Concise, Clear, and Well Reasoned

[suncowiam]

Stop with these speculations.

Follow the actual court cases.

Rudy is the lawyer who's job is to promote and prove election fraud. It is not his job to be objective. Literally, he is being paid to promote one side. Is that enough of conflict of interest to suggest?

So posting anything from Rudy is not an objective measure.

Instead of all these speculative and circumstantial posts, why don't you post court cases and their respective results from each states?

 

[Polymath257]

Funny how all sorts of claims are made, but when it comes to actually supplying the evidence, nothing shows up.

At this point, the worst election fraud is Trump inviting the election officials to the White House.

How is that *not* interfering with an election?

 

[SomeRandom]

I always appreciate a sense of humor. I'm not so stuck in the mud that I can't enjoy the journey here. "Snarky" is good every once in a while

I would say that it would seem like that some of the posters never really heard the video.

For an example: "vague, blurry" doesn't really define it.
Saying it isn't worth it because it its "facebook" when "C-Span" is on the video makes it suspect as to whether they really listened.
The comment "ignore" suggest to me that it doesn't matter what evidence it is, they don't care (which is a shame since voting should be above reproach.

For the interested... IMO, it is a good listen. At this point, . I don't think anyone is interested But I will still have a good night's sleep.

Proper response: you mean from the posters? or where do they go from here (legally)?

Nothing wrong with a bit of snark

Perhaps people are exhausted by this whole drama. Perhaps there is tribalism of sorts. Politics seems to me rather dogmatic in nature.

Proper response from both protestors and legal options. I’m not entirely up on American law regarding this sort of thing. But our news outlets don’t seem to be optimistic regarding Trump’s legal outcomes, shall we say

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is a reliable source. It's just uncut coverage of government hearings and so on. Or can you not watch anything without a talking head interpreting it for you?

It is a reliable source for what it is. All it has are claims of politicians. No evidence in of itself. Yes, Rudy made those claims. So what?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

And please don't say "WELL, its Rudy - we can't trust him", no... listen to the points. If you don't agree, fine but at the least you could say "I heard the other side".

I listened to the first half (full disclosure).
I am wondering why they feel the need to prosecute this in front of the cameras instead of the courts?

There is also a remarkably small amount of evidence. He is clear, but it's supposition.
And some of his points (eg. that there is, by tradition, always a democrat and republican watching vote counts) seems pretty ridiculously overstated.

Ultimately, the voting process is state-based. Personally, I think that's a weakness of the US system, and it should be consistent under US law. But Trump's positioning PRIOR to the election to state that there would be fraud, and that he'd only lose if there was cheating, etc, is FAR more problematic to US democracy than occasional voter fraud (which has always happened on very low levels, and not just by Dems). If there is evidence, present it in court and the vast preponderance of public opinion will swing VERY quickly. But what he's talking about now (including 'circumstantial evidence' in his own words) is simply not credible.

He simply needs to present evidence in courts.
I've heard the woman behind him speak before also. She was passionate, and articulate...and presented no evidence, also completely overstating what was before the courts already.

Present evidence to the courts. I don't think anyone is claiming the courts are a left-wing bastion at this point.
For every day this isn't done, and for every frivolous case raised, they completely undermine whatever iota of credibility they have remaining (imho). As well as undermining the effective functioning of the world's most powerful democracy.

 

[Lyndon]

This is CNN... did you listen to it?

wrong, its not CNN, its C-SPAN

 

[tytlyf]

Is this election fraud?

Lindsey Graham’s Alleged Attempt to Toss Georgia Ballots Is Felony Election Fraud

 

[fantome profane]

@KenS

If this is, as you claim, clear and concise then you should have no difficulty explaining it in your own words.

Please give us a few paragraphs summarizing this clear and concise message, You are clearly strongly motivated to get this message across, and it should not be difficult for you to do this if it is really so clear and concise.

Thank you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is this election fraud?

Lindsey Graham’s Alleged Attempt to Toss Georgia Ballots Is Felony Election Fraud

It sounds like it might be. It is rather amazing that the only clear cases of election fraud seems to be cases that support Trump. And yet we are supposed to throw out the election where he lost.

 

[dybmh]

IF you want to know why there is, in my view, fraud.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=424558592039459

I watched the first hour but skipped the q&a.

Here's cnn's fact check of the allegations. @KenS : I hope you read this. It addresses the fraud claims clearly and concisely.

Fact checking Giuliani and the Trump legal team's wild, fact-free press conference - CNNPolitics

 

[shunyadragon]

IF you want to know why there is, in my view, fraud.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=424558592039459

Unfortunately no evidence was provided by Giuliani. Actually Guiliami is shifty, shell game artist, boisterous, blunderous, unethical, and never won a fraud case for Trump.

The court cases are falling like autumn leaves without evidence of fraud.

Judges toss more cases due to lack of evidence. Trump and Guiliani are on a role.

Source: Judges toss Republican lawsuits in Arizona, Pennsylvania and Georgia - CNNPolitics

Judges toss Republican lawsuits in Arizona, Pennsylvania and Georgia

By Kara Scannell, Katelyn Polantz and Caroline Kelly,

(CNN)State judges in Arizona and Pennsylvania and a federal judge in Georgia rejected election-related lawsuits Thursday from Republicans and the Trump campaign.

The hat trick of losses were the latest round of defeats for the Trump campaign in its long-shot and increasingly far-fetched bid to block President-elect Joe Biden's win before the Electoral College certifies him as the next president.
One of the judges, a Trump appointee in Georgia, called the attempt by Republican-allied lawyers to block election results "quite striking," refusing their attempt to stop Biden's win there.
In Arizona, a state judge declined to audit votes in the state and delay the finalization of results, saying the lawsuit couldn't be retooled and brought again. And in Pennsylvania, a state judge ordered the counting of more than absentee 2,000 ballots the Trump campaign wanted to exclude.


The rulings came with only a few hours between them on Thursday.

Losses for the Trump campaign have piled up on other recent days, including when nine cases from the Trump campaign or his allies were either denied or pulled last Friday, and when Trump-supporting voters dropped four lawsuits pushing fraud claims earlier this week.

Despite pledges by Trump campaign attorneys -- including Rudy Giuliani -- to continue the fight, nearly no viable post-election cases remain for the Trump campaign that could deprive Biden of the electoral votes to become president. Legal analysts have widely said Trump's bids in court to change the election results will all fail.

One federal lawsuit now spearheaded by Giuliani lingers in Pennsylvania, but the judge who is considering it expressed skepticism on Tuesday that the commonwealth's presidential vote should be discarded."

Please present any court cast filed by the Republicans was won where they present evidence of fraud. Hint: There are none.

 

[Kenny]

Hey Ken, the link isn't working for me. Do you happen to have an alternative link? Or have a suggestion of something I can search for on YouTube?

Let me check...

 

[Kenny]

Hey Ken, the link isn't working for me. Do you happen to have an alternative link? Or have a suggestion of something I can search for on YouTube?

Try this one:

Trump Campaign News Conference on Legal Challenges | C-SPAN.org

 

[Kenny]

I watched the first hour but skipped the q&a.

Here's cnn's fact check of the allegations. @KenS : I hope you read this. It addresses the fraud claims clearly and concisely.

Fact checking Giuliani and the Trump legal team's wild, fact-free press conference - CNNPolitics

Got it. Thanks for the link

I'm not sure how they can put a decision on it when all of the information on the three trials hasn't been for public perusal at this time.

Though some of their points have merit, I don't believe they have merit within the context of the law suit. To say "there is nothing illegitimate about the ballots" when it hasn't gone to trial yet is to say they are prosecutor, judge and jury.

So I will wait to see how the courts see it.

 

[Kenny]

Nothing wrong with a bit of snark

Perhaps people are exhausted by this whole drama. Perhaps there is tribalism of sorts. Politics seems to me rather dogmatic in nature.

Proper response from both protestors and legal options. I’m not entirely up on American law regarding this sort of thing. But our news outlets don’t seem to be optimistic regarding Trump’s legal outcomes, shall we say

No doubt! And it is exhausting, to say the least.

This will either be a humongous flat tire or it will be the most explosive exposition on fraud. Time will tell.

I think that Trump actually knew something was smelly before the 2018 mid-term elections, saw it played out and then pre-prepared for this one.

Could be wrong, of course... like they say, "I have been wrong once before"... but that is my crazy thinking at this point.

 

[Kenny]

I listened to the first half (full disclosure).
I am wondering why they feel the need to prosecute this in front of the cameras instead of the courts?

I think the only reason is that if not for the cameras, no one would actually know what they are doing because the news won't report it or skew it.

There is also a remarkably small amount of evidence. He is clear, but it's supposition.
And some of his points (eg. that there is, by tradition, always a democrat and republican watching vote counts) seems pretty ridiculously overstated.

I have a different view. With hundreds of affidavits, I don't think that can be classified as "small". What they do have is just a limited camera time and can only skim the top and thus creating a "small amount of evidence" appearance but as you said below

Present evidence to the courts. I don't think anyone is claiming the courts are a left-wing bastion at this point.
For every day this isn't done, and for every frivolous case raised, they completely undermine whatever iota of credibility they have remaining (imho). As well as undermining the effective functioning of the world's most powerful democracy.

Ultimately this is what has to happen. I know we want it all yesterday, but I also understand that a poorly presented case will loose even if it is true. So I tend to give a little leeway on the time.

 

[Kenny]

Unfortunately no evidence was provided by Giuliani. Actually Guiliami is shifty, shell game artist, boisterous, blunderous, unethical, and never won a fraud case for Trump.

The court cases are falling like autumn leaves without evidence of fraud.

Judges toss more cases due to lack of evidence. Trump and Guiliani are on a role.

Source: Judges toss Republican lawsuits in Arizona, Pennsylvania and Georgia - CNNPolitics

Judges toss Republican lawsuits in Arizona, Pennsylvania and Georgia

By Kara Scannell, Katelyn Polantz and Caroline Kelly,

(CNN)State judges in Arizona and Pennsylvania and a federal judge in Georgia rejected election-related lawsuits Thursday from Republicans and the Trump campaign.

The hat trick of losses were the latest round of defeats for the Trump campaign in its long-shot and increasingly far-fetched bid to block President-elect Joe Biden's win before the Electoral College certifies him as the next president.
One of the judges, a Trump appointee in Georgia, called the attempt by Republican-allied lawyers to block election results "quite striking," refusing their attempt to stop Biden's win there.
In Arizona, a state judge declined to audit votes in the state and delay the finalization of results, saying the lawsuit couldn't be retooled and brought again. And in Pennsylvania, a state judge ordered the counting of more than absentee 2,000 ballots the Trump campaign wanted to exclude.


The rulings came with only a few hours between them on Thursday.

Losses for the Trump campaign have piled up on other recent days, including when nine cases from the Trump campaign or his allies were either denied or pulled last Friday, and when Trump-supporting voters dropped four lawsuits pushing fraud claims earlier this week.

Despite pledges by Trump campaign attorneys -- including Rudy Giuliani -- to continue the fight, nearly no viable post-election cases remain for the Trump campaign that could deprive Biden of the electoral votes to become president. Legal analysts have widely said Trump's bids in court to change the election results will all fail.

One federal lawsuit now spearheaded by Giuliani lingers in Pennsylvania, but the judge who is considering it expressed skepticism on Tuesday that the commonwealth's presidential vote should be discarded."

Please present any court cast filed by the Republicans was won where they present evidence of fraud. Hint: There are none.

As it was mentioned on the video... the tossed lawsuits were made by other plaintiffs and, as Rudy said, correctly tossed out but they were not his lawsuits.

 

[suncowiam]

Funny how all sorts of claims are made, but when it comes to actually supplying the evidence, nothing shows up.

At this point, the worst election fraud is Trump inviting the election officials to the White House.

How is that *not* interfering with an election?

Trump's lawyers, especially Rudy, says one thing to the public but completely omits some of these same claims in courts. Or they do make the claims in court with little to no real evidence. They have circumstantial evidence or witness claims on a minute scale that could not influence the election even proven true.

It is freaking unbelievable how folks easily succumb to this process. They need anything to justify their internal bias.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think the only reason is that if not for the cameras, no one would actually know what they are doing because the news won't report it or skew it.

I have to admit, the idea that the news works to 'a narrative' is confusing, if you're giving the Trump lawyers a pass.
In both cases, there are a range of opinions you can consult. The biggest issue is when people seem to readily accept biased information, and don't check it against other available information.

So, sure...some news outlets will underplay anything which makes the left look bad. Others will overplay it. And some will be more balanced, although ultimately all news holds some level of bias.
Perhaps the bias wasn't always as pronounced as it was now. But lawyers? Lawyers have been biased since time immemorial. It's basically cooked into their job description.

And it's not only the news that you need to rely on as a source. Consider the following;
Joint Statement from Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council & the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive Committees | CISA

Now consider that President Trump sacked the head of that organization for suggesting that these elections were the most secure in history.
Donald Trump sacks cybersecurity official who rejected fraud claims

Does that help or hinder democracy? Your thoughts may be different to mine, but I don't think this is serving United States interests well.

I have a different view. With hundreds of affidavits, I don't think that can be classified as "small". What they do have is just a limited camera time and can only skim the top and thus creating a "small amount of evidence" appearance but as you said below

He spoke for well over an hour, and admitted that much of what he was talking about was 'circumstantial'. I think he was overselling it. Much of what I heard was 'hypothetical'.
There is almost literally NO penalty for Trump to drag this through the courts, and he has a very long and very clear history of doing just that on almost every occasion possible.
At some point that has to effect the credibility of self-serving law-suits he is promoting (and I think that point has long since passed).

Ultimately this is what has to happen. I know we want it all yesterday, but I also understand that a poorly presented case will loose even if it is true. So I tend to give a little leeway on the time.

Trump's Election Lawsuits Plagued by Elementary Errors

 

[McBell]

I am still waiting for a "concise, clear and well reasoned" presentation from the 'voter fraud' crowd....

Good thing I am not holding my breath

 

[Heyo]

IF you want to know why there is, in my view, fraud.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=424558592039459

If you want to know why you are doing it wrong, here is my concise, clear and well reasoned answer:

1. You don't have a message. You think the facts speak for themselves but you see how that works out. You should lead with the message.

The US voting system is prone to critique. We have to fix it so that any allegation of fraud is simply ridiculous.

2. You lose yourself in details and partisanship. That only incites resistance.

Make it clear that and how the system is rotten. Cite examples of both sides exploiting the holes. Make clear that Trump did exploit the weaknesses instead of working to fix them.

3. Don't be a negative Nancy. *****ing about fraud is for whiners.

Suggest measures to make elections secure above any doubt. E.g. argue to get rid of voting machines, especially those with proprietary code and without paper trail.

4. Don't get stuck in the past. The 2020 election is over and Biden won.

Focus on the future. Now is the time. You have two years until the mid-terms and four years until the next presidential election. Work on making them the most secure and incorruptible ever.

5. End on a positive message.

The US is one of the oldest parliamental democratic republics. We may have old systems but we can change them to the most secure in the world. Never again shall anyone doubt our elections. We can do it.


I'm looking forward to your next OP implementing my suggestions.