numbers without understanding where they came from and how they were put together.

To me, False certainty is one of the most pernicious self-deceptions.

Edit: I'm not saying everything, or even anything, Day said is true. I don't like his certainty any better. Yet, I can sympathize with some of his beliefs, as I can with some of yours. It's your repeated vehement defense of belief as fact (and seeming attacks on others beliefs as if they were false facts) that I find troublesome.

I.e, his belief that you should have to show id to vote isn't a false fact.

Exactly, your believing some numbers and the courts doesn't make the conclusions you make based on them true.

The results of over 60 court cases are true. The results from several different sources, even one which has extreme bias in the direction of having motive to find mass voter fraud yet came up empty are true. But for anyone refusing to admit that and feels that unfounded suspicion with zero basis in evidence means more than all of that because they "believe" something based on their "feelings" I can see how confusing that may be.

I stated that his post was not factual. That was not a comment on what he may or may not choose to believe. If that is unclear or a point of uncertainty, let me clarify: he can choose to believe whatever he wants, even if it is wrong.

I didn't say he doesn't believe what he wrote. I stated, accurately, that the election wasn't stolen and that the claims contained in his post are not true. In the absence of ANY corroborating data, facts or details to support those claims, that remains a stone-cold fact.

I've explained in detail that I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that some of the available data could be faulty — through incompetence, procedural errors, individual mistakes or inadequacy. What is not reasonable is to claim that ALL of the data — of which there is a very large collection — is wrong, while providing absolutely NOTHING to contradict it.

Could some of the evidence be flawed? Of course. But claiming that essentially all of it is wrong, while producing no credible evidence showing why, moves from reasonable scepticism into something beyond improbable. "Just because" doesn't hold any water.

And once again — your feelings, emotions, gut check, whatever you want to call it, cannot overcome or skew that enormous evidentiary differential.

And to clarify - other than this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, I have no poblew with voter ID. My comment was and is aimed at his comments regarding the election being stolen and that there is evidence of fraud. His opinion on voter ID is not something I can say is fact or fiction - that's his opinon. Everyone can and does have an opinion ... that was not really the point of his post or mine. If you felt it was - I have now clarified it for you.

He didn't really feel it was at all. It seems picking nits has become his specialty when all else fails.

Lastly -

If you want to continue to undermine or cast doubt on the only set of data we have (the court rulings, the State audits/investigations and the Heritage |Foundations own stats)... You will need to be specific:

Which state got it wrong? Why and how?
Which court decisions were incorrect? How/why? What information was ommitted or included that shouldn't have been?
In what way is the H.F - who choose to track voter fraud to try to HIGHLIGHT it's prevalnce - faulty in their failure to provide evidence of what they sought to prove.

Do that and we can have a conversation .... failure to do that is simply hand wringing or trolling or gas lighting or something worse.

The results are the results. They have no bearing on truth. Not finding guilty isn't proof of innocence.

I get it. You don't believe the #1 thing our justice system is founded on. "Innocent until proven guilty." Just how deep are you willing to dig this rabbit hole of yours?

You didn't state generically the post wasn't factual. You emphatically declared that "nothing" was "true."

I never claimed that "all" of the evidence is wrong. I claimed that I don't know the accuracy, and neither do you. I'm suspicious of the unwillingness to provide transparency. A mountain of irrelevant or manufactured or curated evidence doesn't preclude other pertinent evidence being hidden.

In a legal sense and in actuality are two different things.

I've never said anyone should be found guilty without the evidence. I have said I find effectively hiding the evidence suspicious.

So the factual legal systems definition of guilty until proven innocent isn't he "actual" definition and somehow you think that mysteriously changes based on your opinion that it turns into "two different things". Got it.

Large and consequential cases

North Carolina 9th Congressional District, 2018 U.S. House race; initial margin was 905 votes A coordinated operation in Bladen and Robeson Counties collected absentee ballots, submitted suspect absentee-ballot requests, and included evidence of improperly completed ballots and false witness information. The bipartisan state board unanimously declined to certify the contest and ordered a completely new election.

Bridgeport, Connecticut Democratic mayoral primary, 2023 A close mayoral primary; 8,173 votes cast and a 251-vote margin Surveillance videos showed people associated with campaigns putting multiple absentee-ballot envelopes into drop boxes, contrary to Connecticut’s ballot-return rules. A state judge voided the primary and ordered a new one because the extent of improper ballot handling made the true result impossible to determine.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania primaries, 2014–2018 Multi-election, candidate-focused ballot-box-stuffing and bribery scheme Election Judge Domenick DeMuro accepted bribes, cast fraudulent ballots, and certified false vote totals; political operative Michael “Ozzie” Myers participated in connected fraud and bribery. DeMuro pleaded guilty; Myers pleaded guilty and received 30 months in federal prison.

Millbourne Borough, Pennsylvania, 2021 Coordinated local political organization Borough officials used fraudulent voter registrations and mail-ballot conduct to benefit a local political operation. The final sentenced defendant, Md. Munsur Ali, received 21 months; DOJ described him as the last of three convicted borough officials.

Cudahy, California city-council elections, 2007 and 2009 Systematic insider access to absentee ballots in two city elections According to a former mayor’s plea agreement, city officials diverted mail ballots, opened them, resealed ballots for incumbents, and discarded ballots cast for challengers. Former mayor David Silva Perales agreed to plead guilty in a related federal case; the plea materials described the election-fraud conduct.

Martin, Kentucky mayoral election, 2012 Local contest with systematic coercion and vote buying Officials and associates used absentee-ballot manipulation, pre-marked ballots, pressure on public-housing residents, and vote buying. Former Mayor Ruth Thomasine Robinson received 90 months in prison; co-conspirators were also convicted.

Atlantic City, New Jersey general election, 2022 Organized mail-ballot scheme linked to a prominent local organizer Craig Callaway admitted to fraudulent procurement, casting, and tabulation of mail-in ballots. He pleaded guilty and received 24 months in federal prison in 2025.

Lincoln County, West Virginia primary, 2010 More than 100 falsified absentee-ballot applications Sheriff Jerry Bowman admitted falsifying over 100 absentee-ballot applications for voters who had no lawful basis to vote absentee, then visiting voters while directing their selections; the county clerk also admitted a connected false statement. Both former officials pleaded guilty to federal felonies.



Absentee-ballot and application fraud

Sioux City / Woodbury County, Iowa, 2020 primary and general election Kim Phuong Taylor submitted or caused submission of false voter registrations, absentee-ballot request forms, and absentee ballots. Federal jury conviction on 52 counts: 26 false-information-in-registering-and-voting counts, 3 fraudulent-registration counts, and 23 fraudulent-voting counts.

Rensselaer County, New York, 2021 County elections commissioner Jason Schofield used voters’ names and birth dates to electronically submit 12 absentee-ballot applications in their names. Guilty plea; later sentenced to probation and a $2,000 fine.

Bridgeport, Connecticut, 2017–2018 primaries and general election City Councilman Michael DeFilippo stole and falsified voter-registration applications and absentee-ballot documents, forged signatures, and submitted documents in tenants’ names. Guilty plea to a federal civil-rights offense; later sentenced.

Everett, Massachusetts, 2009–2010 State representative Stephen Smith used fraudulent absentee-ballot applications and cast invalid absentee ballots. Federal sentence: four months in prison, a year of supervised release, and a $20,000 fine.

Pendleton County, West Virginia, 2020 primary Postal contractor Thomas Cooper altered eight voters’ mail-in absentee-ballot request forms; at least some requests had the voter’s requested party ballot changed. Guilty plea and sentence of five years’ probation, including six months’ home confinement.

Bucks County, Pennsylvania, 2020 general election Matthew Laiss was sent a mail ballot at a former address, completed and returned it, and separately voted in person—thus voting twice in the same federal election. Federal jury convicted him of voting more than once and voter fraud; sentencing was pending at the time of the conviction announcement.

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 2020 general election A local voter committed election offenses connected to the 2020 contest. He was convicted at trial and later sentenced to probation and home confinement. This is a single-voter case, not organized ballot harvesting.



Vote buying and coercion
(These are not always “harvesting” in the narrow sense, but they are direct ways an organizer can corrupt ballots—especially absentee ballots.)

Crittenden County, Arkansas, 2010 primary A state legislator and three others were charged with a conspiracy to buy votes in a local election. The four defendants entered guilty pleas; DOJ called it the first known use of the federal Travel Act in a purely local vote-buying prosecution.

Knott County, Kentucky, 1998 primary A county-office candidate and associates were charged with conspiring to pay voters to vote by absentee ballot. Federal indictments; this result is a charging action, so it should not be treated as a conviction without later case records.

Martin, Kentucky, 2012 Voters were pressured, paid, or directed toward particular candidates, with absentee ballots central to the scheme. Convictions and substantial prison sentences, including 90 months for the former mayor.



Individual and small-scale cases

Arizona, 2020 primary Guillermina Fuentes pleaded guilty to one felony count of ballot abuse after unlawfully collecting four completed ballots. Small number, but it is a clear criminal ballot-custody case. Prosecutors’ broader forgery allegations were dropped in the plea deal and should not be called proven.

Michigan, 2020 general election Jose Gargenis Vasquez-Rosa, a noncitizen, pleaded guilty to illegal voting and related false statements. An individual unlawful-voting case—not ballot stuffing or harvesting.

Illinois, federal election Brenda Knuth pleaded guilty to voting more than once in a federal election. A single-person double-voting case; she received probation and a fine.

West Virginia, 2020 primary A postal contractor altered absentee-ballot request forms. Shows that fraud can happen before ballots are issued—not only once ballots reach a drop box.

New York, 2021 An elections commissioner fraudulently requested 12 absentee ballots using other voters’ identities. Shows why ballot-application systems and audit trails matter, even where there is no documented evidence that all requested ballots were returned and counted.



Cases still only at allegation or charge stage

Los Angeles, California, 2026 Federal prosecutors charged a woman with allegedly paying individuals, including unhoused people, to register to vote. This was a registration-related case at the time of the charge—not proof that ballots were cast or stuffed. The defendant was presumed innocent.

Bridgeport, Connecticut, 2023-related criminal cases Officials brought charges tied to absentee-ballot possession and related election conduct. The videotape and the new-primary order are real, but charges are not convictions. The judicial decision focused on unlawful ballot handling and uncertainty over the primary result.

Knott County, Kentucky, 1998 Prosecutors alleged absentee-ballot vote buying. The cited DOJ release documents indictments, not a final adjudication.



Guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty...

Absentee-ballots, mail-in ballots, mail-in ballots, absentee-ballots, absentee-ballots, absentee-ballots, mail-in ballots, absentee-ballots, mail-in ballots, mail-in ballots, mail-in ballots, mail-in ballots....

These elections probably don't matter though.

Well done. You got me. On a technicality while ignoring 90% of the gist of either post. Congrats.

As for not saying all the data is wrong - to dismiss it all, you must be saying that because you want to ignore it all and say somehow it means nada. To be saying that while also offering NOTHING to substantiate any of it ... doubley so.

I'll stick to the simple things and repeat:

Which state got it wrong? Why and how?
Which court decisions were incorrect? How/why? What information was ommitted or included that shouldn't have been?
In what way is the H.F - who choose to track voter fraud to try to HIGHLIGHT it's prevalnce - faulty in their failure to provide evidence of what they sought to prove.