Mollie Hemingway Writes 2020 Election Book Media Don't Want Read
By: Mollie Hemingway (The Federalist)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
If questioning the results of a presidential election were a crime, as many have asserted in the wake of the controversial 2020 election and its aftermath, nearly the entire Democratic Party and media establishment would have been incarcerated for their rhetoric following the 2016 election. In fact, the last time they accepted the legitimacy of a presidential election they lost was in 1988.
After the 2000 election, which hinged on the results of a recount in Florida, Democrats smeared President George W. Bush as "selected, not elected." When Bush won re-election against then-Sen. John Kerry in 2004, many on the left claimed that voting machines in Ohio had been rigged to deliver fraudulent votes to Bush. HBO even produced and aired "Hacking Democracy," a documentary that added fuel to the conspiracy theory fire of conversations about the 2004 results. But nothing holds a candle to what happened in 2016 after Donald Trump's surprising defeat of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Rather than accept that Trump won and Clinton lost, the political and media establishments desperately sought to explain away Trump's victory. What they settled on was a destructive conspiracy theory that crippled the government, empowered America's adversaries, and illegally targeted innocent private citizens whose only crime was not supporting Hillary Clinton.
With baseless claims of hacked voting totals, illegal voter suppression, and extensive media manipulation, the Russian collusion hoax had it all. But more than anything, the belief that Trump stole the 2016 election had the support of the most powerful institutions, individuals, and even government agencies in the country.
"You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you," Clinton told her followers in 2019.
"I know he's an illegitimate president," Clinton claimed of Trump a few months later. She even claimed during an interview with "CBS Sunday Morning" that "voter suppression and voter purging and hacking" were why she lost.
Former President Jimmy Carter agreed.
"[Trump] lost the election and was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf," he told NPR in 2019. "Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016."
Their view was widely shared by most prominent Democrats in Congress. Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, for example, said he was skipping Trump's inauguration in 2016 because he believed Trump was illegitimate, and that "the Russians participated in helping this man get elected." Lewis also skipped the inauguration of President George W. Bush, claiming that Bush, too, was an illegitimate president.
A few members of Congress joined him in 2001. In 2017, one out of every three Democrats in the U.S. House boycotted Trump's inauguration. Many said they refused to take part in the installation of an illegitimate president.
Not only did corporate media not condemn leading Democrats' refusal to accept the results of the 2016 election, the media were also super spreaders of wild conspiracy theories about how Trump and Russia colluded to steal the election from Clinton. They dutifully regurgitated false leaks from corrupt intelligence officials suggesting that Trump and his staff had committed treason. They ran stories suggesting that Republicans who didn't support their conspiracy theory were insufficiently loyal to the country.
Some even suggested Russia may have hacked voting machines and vote totals in a bid to steal the election from Clinton. It was all nonsense. Even Robert Mueller, who ran a multi-year and multi-million-dollar government investigation into claims that Trump personally colluded with Russian President Vladimir Putin to steal the election from Clinton, found there was no evidence to support the claim.
Rather than being shunned by their peers for peddling leaks and lies that had no basis in reality, the reporters who pushed this conspiracy theory were lauded by their peers, received raises and promotions, and were given Pulitzers for "reporting" that turned out to be detached from reality.
From 2016 through 2020, the easiest way to achieve stardom on the political left was to loudly proclaim your belief that 2016 was an illegitimate election stolen by the Russians on behalf of a corrupt traitor. Dissent, up to and including the assertion that the President of the United States was a secret Russian spy, was the highest form of patriotism.
And then 2020 happened.
With the snap of their fingers, America's electoral system went from irredeemably corrupt and broken in 2016 to unquestionably safe in 2020. Voting methods that were allegedly used to steal elections in 2004 and 2016 suddenly became sacrosanct and impenetrable in 2020. Whereas so-called election experts repeatedly warned pre-2020 about the pitfalls of electronic voting and widespread mail-in balloting, by November of 2020, any discussion about the vulnerabilities of those methods was declared to be verboten.
If, as I believe, concerns about election integrity were valid in 2000, and 2004, and 2008, and 2012, and 2016, then surely those concerns were even more valid in 2020, an election unlike any other in American history due to the COVID-19 pandemic that gripped the world and radically altered America's electoral system.
Across the country at the state, local, and federal level, hundreds of significant structural changes to the manner and oversight of elections were instituted, resulting in what Time Magazine called a "a revolution in how people vote." Some of these changes were enacted by state legislatures, some by courts, and others by county and state election officials. Many changes were allegedly justified by the global pandemic, although Democrats had long advocated for them and now seek to make them permanent.
The bedrock of the American republic is that elections must be free, fair, accurate, and trusted. Election lawyers will tell you that fraud is almost impossible to conclusively find after the fact, and that to fight it, strong rules and regulations are needed on the front end. That's why Democrats and Republicans fight so bitterly about the rules and regulations that govern the process.
What happened during the 2020 election deserves to be investigated and discussed. It must be investigated and discussed, not in spite of media and political opposition to it, but because of that opposition. That is why I am writing a book about what happened before, during, and after the 2020 presidential election.
The American people deserve to know what happened. They deserve answers, even if those answers are inconvenient. They deserve to know the effect of flooding the system with tens of millions of mail-in ballots. They deserve to know how and why Big Tech and corporate political media manipulated the news to support certain political narratives while outright censoring stories they now admit were true.
The American people deserve to know why courts, without the consent of the accountable legislative bodies charged with writing election laws, were allowed to unilaterally rewrite the rules in the middle of the game. Voters deserve to know why so many in government so vociferously fought to avoid audits and recounts and hide the vote-counting process from the public.
Republicans began sounding the alarm about how difficult it might be to trust the outcome of the 2020 elections long before November. They talked about how widespread changes in the manner the country conducts elections would lead to uncertainty, confusion, and delays. They were worried about universal mail-in balloting, which led to some addresses getting a half dozen ballots for previous residents who had once registered to vote at the address.
They knew that a bipartisan commission co-chaired by Jimmy Carter himself found that absentee balloting was the largest source of potential fraud in United States elections. They were worried about how lowering, or in some cases outright eliminating, standards for signature verification on mail-in ballots could make it impossible to challenge fraudulently cast ballots.
They were worried about unsupervised drop boxes that enabled third-party ballot harvesting becoming vectors for voter fraud. They worried about how ballot management in some areas was privately funded by corporate oligarchs who are overtly hostile to the Republican Party. They continued their complaints about how lack of updates to voter rolls would cause worse problems in an election based on mail-in balloting.
Republicans also screamed bloody murder about tech censorship of conservative voices and news stories about Democrats that the public had a right to know. They were horrified by a media complex that moved from extreme partisan bias to unabashed propaganda in defense of their preferred political party. They watched as a completely legitimate story about international corruption involving the Biden family business — and implicating Joe Biden himself — was crushed by media and tech companies colluding to suppress it.
None of those problems went away after the election. If anything, the concern grew as tens of millions more Americans saw the problems associated with sloppy elections in which it takes days to find out just how many people voted, much less how they voted.
They saw how difficult it was to maintain independent oversight of the counting process, whether in Atlanta, where observers were told that counting had stopped for the night but hadn't, or in Philadelphia, where observers were kept so far away from the ballot counting that a court had to intervene. They began to see the significance of the mad rush to change voting laws, sometimes surreptitiously or otherwise outside the purview of the state legislatures. And they saw how the media didn't even bother investigating before dismissing all concerns about how the election was run.
The fact of the matter is that the elite powers did whatever it took to make sure that Trump lost re-election in 2020. They admitted as much in a victory lap masquerading as a news article in Time Magazine that referred to the individuals and institutions behind the efforts to oust Trump as a "well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information."
The story of how these institutions worked to rig the 2020 results needs to be told, and I plan to tell it. My book, entitled "Rigged: How The Media, Big Tech, And Democrats Seized Our Elections," tells the story of how the political, media, and corporate establishments changed election laws and procedures, reduced or eliminated oversight of ballots, manipulated the COVID-19 response, stoked the violent racial unrest, published fake news, censored accurate news, and did everything in their power to make sure what happened in 2016 — a Trump election victory — would never happen again in 2020.
The book will include interviews from lawyers, campaign activists, and election officials who were on the ground in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and other swing states. It will include discussions with elected lawmakers from across the country, including senators and members of Congress, about the importance of election integrity.
My book will contain never-before-told eyewitness stories about what really went down in 2020, not just in the presidential race, but in tight House and Senate races as well. The book will contain analysis of how media and Big Tech oligarchs used their power to control information on the Internet to manipulate people's behavior before and after the 2020 election. My book will contain not just interviews about the election with top officials from the Trump White House and presidential campaign, but also interviews with Trump himself.
It will give a behind-the-scenes look at election night at the White House, and at pivotal moments in the campaign, such as the planning and execution of the surprisingly successful Republican National Convention. It will answer which of the many fake news stories published about Trump bothered him the most, how the Democrats caught Republicans flat-footed on mail-in balloting, what the Trump administration's biggest COVID mistake was, and who the Trump campaign thought was Biden's best media representative. (Hint: It's not who you think.) And it will show what went wrong during the electoral challenges in battleground states, and who was responsible for them.
"Rigged: How The Media, Big Tech, And Democrats Seized Our Elections" will be published by Regnery Publishing and is available for pre-order now. I have no doubt that the same powers that worked to oust Trump in 2020 will do everything they can to suppress this book in 2021, but I don't care. The story has to be told.
Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. She is Senior Journalism Fellow at Hillsdale College and a Fox News contributor. She is the co-author of Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court .
Tags
Who is online
110 visitors
Mollie, you've done it again! You are going to have them lying & claiming that you're charging fraud. The truth is that laws were changed to favor democrats and it is they that can't seem to accept election results.
The Book is on the way!
"Mollie Hemingway Writes 2020 Election Book Media Don't Want Read"
That should be 'Doesn't'
Also, no laws were changed to favor Democrats, NONE.
If you're referring to any laws that made voting by mail easier because of the pandemic, then how does that equate to favoring Democrats?
What election results are we unable to accept?
Another bullshit narrative about how conservative voices are being silenced....
Yet oddly, no one can seem to shut them up.
Always the woe is me I am being persecuted bullshit.
Seems to be an article a day by several members of how they're being repressed/silenced - how can they be when I see an article a day by several members here on how they're being repressed/silenced?????????????????????????
We must have such great powers - we're going to silence this liar - in the future!
They like pulling the victim card.
They learned from the best in the business on the left.
"Rigged: How The Media, Big Tech, And Democrats Seized Our Elections" will be published by Regnery Publishing and is available for pre-order now. I have no doubt that the same powers that worked to oust Trump in 2020 will do everything they can to suppress this book in 2021, but I don't care. The story has to be told.
This book is a pack of lies.
We seized this election by going out by the millions (over 7 million more than the former occupant of the White House) to vote for Joe Biden.
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
How would anyone suppress her from telling her lies?
Sounds like Mollie is lining herself up to be the official Trump biographer. She might want to think twice, the Narcissist in Chief will claim he wrote it.
Yes, they did because electing such an obvious lying turd and accused sexual predator was unprecedented.
No conspiracy theory, just the facts, and claiming it crippled the government and empowered adversaries is total bullshit, Trump did that on his own. And no "innocent private citizens" were illegally targeted simply because they didn't vote for Hillary.
We know that vote purging did happen, it just wasn't deemed illegal. We know that the Russians did in fact help Trump win by both releasing illegally hacked emails from the DNC as well as spending $1.25M a month if fake domestic ads lying about Hillary and praising Trump. The difference between then and now is that there was factual evidence of the Russian election meddling, there was factual evidence of voter roll purges, there was factual evidence of Republicans trying to disenfranchise eligible voters they believed were going to vote Democrat. And even with all those facts, Hillary conceded on November 9th, just days after the election, something Trump has still never done.
Trying to claim the 2016 election questions being raised were anything like the sorry bitter piece of shit sore losers refusing to accept that Biden won the election is like comparing apples and Orangutans.
Thanks for the truth, as usual, DP. So refreshing!
Of all the many, many things that make one wonder what reality some progressives inhibit, their response to Trump's claims about a stolen election is one of the leaders. They just pretend the last 20 years don't exist. As Hemingway nicely points out they've claimed every election they lost was stolen or rigged. They even made a media star of the failed candidate for Governor in Georgia who claimed that election was stolen from her. They've done but promote election conspiracies, most famously in 2016 with a different conspiracy a day and Clinton still claiming years later the election was stolen from her. Yet, somehow, someway, these same people have the effrontery to take Donald Trump to task for following their lead. It's Stalin erasing people from textbooks for the 21 century. Orwell talked about how we've always been at war with Eurasia, in November 2020, big brother declared democrats never question elections and the progressive disciples have mindlessly parroted it since.
Questioning election results is not a crime, commencing legal actions on that basis is not a crime, but when the courts of the land point out that there was insufficient evidence of wrongdoing, and the court actions fail, it's damn well time for people to show they are not zombies, that they have a brain in their head and a modicum of education (kindergarten?) and intelligence, to REALIZE that it was a fair election and Biden won it. But unfortunately, there are still a lot of Americans who want to prove to the rest of the world how FUCKING IGNORANT THEY ARE. And in MY opinion, they should all be housed in padded cells....
There was no charge of fraud in the review.
Did I say there was?
All I did was take the first part of the opening sentence of the seed.....
....and extend it and then provide my opinion. I am entitled to voice my opinion, aren't I?
In some places you are. Thank God for NT!
Show me the evidence that Clinton won the election in 2016.
Show me the evidence that Trump won the election in 2020.
People can make all the claims they wish, but without persuasive evidence that shows the results of a presidential election do not match the votes from the electorate, the claims are nonsense.
Too many people in this nation are so blinded by partisanship that they become irrational in these matters.
So very true. Is this a result of how opinion is masquerading as factual news and how one can shape their own confirmation bias bubble online? No critical thinking skills needed.
I think you missed the point. The rules for the 2020 election were changed in key battleground states. Do you want to deny that?
Most were changed without the participation nor the consent of state legislatures. Do you want to deny that?
All the rule changes were meant to favor democrats. Do you want to deny that?
There has been no proof of fraud, nor is there any proof that procedures were properly followed. Congressional democrats are now trying to federalize elections in all 50 states in order to permanently enact those rule changes into law.
People can make all the claims they wish, but without persuasive evidence that shows the results of a presidential election do not match the votes from the electorate, the claims are nonsense.
People are entitled to their opinions, as Buzz just pointed out. Many question aspects of the 1960 election, thought there is no evidence of fraud. People even questioned Hillary Clinton's involvement in "Whitewater." There was no evidence of wrongdoing there either. The evidence eventually did turn up, however - after the statute of limitations expired.
What matters is fraud. There is not even evidence (much less proof) that this election was so replete with fraud that the results could be impacted. Nothing. So you can speak of D actions all that you wish but in reality the people actually did elect Biden as PotUS.
Sure people have the right to opine. But when someone offers a truly ridiculous opinion such as Trump won the 2020 election, we have a right to challenge that nonsense.
Actually, it has little to do with what Hemmingway's saying, nor is anyone here claiming that.
What we are talking about was told to us by democrats themselves.
The day they just had to brag:
Required reading for a few here.
This is from your seed, Vic:
Don't tell me that it is inappropriate for me to challenge the claim (or implication) that the 2020 election was compromised and that Trump is the legitimate PotUS.
There are always actions by partisans to get their way. What matters is if those actions amount to anything significant.
Is that how you interpreted that? She didn't mean it was compromised by fraud. She clearly meant the rules changes compromised it. You see, TiG, when one legalizes something that is wrong, it becomes legal, but remains WRONG!
And by that same point, Gore could have complained that he was robbed since a conservative court stopped the review of Florida. But he accepted the results and disappeared. No one is happy when they lose.
If someone implies (or states) that the 2020 election was compromised and that Trump is the legitimate PotUS then that deserves challenge.
Changing rules is insignificant unless those rule changes made a difference in the election.
Do you have any evidence that the rule changes altered the results of this election and cost Trump his reelection?
If so, deliver.
It seems to have now that you bring it up. Here is a perfect example of what can and inevitably DID happen in Texas recently compared to what transpired in 2020 with the advent of "let 'em stay on the couch and watch The Price Is Right and vote from the coffee table" mentality (do they know their voters or what) of the Democrats and the mail in legality push..
Couldn't be bothered..........................to vote
Voting is a right as well as a moral OBLIGATION as an American citizen. Democrats and Republicans. Which is which?
How does this relate to what I wrote? Where do you see me writing of apathy in the electorate (one of my pet peeves) in the comment to which you replied?
I agree, but why are you replying to my comment with this?
Seems like a non sequitur.
It has absolutely nothing to do with what you wrote.
Did you not write the above? Seems the "actions" of the "we will get him out of office one way or another" crowd got their wish by making, no CHANGING the rules so those that didn't care enough to venture out and therefore showing their lack of interest, to vote, still got a chance. So it amounted to "something significant".
And please...........don't give me the fear of Covid bullshit. Didn't matter this year in Texas.......to some anyway it seems
Oh give me a break Jim. You are speculating that a change in rules causes enough voters to not show up (who would have otherwise) to make a difference in the results of the presidential election.
If you want to make a persuasive argument you need more than your speculation. In this case, you would need hard numbers. I see no way anyone could get these numbers and thus I see no way you could possible make this claim. You offer speculation.
And ultimately if a voter decides to not show up for any reason, that is their own personal choice. Personal choices like that occur every election for myriad reasons. You are grasping at straws.
So the rule changes and the most votes in American history in a presidential isn't enough for you to see the difference? I beg to differ.......................they knew just what the hell they were doing. Even the loser got more votes than anyone in history. Loosen up your mind a bit TiG.
trumpturd lost. Get over it!
I'm over it. Seems the good people on the left side of the aisle can't get over it and STILL watch and read everything he does to present here. Seems I am not the one that needs to get over anything............think about it.
FFS 6 weeks out and some people here STILL haven't let him go................
“The rules for the 2020 election were changed in key battleground states.”
And those rule changes opened the door for much more potential voter fraud. Was it a legitimate election? I don’t know but i do question its validity because of those rule changes. The msm, dems, and the anti trump establishment, yeah, the same people who brought us lie after lie and tales of russia russia russia for 4 years, say it is, for what little that is worth. Dementia boy’s campaign stops were embarrassingly empty and horizontal harris added nothing to the ticket. so yeah, i’m with mollie hemingway and anybody else that questions the integrity of the 2020 election.
Isn't that exactly what Democrats whining crap about "voter suppression" are doing?
You continue to offer only speculation. Deliver the numbers that show these actions changed the results of the election. And, again, it does not matter anyway. If the electorate does not show up that does not mean Trump is the legitimate PotUS. People have historically not shown up for myriad reasons. It is their choice. That is how our system works.
No, I am not going to accept bullshit as fact. If you want to persuade me or anyone else you need to deliver an argument based on facts and sound reasoning. I am okay if you simply want to opine but to suggest I am the one with flawed reasoning here is another matter.
Yes when it is speculation without supporting facts. Now do you see this speculation only with the Ds or do you recognize this here with the Rs?
How did the rule changes affect the validity of the presidential election? Give me your facts. I predict you will at best offer speculation. Let's find out.
Ramblings ... ' Dementia boy ' is definitely what I would expect from a partisan. Shows such objectivity.
“How did the rule changes affect the validity of the presidential election?”
You should reread my post. [removed]
“definitely what I would expect from a partisan.”
lol, that’s good coming from a partisan who claims not to be partisan.
You have nothing to offer other than trolling snark?
He lost. Get over it.
I'll bet that feels real good knowing you got the last word...............5 hours later LMAO.
Told you. I'm over it. Why aren't you and some of your pals here? Nothing good to say about Mr. Biden other than "he's just fine"? Sure would like to see the attributes you and others find so earth shattering about his actions............if you can muster up some.
If you can't, I understand............unfortunately I have to watch the shit show like you do except I have no rose colored tint on my glasses.
Have yourself a pleasant evening and weekend.
Throwing your little quips back in your face is trolling snark? Lol. Look, there is no point in having a conversation with you. You manipulate the conversation to your liking then you let the accusations fly. I’ve seen it over and over. I’m done with you.
Again with nothing. I challenged your position and now twice you simply run away with snark:
Looks like we found out. You have no facts to offer. You have nothing that shows the rule changes affected the validity of the presidential election.
You have nothing, make unsupported claims and then run away complaining when challenged to back up your claims.
Everyone is free to speculate when their are questionable rule changes.
Keep in mind that you don't have any facts either. All you have is a final count. Not what went into the making of the sausage. Prove to us that their wasn't any fraud!
Of course you can't!
The time to prevent fraud is BEFORE the voting begins. The rules made fraud possible and that is why there is so much questioning. You don't seem to like people questioning certain things. Very interesting.
Philadelphia Poll Workers
So unfortunately for America, history will one day place the 2020 election with the 1960 election.
Well of course everyone is free to speculate.
But when speculation is stated as fact everyone is also free to challenge that speculation.
Where do you see me claiming that there was no fraud? See Vic you cannot challenge me to prove something that I have not asserted.
But I can prove that Biden is the legitimate PotUS. Our well-established, historically sound system executed and determined he was the winner. The results were challenged repeatedly and recounts were taken with no significant change that would make Trump the winner. 61 lawsuits were filed with no significant change in results. The president of the US claimed fraud before the election occurred while he had power to do something about it and claimed fraud afterwards (still with that power and influence) which encouraged the nation to scrutinize the results. He failed to produce anything that shows this election did not legitimately elect Biden.
In the end this highly scrutinized election was found to be free of SIGNIFICANT fraud / error that would change the results of the election.
That is about as good as proof gets in the real world of politics.
Knock off the personal crap. I challenge conspiracy theories and speculation. There is nothing mysterious about that.
Where do you see anyone doing that?
Where do you see me claiming that there was no fraud?
All the time! You are constantly repeating a media slogan which has proclaimed over & over again that fraud was never proven. That is meaningless. Neither Ms Hemingway nor I have claimed that there was fraud. So either you are using a strawman argument or you are deliberately being disingenuous.
Where election laws changed in the summer of 2020?
Where they changed by judicial fiat or by officials other than state legislatures?
Did those laws favor democrats and weaken voter integrity?
Those are the questions you don't want to answer.
But I can prove that Biden is the legitimate PotUS.
But that's not at issue is it? What a pity! Maybe you want to join the failed blogger who is desperately trying to make it the issue.
Our well-established, historically sound system executed and determined he was the winner.
Oh cut the shit! Don't insult us. The people who changed the rules would have done anything to win and you know it.
The results were challenged repeatedly and recounts were taken with no significant change that would make Trump the winner. 61 lawsuits were filed with no significant change in results.
When you simply recount results you actually make the vote more credible. The question is who benefited from rule changes? You are still arguing fraud. It's a dishonest argument.
The president of the US claimed fraud before the election occurred while he had power to do something about it and claimed fraud afterwards (still with that power and influence) which encouraged the nation to scrutinize the results. He failed to produce anything that shows this election did not legitimately elect Biden.
I'm not interested in what he did or said. You are. Why?
In the end this highly scrutinized election was found to be free of SIGNIFICANT fraud / error that would change the results of the election.
That's the bait, right? Sorry, TiG, I'm not biting.
Knock off the personal crap. I challenge conspiracy theories and speculation. There is nothing mysterious about that.
I call 'em as I see "em.
see @8.2.10 as an example
Flat out lie! I have never claimed that there was no fraud in this election. Not once. Never even hinted at it. Deliver a quote from me ever making such a claim.
You cannot. Instead you invent and accuse.
A failure on your part to read. Here is my opening comment:
I did not limit my comment to fraud; I do not even mention the word. I spoke of claims that a presidential election does not match the votes from the electorate; I spoke of election integrity. This was in response to the content of your seed. In particular, read this:
In response to content like this ⇡ in your seed you have my @8.
In response to my @8 here you come with this reply:
You introduced 'fraud' as a focus. Plus you changed the focus to proof when I only spoke of evidence. This is either sloppy reading and/or sloppy writing on your part or it was intentional (and thus intellectually dishonest).
So now I reply to you and even point you to the quote:
You introduce fraud and impose proof instead of evidence and then later try to blame me for it.
Yes. This was in response to the conditions imposed by COVID-19.
Officials. This was adjudicated and found to be done legally.
That is the claim. I would need to review the details nationwide before I make a statement on favor/integrity (I do not blindly follow a party's position). But for the sake of argument let's go with your position that these rule changes favor the D candidate.
Why do you think I would not answer these questions? Presume less, read (with comprehension as the intent) more. If you have a question then ask it rather than presume. Your presumption thus far has been off base.
Now do you think these rule changes gave Biden the win? If so, can you back that up with facts?
You asked if I could prove no fraud. A claim I never made and a claim that nobody can prove. I then gave you an example of something that can be proved (and indeed something I did prove). And you complain.
Again you make up an argument for me. Where do you find me suggesting that parties always play by the rules? Good grief man you just keep on inventing strawman arguments.
And you say this insults you:
What about that quote is insulting to you? That sentence is the summary of the proof that Biden won the election.
See my prior comment where I show you are the one who focused on fraud. You even asked me to prove no fraud and I have never made such a claim. You are inventing claims I never made and asking me to defend them. Strawman! Intellectual dishonesty.
Yeah you ignore the facts, you misrepresent what I write, you introduce strawman arguments. You ignore, invent and deflect and accuse me of dishonesty. Basic projection.
That was the excuse. They loved covid. Shouldn't that have been left to state legislatures? What's the excuse (for HR 1) now?
Officials. This was adjudicated and found to be done legally.
Really? Did you know that a Michigan judge ruled this past March that Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson violated state law when she circumvented the legislature with unilateral orders on absentee voting? Did you know that we had state court decisions altering legislative codes by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and via a “consent decree” suspending state election laws in a Minnesota state court.
On Friday, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals entered a Stay with regard to a Preliminary Injunction granted by a District Court Judge of Georgia. Using COVID 19 as an excuse — as other district court judges are doing across the country — the federal judge in Georgia issued an Injunction preventing Georgia state election officials from enforcing the “7:00 pm on election day” deadline for receiving absentee ballots to be counted, and ordering Georgia officials to count all ballots received up to three days after Election Day if validly postmarked on or before election day. the 7th Circuit dismissed a challenge to a similar order from a federal district court judge in Wisconsin and extended the deadline for receiving absentee ballots by six days, so long as the ballot is postmarked on or before election day. But the issue in that decision came down to whether the “intervening” parties who sought a stay in the appeals court had standing to enter the case at that point, and the 7th Circuit found that they did not. The 7th Circuit’s decision did not address the “merits” of the order entered by the lower court judge.
"District Court judges in Texas and Alabama have also re-written state election codes in those two states in advance of the coming general election, relying on COVID 19 as a basis to do so."
"I covered a case in Texas in this story last week.
But six days ago in Alabama, yet another judicial rewrite was entered:
“Curbside” voting is the practice of giving a voter a portable device to use inside their vehicle to cast their votes, eliminating the need for the voter to enter the polling location."
"In Wisconsin, a federal judge extended the deadline for receiving absentee ballots during the primary election cycle by a period of six days. No one objected to that extension in the early days of state “lockdown” orders to address the outbreak of the COVID 19 virus. But, five days before the scheduled election, the same judge clarified the order to state that ballots postmarked on or before the extended day for receipt of ballots could be counted even though that violated Wisconsin election law which required that they be postmarked no later than Election Day, and no party in the case had asked for the Court to grant the additional relief. The Supreme Court reversed that provision of the district court’s order, writing as follows:
I want to add one more thing, for the sake of election integrity.
One thing you don't want to experience in an election is day-of-election votes counted, tabulated and posted for all to see and then weeks or months of mail-in-ballots are counted and those ballots are found to be so overwhelmingly in favor of the losing candidate that they grind away at the total until they snatch victory away from the candidate who had a lead on election night.
That leaves a bad taste in the mouth of many people.
I'd rather see them count the mail-in-ballots first then let one side know how many votes are needed to win.
We still have a lot to learn from the 2020 election.
Out of all I wrote, you focus on an addendum note in my answers to your presumptive, side-bar questions which included the phrase: 'all done legally' and then zero-in on 'all'. Okay Vic, not everyone agrees ALL the actions were legal. My bad, I should have not used the word 'all' since life is never that clean; it gave you a hook to be correct on a technicality which you turned into an essay while excluding the balance of my comment.
In particular, you ignored:
Do you have facts that show the changes that took place as a result of actions to deal with COVID-19 (which you of course cynically label an excuse) ultimately made a difference in the election results?
Well of course we want the results to be determined on election night (or at worst a few days later). Are you suggesting that the mail-in-ballots in 2020 were not legitimate and changed the results of the election? If not, then you are just stating the obvious. I would think everyone would agree that if we could get instantaneous, quality results that would be best. Reality, however, rarely gives us the opportunity for ideal conditions. Sometimes shit happens (like COVID-19) and we must deal with it. Too bad so many use that to spin tales of election disintegrity without evidence of same. I wonder (actually I do not) if they would be doing this if Trump had won.
Was it illegal to do so?
No.
Sorry.
The burden of proof is on you since you're making the claim. I have seen no proof of any voter fraud in a volume that would flip the election. The courts didn't buy it what, 61 times? Trump's "A" team of lawyers couldn't find any and after more recounts than I can recall, they found none.
The election was not stolen, trump lost. I mean who knew that trump's lies, attacks, conspiracy theories and radical behavior would cost him the election? The fact that trump lost a FAIR election, (by his own people's mouths), by millions of votes only proves how terrible he was.
Amazing how many people do not comprehend burden of proof. So many times we have:
This is basic logic. A claim of certainty (X is true) bears the burden of proof (at least evidence). The challenge of such a claim (as Bob made) is not claiming that X is not true — it is challenging the claim made by Amy.
Further, the inability to evidence or prove that X is not true does not mean that X is true.
So much confused thinking ...
True... and right now, Scott Baio is ranting on twitter about hacked voting machines... no proof at all.. I expect he will block me within hours.
How can so many Rs be so misguided?
[DELETED]
[Deleted]
I don't know. I do know that if those changes weren't put into effect we wouldn't be having this conversation. Blame the democrats.
Are you suggesting that the mail-in-ballots in 2020 were not legitimate and changed the results of the election?
I'm suggesting that it clearly doesn't look good. Not in 2020 or in other instances when we saw the same phenomenon happen.
Sometimes shit happens (like COVID-19) and we must deal with it.
An excuse which was used by democrats led by Marc Elias of Perkins Coie LLP. So is covid the reason that democrats are trying to federalize those changes under HR 1?
Too bad so many use that to spin tales of election disintegrity without evidence of same.
Too bad you have chosen to defend the unscrupulous.
You see, you even have MrFrost questioning fraud. Talk about the misguided and the man who leads them down the lane!
What claim would that be?
This is where we differ. I see no reason to get all bothered about election rule changes during a year where we had to deal with a pandemic unless this caused the wrong candidate to win. Until we have even decent evidence that has occurred this discussion seems overblown.
In principle, I would like everyone to always follow the law and be constitutionally sound. But I do not expect to ever see a party play by the letter of the rules; they will of course push the envelope. When they push too far then sure go after them. At this point I see much crying of fire with very little smoke.
You just cannot help spinning can you? My comment 4sare not in defense of any group (certainly not a political party).
You have tried your best to misrepresent my point but my comment remains @8 where I first made it:
Partisans waste so much time and effort and get all emotional doing every little thing they can to disparage the other party. It is a colossal waste of energy and time that could be put to advancing our nation. But that is too much to ask.
You are the one who brought fraud into this thread. I showed this clearly @8.2.29 yet you dishonestly ignore it and misrepresent my comments. Just keep piling on the dishonesty Vic.
Exactly!
I see no reason to get all bothered about election rule changes during a year where we had to deal with a pandemic unless this caused the wrong candidate to win.
And I say when one side changes all the rules in the key states, the other side has ever right to question the election.
It is a colossal waste of energy and time that could be put to advancing our nation.
You seem very willing to expend such energy.
That happens all the time.
They did Vic. When do you stop questioning the integrity of this election? At what point in time do you stop questioning without sufficient evidence that would show any of this affected the results of the election?
That does not make any sense. You are just quipping. You responded to this from me:
I have no love for any party; there is no 'other party' for me. And as for your party, the R party, my comments are that we need to have at least two strong parties and right now the R party is sick. It is sick because the Trump parasite has infected it. It needs to remove the parasite and heal. I do not seed articles badmouthing the R party nor engage in attacks; my comments are critical of the current state of the party given Trump. I want the R party to get back to its roots, find a good person to lead it and serve as a responsible and necessary counterbalance in our system. I see no way for that to happen while it remains inflicted with Trump.
I like that question. That's the beauty of changing the rules just before the election. It places the 2020 election right alongside the 1960 election and other events that merit questioning. You see, without the wonderful rule changes, there wouldn't be any reasonable curiosity.
And as for your party, the R party, my comments are that we need to have at least two strong parties and right now the R party is sick. It is sick because the Trump parasite has infected it. It needs to remove the parasite and heal. I do not seed articles badmouthing the R party nor engage in attacks; my comments are critical of the current state of the party given Trump. I want the R party to get back to its roots, find a good person to lead it and serve as a responsible and necessary counterbalance in our system. I see no way for that to happen while it remains inflicted with Trump.
That's very interesting that you would be concerned with that. The nation is in the hands of an extreme, radical regime and you are worried about Donald Trump being a power player in the Republican Party. With that, I guess I'll retire to bedlam.
So why did you not answer it?
You present this as if this is the only thing on my mind. More blatant misrepresentation.
I definitely did. I'm sorry that you refuse to acknowledge it. It's the same answer you have been given over and over. You don't like the 2020 election being questioned, then you shouldn't have tampered with it in the first place. It's really that simple.
You present this as if this is the only thing on my mind.
Clearly, Donald Trump has priority with you.
Where do you answer the question you quoted: "When do you stop questioning the integrity of this election?"
Now you accuse me of tampering? Your comments are going off the deep end.
Bad TiG. I didn't know you had such power...
I didn't use the word you in the personal sense and you know it.
I thought you were better than that
This is exactly what you said...
That was your claim.
Um, there was no voter fraud, as I stated before. Not sure what you are talking about.
You replied to me regarding questioning the election. Either you included me among those who you claim tampered or your comment is incoherent. Which is it?
Donald Trump experiences elections as a pathology but also uses them as a tactic. In both general elections he ran in, in his life, he said that the only way he could lose is if the election was stolen from him. He said it in 2020 but he also said it in 2016.
That is not normally how politicians respond to their elections. I guess he thinks that if he says it ahead of time it wont sound so outrageous after the election when he complains it was stolen from him.
There is only one thing that matters about votes - that they are made by people who are registered to vote in that state, and that they were cast, or postmarked, prior to the time the counting of the votes is started. Other changes made by state legislatures or boards or other jurisdictions dont effect legitimate votes, period. It doesnt matter if drop boxes were added beyond what was initially agreed to, or if extra hours of early voting were added, or if the deadline to make a mail in vote was extended, etc. None of that matters. The only thing that matters is if the votes were cast by registered voters.
Show your proof that votes were cast by non registered voters or shut up. I say that not only to you but everyone who is complaining about the election. Six months later.
Donald Trump wanted to have Congress overthrow the election. He wanted the electoral count rejected and sent back to the states, where he was trying to machinate a takeover of state electoral procedures by allies of his that would send "alternate slates" of delegates to DC and force the election to be decided by an arcane system that would favor him. In other words, on the basis of no evidence other than that provided by the fruit cakes Giuliani and Powell and the crackpot Lin Wood, Trump wanted to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters.
Yes, that is EXACTLY what he wanted to have happen.
Of course the nations courts shot him down. No court in its right mind is going to disenfranchise millions of voters on the say so of Q Anon nutjobs.
One would think this is so obvious that the right would sit down and shut up, but nooooooooooo.
He did think highly of himself, didn't he?
That is not normally how politicians respond to their elections.
What about Hillary Clinton?
Other changes made by state legislatures
According to the Constitution only state legislatures can make election laws. That's not who made the changes in 2020.
Show your proof that votes were cast by non registered voters or shut up.
I never made that claim John. Everybody seems to want that to be my claim. I'm claiming changes were made to benefit democrats. Once those changes were made and the election was held everything was legal. As I have said over and over, the time to prevent a problem with an election is before the election is held. One needs to distinguish between what is morally wrong and what is legal. In the 2020 election, it could be argued that both were one.
Donald Trump wanted to have Congress overthrow the election. He wanted the electoral count rejected and sent back to the states, where he was trying to machinate a takeover of state electoral procedures by allies of his that would send "alternate slates" of delegates to DC and force the election to be decided by an arcane system that would favor him. In other words, on the basis of no evidence other than that provided by the fruit cakes Giuliani and Powell and the crackpot Lin Wood, Trump wanted to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters.
Whatever he said or did means nothing to me. The other people you mentioned most likely caused Republicans to lose both GA Senate races. I'm really not interested. It in no way takes away from anyone's right to question the 2020 election, the 1960 election, Hillary Clinton's server or where the covid 19 virus originated. Those all happen to be valid subjects. In the case of the 2020 election it was the rule changes that makes it open to questioning. Now and indefinitely. Democrats under Marc Elias changed the rules and those are the consequences.
One would think this is so obvious that the right would sit down and shut up, but nooooooooooo.
The left baked the cake, now they get to choke on it.
You're the one who appears to be choking on the results of a fair and valid election.
Let it go!
That may or may not be something to be litigated in the future. It does not effect the votes legitimately cast in the 2020 election. People who were registered to vote voted. That is all that matters to determine the winner, not whether or not some procedure was changed.
It would be pure insanity to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters because some election official changed a procedure, and America's courts are simply not going to do that. So instead Trump tried to order his vice president to undermine tens of millions of votes and that all led to the insurrection.
Intially after he lost I was willing to let Trump exit the national stage in peace and was not in favor of prosecuting him and sending him to jail for his many crimes. Now, after the last six months, I hope they send him to prison for a long time.
Yes, Tess, that's the talking point. We have no proof on anything about that. What we do know is that changes were made, in most cases without state legislatures to favor democrats. It's like when they legalized voting for convicted felons. It might be legal/valid, but it certainly wasn't fair.
You haven't changed, John. You better start worrying about how you are going to stop Ron DeSantis. He doesn't talk like Trump, but he is going to continue Trump's policies and the left is really going to hate that!
I dont think Ron De Santis has much chance of winning a national election.
I beg to disagree. He has set an example with the state of Florida and IMO he has a better chance than Donald Trump or any democrat.
As with the Preakness, you heard it here first!
There was no change of rules that amounted to any fraud on the Democrat side.
I heard that those who voted by mail were lazy, except if you're a 'conservative' or a republikan.
I dont see anything new in this article. It is the same old baloney. The lady follows Trump's decades long playbook. If you have done something wrong accuse your enemies of doing it first and worse.
I saw in the article that she claims Mueller said there was no evidence of "collusion" by the Trump campaign in 2016. That is not what the Mueller report said.
-
In 2016 , before the election, Trump said he would only accept the election results if he won. Had he lost in '16 he would have thrown the same tantrum then that he in did in 2020.
What is so difficult for people to understand about this?
If Trump runs in 2024 and loses he will say the election was stolen from him. That is as sure as him eating cheeseburgers for lunch.
The political right wing media in this country is nauseating.
You mean like Hillary Clinton did?
Got it.
How can you compare Clinton's frustrated concession to Trump followed by her later whining and declaration of Trump as illegitimate to the two-month, 61 lawsuit, lie-based con-job of Trump. What Trump did was the absolute worst historical response to losing a presidential election. It is the height of irresponsibility for a PotUS to engage in a factless campaign of lies in an attempt to steal an election that he lost.
How can you possibly compare that to Clinton's concession and later whining?
And to this day, Trump continues with his lies. He won't shut up. Using his phraseology: there has never been a president who has been such a poor loser. Trump has set a bar so low that I doubt any future PotUS will ever slither below it and no past PotUS ever came close to this low bar.
Rs should be disgusted with Trump.
Guess I missed the insurrection 2016 event.
... and the two-month lying con-job, 61 lawsuits and countless rallies by a liar working up supporters into a frenzy.
True.. And ask any trump supporter that thinks the election was, "stolen", to provide proof and they'll look at you like you have a booger on your cheek. They have no proof because, (surprise), the election was not stolen.
Yet the denial and deflection and projection continues . . . . . . see 8.2.58