As Lewis Carroll said, "Curiouser and curiouser!”

There really isn't.

Afraid to look? If not why not investigate. Every other issue with this level of controversy has been investigated. Spent years investigating Trump for Russia collusion.

THEY DID! They investigated, they audited, they recounted - SEVERAL TIMES!! They ALL found NO EVIDENCE OF WIDESPREAD FRAUD!
You won't hear that from right wing media, though.

They never investigated they recounted where the difference was in the range to automatically trigger a recount for all but one case. That’s not an investigation. Why so resistant to investigate? Nothing happened right? No fear, investigate away right?

https://jmshistorycorner.wordpress.com/2021/01/19/just-a-friendly-reminder/

You can put all the lefty stories you want. It won’t change that there were election law changes and mass mailed ballots and other evidence that should be investigated. Period. What is the overreaching fear of investigation? Americans have had investigations for less controversial issue. Dems investigated Russian collusion for 4 years. Why all against investigations now?

Um, that's from Georgia's REPUBLICAN Secretary of State.
Yes, laws were changed because of the pandemic. So what?
"Fear of investigation" DOESN'T EXIST! The claims were investigated and debunked almost as soon as they were made, while idiot Republicans blocked their ears and screamed "Why are you afraid of investigations?!"

There were no investigations just statements contradicting the accusations. That’s not a bi partisan congressional investigation.

You're describing your own accusations - someone just making up shit, and scores of idiots like yourself just believing it.
And if you want congressional investigation, shouldn't you, you know, provide evidence first?

Plenty of evidence provided, got to investigate to prove it. Don’t need anyone to tell me what to think like you. I’ve seen lots of elections and none like this one. Election integrity was destroyed by Democrat leftists under the guise of Covid.

That's what's done every election - check the electoral roll.

All debunked.

No their statements weren’t debunked yet, and never will be if there is no investigation. Which at this point is nearly moot as they have had plenty of time to cover their tracks. The only point is to get election integrity laws passed. Like Newsome wants every vote done in person and verified against registered voters for his recall. Why?

More bullshit. You're listening too much to the right wing media.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showdocument%3Fid%3D9191&ved=2ahUKEwiNkcTp4PzuAhXJH7cAHYzvDN8QFjAEegQIBhAC&usg=AOvVaw0y2G_LK8EwdLj_Pojiti6e

You’re a brainwashed drone who has mastered lib speak like the good little puppet you are.

I'm a guy who researches verifiable facts. Unlike you.

Oh you’re a fact checker? For who snipes? The fact checker that have been proven to be inaccurate and opinion based rather than fact based.

They generally do get it right.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/?

It's been proven to be largely accurate (Snopes), and no, I'm not affiliated with anyone.

Largely, except a few times.

They're only human.

What good is a fact checker that doesn’t get it right.

There clearly was idiotic democrat

Which is true.

There absolutely was election fraud. The question is how much and was it coordinated.

https://news.yahoo.com/35-voter-fraud-cases-georgia-220500285.html

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/arizona-woman-investigated-for-voter-fraud-after-video-shows-her-offering-to-mail-people-s-ballots/ar-BB1akHlA

Very little.

And you know that for sure, how?

No evidence of widespread fraud.

If you refuse to look for it, you will never find it.

There have not been any meaningful investigations that I know of into it. Just people stating that there was no fraud or election commissioners saying they did nothing wrong when irregularities are pointed out. ie. blocking poll watchers from observing counting, removing poll watchers completely, not performing signature verification, explaining late-night delivery of ballots, running stacks of ballots multiple times through the machines, etc.,

No deep forensic audits have been conducted, yet. New Hampshire has said they are going to do one after they did a hand recount in one county and found the machines gave 8% of the Republican vote to the Democrats. Arizona is still fighting a county commission about doing one.

Georgia did a re-count where they ran the same ballots through the same machines again. They never checked if the machine counts were accurate. They never addressed the questions on signature verification, ineligible voters, or the machines being connected to the internet.

So far no court case filed has gone to trial or had evidence presented, all the court cases were thrown out on some technicality, including the SCOTUS case. ie. lack of standing, moot point after the election, too early to bring the case, too late to try the case, or saying it would not change the results.

Fake news. You've been only listening to your echo chamber again.
The claims have been investigated - and proven to be nonsense.
Many audits have been carried out - no fraud.
Many recounts have been carried out - no fraud.
There were no cases of poll watchers being blocked. The witnesses Trump's team presented admitted as such.
There were no cases of running stacks of ballots through machines multiple times.
No evidence for your 8% claim.
HAND recounts have been done multiple times and confirmed the machine count each time.
There were almost no cases of "ineligible voters".
And it's an ABSOLUTE FACT OF REALITY that the courts DID hear Trump's fraud cases and threw them out for lack of evidence. Go look up the cases instead of just repeating right wing lies.

You state "There were no cases of poll watchers being blocked"

Here is the site in Detroit where they were counting the ballots. The worker is putting up cardboard so the poll watchers can't see what is going on.

"HAND recounts have been done multiple times and confirmed the machine count each time."

Here is an article about the machines in one NH county miscounting votes and moving votes to Democrats. The NH Senate is now going to do a complete forensic audit to find out why?

https://en-volve.com/2021/02/11/bombshell-new-evidence-of-election-fraud-in-nh-as-dominion-machines-found-to-have-taken-300-votes-off-every-republican-candidate/

Here is an article about a county in Mich. where the voting machine flipped 6,000 votes from Rep. to Dem.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-demands-michigan-vote-count-checks-after-machine-glitch-flips-county-to-trump/ar-BB1aM1Be

"There were almost no cases of "ineligible voters".

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/02/michigan-removed-177000-voters-voter-rolls-january-certifying-biden-won-michigan-154000-votes-november/?utm_source=Gab&utm_medium=PostSideSharingButtons&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons

We don't know if any of these "ineligible voters" voted in the last election.

The NH machines shorted both Democrats and Republicans, and is believed to be a glitch.
Also, this was in the state election, not the federal or presidential one.
https://www.unionleader.com/news/politics/statehouse_dome/state-house-dome-recounts-find-votes-not-fraud-in-nh/article_6f23ca8d-c5a3-59ae-b783-4f751f164244.html

The full story on your Detroit photo:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/6195038002

So we don't allow poll watchers to see what is going on because the people counting felt "intimidated" having people making sure they do their job as the law states.

Of course, the story states that the Detroit City Clerk said they did nothing wrong, and the Director of Elections denied allegations that either party was treated unfairly and said he was "extremely confident" Detroit would "come through with a nice clean report"

so yeah, I guess it is fine.

No, there were literally hundreds of poll watchers already there, and many more trying to enter. The limit is meant to be 134.
Try not to make yourself look stupid.

So that's the whole Cheshire Cat thing

"Curiouser and curiouser"

1 8 6 5

Seal of Approval - 4z05qo.jpg (click to show) Upvoted!

Idiotic democrat you hate America you know if you don't have a job try finding one with all the aliens coming in the U.S now

Second claim debunked.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN27L2RL
As for the first: so what?

The article you reference admits the second claim is correct. There was a massive vote jump. It was only after people pointed it out that they claimed it was a "clerical error".

As for the first point, why weren't these 177,000 names removed BEFORE the election, and how many of these people voted in the election?

It WAS a clerical error, and when it was noticed (BY THEMSELVES, not by the internet), IT WAS CORRECTED! REMOVED FROM BIDEN'S TOTAL!

And what, is after an election you lost suddenly the only time they can't make sure the list is up to date?

Would it have not made more sense to do the audit before a Presidential election that happens only once every four years?

Again, did any of those 177,000 ineligible voters vote in the election?

Seeing as how the 177,000 voters (who may or may not have been eligible) either moved to another state (where they most likely voted legally in that state instead of Michigan), had election mail that was delivered returned as undeliverable or were inactive in previous election cycles, offhand I would guess no, they did not vote in Michigan in the 2020 election.

Since the post office forwards mail to your new address, you just proved my point. You would guess they did not, but since no audit was done on signature verification, we don't know.

Would it not be prudent to at least check?

I didn't prove your point at all. Election mail is not forwardable by the postal service.

What is it with you guys and your stubborn adherence to this voter fraud narrative? Is every single election from now on until the end of time gonna have to be thoroughly audited, reaudited and re-reaudited to shit before the losing side inevitably still fails to accept the results?

Every single time an election department has gone ahead and done an audit or a recount, no evidence of widespread voter fraud has been found. And EVERY SINGLE TIME the pro-fraud crowd has already made up their minds that whatever check is done is somehow flawed or insufficient. After a certain point, no, it is no longer prudent.

Until irregularities, anomalies, and unrealistic results are investigated and or explained, yes, every election going forward is going to be suspect.

Having the courts throw out lawsuits on technicalities, not investigating or explaining video that shows unusual procedures, auditing strange changes in vote counts, and exceptionally high vote counts that don't match norms will tarnish future elections and the people will question the results.

As Justice Clarence Thomas stated in his recent dissent of the SCOTUS refusing to look at the evidence in the Penn. case and 6 other cases. "If we don't look at the evidence before the election because it is too soon and we deem the evidence moot after the election, just when do we look at the evidence."

Here is Justice Thomas's entire dissent. You should read it.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/22/politics/thomas-dissent-in-pa-election/index.html

Two independent firms have performed an audit on Maricopa county's voting machines. Once again, no evidence of voter fraud was found. And once again the pro-fraud crowd (this time the Arizona GOP Senate) has not accepted the results (obviously for political reasons that have nothing to do with election integrity).

Also, that quote you posted doesn't appear anywhere in Clarence Thomas's dissent.

They have been explained. There have been investigations and audits, despite the pro-fraud crowd's adamant insistence to the contrary. The problem is that the pro-fraud crowd is not willing to accept any explanation when it's given, and continues to spread lies and misinformation about the election, which undermines democracy by eroding voter confidence.

I've already read Clarence Thomas's dissent and I respectfully disagree. If election officials "changed the rules" unfairly as the losing side claims, why did they only wait until after the election was long over to bring it to the courts? Would these lawsuits have even gone forward if Trump had won Pennsylvania? If the state courts are not able to interpret state laws based on their own constitutions simply because said laws are election-related, why have state courts at all?

And if the losing side is so concerned about election integrity as they pretend to be, why is it that only Democrat-won counties, Democrat-won swing states, are being subject to this repeated level of scrutiny? What puts all the states that Trump won so far above any doubt? Why is it only voter fraud if Biden wins?

So far, I know of no case where a federal court has heard a case or where evidence has been presented. I believe about 23 cases, not really sure of the exact number, have been thrown out for technical issues like no standing, such as the Texas case, or that the case is moot since the election is over, or that it would not change the outcome anyway,

If Trump had won, the cases could not go forward since there would have been no injured party. That is why there are only cases in states Trump lost even though there are other irregularities that have not had cases filed.

Several suits were filed before the election concerning the Penn. Supreme Court allowing unelected officials to change the law. The Election Clause of the Consitution "directs and empowers State Legislatures to determine the “Times, Places, and Manner” of federal elections". The argument is that the Election Commission can not change these laws, even during a pandemic.

The lower courts refused to hear the case in September stating Republicans had no standing. The reason given for having no standing was that since the election had not occurred, there was no injured party. An evenly divided Supreme Court allowed the Penn. deadline extension to stand in October for the same reason. At the time, the court still had a vacancy following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The tie meant the state court decision stood.

Republicans returned to the court again days later – this time after Justice Amy Coney Barrett had been confirmed. But Barrett did not take part in the review, and a divided court again denied a motion to expedite the case, noting that the election was at that point only days away.

This last time SCOTUS denied hearing the case stating that it was moot since the election had already occurred.

Why are the courts refusing to even hear the arguments? At least if they tried the cases and found the evidence was lacking or the arguments were weak and ruled against the Republicans, that would be acceptable. Not allowing evidence to be presented or the cases to be argued is what is allowing this chaos to continue. That was the main point of Justice Thomas's dissent.

As for the Election Clause of the U.S. Constitution, if the framers of the Constitution had intended to give unilateral control over elections to the state legislatures (meaning the election laws the state legislatures passed would not be subject to judicial review), then the framers made a mistake, or the interpretation of the Election Clause is in error. By this interpretation, the state legislatures could potentially, without fear of the state courts striking them down, pass election laws in violation of their own state constitution. Without judicial review as a check or balance, this effectively renders their own state constitution itself pointless.

"If Trump had won, the cases could not go forward since there would have been no injured party." So in other words, you reiterate that the results would have been acceptable if Trump had won, so-called rule changes by the election officials notwithstanding.

Can't reply directly to your last two comments as we exceeded the number of comments allowed

First, the election clause states only the legislature can write election laws. Obviously, if those laws are unconstitutional they can be challenged in the courts and the legislature can be made to rewrite it or remove it.

The issue here is that the election commission changed an existing law that was already in place that said mail-in ballots had to be received by election day. Nothing unconstitutional about that, most states have the same law. The election commission changed it to read that mail-in ballots could be counted even though they arrived after election day and that they did not have to have a legible postmark.

The election commission didn't challenge the law, they amended an existing law. It would have been legal for them to challenge the law in court and have the legislature change the wording if the court found it to be unconstitutional. The argument is that it is not legal for them to change a law since that is not in their purview.

To answer your second comment, unfortunately, the way our courts work, even if something is wrong or illegal, you can not file suit unless you are directly impacted by it, it is called standing.

If Trump had won, on what standing would he argue the case? If he won, how was he injured by the illegal change? The change would still be illegal, just who the injured party is would change.

That is the premise most of the courts used to dismiss most of the Republican challenges to all the rule changes this year prior to the election. Their argument was that since the election hadn't taken place, you couldn't prove that you would be injured by the changes. Now the courts are saying that since the election is over the cases are moot. When do you get to challenge these changes? Again, Justice Thomas's main point.

So you're sticking to the massive dump theory because the clerical error was explained only after an explanation was called for? That's very tenuous reasoning. An error in reporting doesn't mean there was voter fraud at a widespread level.

What you have completely failed to acknowledge is that the error was found and corrected. The official results for Shiawassee county, where the error happened, reflects this fact.

https://www.electionreporting.com/county/8f0eb06b-28bd-46f8-a245-85d0c6a3adc0/contest/President%2FVice-President%20of%20the%20United%20States

As for your claim that the second one was debunked: so what?

You're joking, right?

Yeah, I'm using the same joke argument you used. Because no sane human could ever consider "so what?" a valid response to this meme.

You take something innocent and make it sound sinister. Like the not-suitcases of ballots.

Oh please what were they then? :)

Container of verified ballots. What did you think they were, menus?

And why was it that they had them hidden under a table, and only got them out after everyone else had left after a "pipe burst" ?

They didn't hide them. They opened and verified them in front of poll watchers and the media. And there was no pipe burst. You seem to be conflating things. Poll watchers left of their own accord for whatever reason, and the counters continued counting under the watch of security cameras.
All of which was confirmed by REPUBLICANS

Besides: "So what?"

Exactly.

Hm, you must be talking about something else then

Nope, look up the facts.