Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum MOBILE
Byrne Robotics | The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 39 Next >>
Topic: President Biden, Being Presidential Post Reply | Post New Topic
Author
Message
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4545
Posted: 23 November 2020 at 7:17pm | IP Logged | 1 post reply

 John Wickett wrote:

As far as the poll worker is concerned, the identity has been redacted on documents presented to the media, but you could not redact it in a court document, so its unlikely the affidavit was faked, but that doesn't mean the person who wrote the affidavit actually witnessed the behavior she was testifying about.  She could be an actual poll worker who is lying about what she saw.
The affidavit is not a "court document," as it has not been used in any sort of legal proceeding, nor has an unredacted copy of it been turned over to police or the Nevada attorney general (to my knowledge).  I know on the day the story was made public, the attorney general said no formal complaint had been made nor any evidence provided to him, and I've heard nothing since to suggest that has changed.  An affidavit by itself is simply a signed document which swears to be telling the truth.  In my work I prepare affidavits all the time.  They are something that can be used in court, but in and of themselves they do not have any special status.

I think there is very good reason to disbelieve it.  The claim it makes, if true, would be an outrageous violation of law.  Why has the affiant not been identified?  Why has the affiant not come forward publicly, or even privately to law enforcement?  Why has no formal complaint been made with the attorney general, police, or anyone in a position to investigate?  So far, this affidavit has only been used by Republicans as a prop to generate media attention.  That is highly suspicious.  As I said, what we have amounts to an unsourced rumor, and unsourced rumors should be viewed with great skepticism.  

And ID would be required for someone to do what Geoffrey Langford's friends supposedly did... vote by mail in California and then drive over to Nevada and vote in person.  ID is required to vote in person in Nevada.



Edited by Jason Czeskleba on 23 November 2020 at 7:19pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Wickett
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 July 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 795
Posted: 23 November 2020 at 7:37pm | IP Logged | 2 post reply

No, ID is not required in Nevada.  I voted in person in Nevada and was not required to show ID.

See here:https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_ID_in_Nevada

A person who is registered to vote in two states could do so (illegally).

I am aware that an affidavit is not a court document, but typically it would be attached to a complaint as an evidentiary exhibit.  My point was that Trump's legal team would be unlikely to produce a fake affidavit, knowing that if they used it in court, the affiant would have to be made available for cross examination by the other side.  

If the events described in the affidavit did not occur, then it is more likely that an actual poll worker filled out the affidavit and lied when describing what she saw.  It would be up to the fact finder to decide whether she was credible.  

In this instance, the affidavit itself provided some means to test the credibility of the poll worker.  She stated that she immediately told her supervisor, and that the supervisor called the Department of Elections.  Whether those things occurred could be easily verified. 
  
Back to Top profile | search
 
Brad Wilders
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 15 December 2008
Posts: 173
Posted: 23 November 2020 at 8:13pm | IP Logged | 3 post reply

John, once again, based on legislation passed in Nevada, "ballot harvesting" was not illegal. For example, churches were setting up ballot collections.  https://www.fox5vegas.com/news/who-c an-drop-off-your-ballot-las-vegas-election-officials-weigh-i n/article_1d31bfde-0d0f-11eb-929d-7b4680f07605.html

"My point was that Trump's legal team would be unlikely to produce a fake affidavit, knowing that if they used it in court, the affiant would have to be made available for cross examination by the other side."

Ok--so logically, I assume you acknowledge the reverse is true.  Since, as Jason points out, Trump's legal team did NOT use the affidavit in court, they probably did know or had reason to believe it was fake.  Right?

Back to Top profile | search
 
John Wickett
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 July 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 795
Posted: 23 November 2020 at 8:39pm | IP Logged | 4 post reply

Brad, 

Yes, of course I acknowledge the reverse is true.  Right now Trump still has two fraud cases pending in Nevada.  If they don't use the affidavit, that would be a huge red flag that they have reason to doubt the veracity of the affidavit.

Regarding ballot harvesting, I don't think we're talking about the same thing, so let me clarify:

I'm not referring to situations where someone picks up completed ballots that were filled out by a legit voter and delivers those ballots to a polling place on the voter's behalf.  

I am referring to two scenarios:

First, the collection of blank ballots from people who do not intend to vote, and then completing and casting those ballots on their behalf.

Second, manipulating and/or changing votes while "helping" someone fill out their own ballot, ie the example I gave involving nursing homes.

Here is an article that explains how the latter has been done (in past elections):  https://nypost.com/2020/08/29/political-insider-explains-vot er-fraud-with-mail-in-ballots/
Back to Top profile | search
 
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 15726
Posted: 23 November 2020 at 8:52pm | IP Logged | 5 post reply

Yes, but one piece of 'evidence' of ballot harvesting you cited was a poll worker seeing someone dropping off multiple ballots.

In which case, such evidence is no different to seeing someone who picks up completed ballots that were filled out by a legit voter and delivers those ballots to a polling place on their behalf.

They would both look the same. So what is it evidence of?

Of course if they saw someone filling out stacks of ballots in the parking lot, this would be an egregious piece of fraud. And presumably very, very easy to prove as fraud. Which strangely hasn't happened yet.


Edited by Peter Martin on 23 November 2020 at 8:53pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4545
Posted: 23 November 2020 at 9:02pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply

 John Wickett wrote:
Yes, of course I acknowledge the reverse is true.  Right now Trump still has two fraud cases pending in Nevada.  If they don't use the affidavit, that would be a huge red flag that they have reason to doubt the veracity of the affidavit.
As best I can discern from recent media coverage here and here, the claims made in the affidavit are not part of any pending lawsuit.  In fact, I've found no mention of the affidavit by the Trump legal team or in media coverage since it was initially reported on two weeks ago.  That suggests the strong likelihood that it was either an outright fake, or the person who wrote it has since recanted.  I'd say the former is the more likely scenario.  When you put a rumor out there in the media, there will be a significant amount of people who believe it, even if it is subsequently debunked.  And that is the ultimate goal of Trump's team... to convince a significant portion of Americans that Biden won the election unfairly.  They know they cannot prevail in court, but fake evidence and resultant media coverage will sway public opinion. 

And that is the broader point here.  Even if there were some small-scale fraud and irregularities, we know they did not affect the result of the election (and probably both candidates benefited from them in different cases).  And such irregularities happen in every election.  What Trump is doing, intentionally undermining faith and confidence in the overall integrity of the electoral system, is deeply destructive and divisive.  There is no defense for his behavior.
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Wickett
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 July 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 795
Posted: 23 November 2020 at 9:14pm | IP Logged | 7 post reply

Peter, it would only be very easy to prove if you isolated those ballots from the others that were delivered that day, and you knew the names on the ballots.  

At the polling place where I voted, you could vote in person or drop off your mail-in ballot if it was completed.  For those who were dropping off ballots, someone stamped the ballots as "received" when they entered the building, and then the person was directed to deposit the ballots into a large bin with a slot at the top.  The bin was within view of poll workers, but nobody was doing any kind of checking, etc.  

Presumably, when the polls closed, the ballots were sent to wherever the state counts them, and were consolidated with other mail in ballots.

So on election day, if all the poll worker did was report to her supervisor (who allegedly said there was nothing they could do), then now it would be very difficult to prove, because you can't identify the questionable ballots.  


Edited by John Wickett on 23 November 2020 at 9:15pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 30832
Posted: 23 November 2020 at 9:17pm | IP Logged | 8 post reply

And now John Wickett is added...
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Wickett
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 July 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 795
Posted: 23 November 2020 at 9:48pm | IP Logged | 9 post reply

Jason, I tried to read both of your articles, but the RJ site blocked me because I don't have a subscription (there's a monthly limit on the number of articles you can read for free on that site, and apparently I've reached it).  So I can't comment on that one.  

I agree the Reno Gazette Journal article gives no indication the affidavit has been used.  Unfortunately, all of the articles I've seen are vague as to the contents of any of the court pleadings.  So its inconclusive.  

As you said, small-scale fraud and irregularities like this likely occur in every election, which is why it doesn't surprise me that in one instance a poll worker may have witnessed these events, and absent other information, I don't see a reason to doubt the affidavit.

I've never taken the position that Trump won the election.  He clearly did not.  But I support his right to contest the results in areas where there is some indication that irregularities occurred.  This election was exceptional both in the level of voter participation, and the use of mail in ballots.  I think its inarguable that 2020 presented greater opportunities for voter fraud than previous elections, so any serious suggestion of fraud is worth investigating.  

My interest in the investigations is not based on any hope that the results will be changed.  Its based on my belief that this election will signal a paradigm shift, in that going forward we will transition to mail-in as the primary voting method in most states (which could be a good thing).  As a citizen, I want to know that every possible measure has been implemented to secure the integrity of elections as we transition to a new model.

Finally, while I fully support Trump's right to contest the results, I agree with you that the rhetoric employed by Trump and his surrogates in the media has crossed a line and become destructive.  Fortunately, with the dismissal of Sidney Powell and the beginning of the transition, I think the rhetoric will quickly wind down.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4545
Posted: 23 November 2020 at 10:47pm | IP Logged | 10 post reply

By "small scale fraud" I meant things such as a person managing to vote twice, or a person sending in a ballot for a deceased spouse.  What was described in the affidavit (a coordinated effort to falsify dozens of ballots) goes beyond the scale I was talking about, and would be deeply concerning. 

I've already noted several extremely compelling reasons to doubt the affidavit... it hasn't been turned over to authorities for investigation or used in a lawsuit.  The person who supposedly wrote it has not come forward or been identified.  It has not been mentioned beyond its initial use to stir up media attention. 

Beyond that, the content of the affidavit is quite implausible.  It alleges that Biden ballot harvesters apparently collected blank ballots, and then drove right up to the polling place in a van.  They then opened the van doors and stepped outside, and proceeded to falsify ballots right there on the sidewalk in front of the polling place, in plain sight for everyone to see.  Does that seem very likely?  Would it not make more sense to fill out the ballots and then drive to the polling place?  Or at least sit inside the van while you did it?  Unless Moe, Larry, and Curly were in charge of this operation, is it plausible anyone would behave in that manner?

I hope you realize that Trump's contesting of the election has nothing to do with "securing the integrity of elections."  His retaliatory firing of Christopher Krebs made that abundantly clear.  His true goal is to get the results reversed by any means necessary.  In recent days, he has gone from filing lawsuits about alleged irregularities to browbeating and cajoling local officials to disregard the results.  And if he cannot get the results overturned, his secondary goal is to arouse doubt in a large amount of Americans to undermine the legitimacy of Biden's presidency before it even begins.  

I am quite puzzled by your expectation that the rhetoric will "wind down."  What in Trump's history has suggested he is capable of backing away from such rhetoric, much less acknowledging error or engaging in conciliation?  My prediction is that the false rhetoric from Trump about this election will continue unabated, probably for the rest of his life.  I look forward to seeing which of us is correct about this. 






Edited by Jason Czeskleba on 23 November 2020 at 10:55pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Wickett
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 July 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 795
Posted: 23 November 2020 at 11:11pm | IP Logged | 11 post reply

I think a coordinated effort that results in a few dozen votes being fraudulently cast is still pretty small scale in the context of how many people voted, but yes it is concerning, which is why I support Trump's (or any candidate's) right to question an election where there is credible evidence that something like this occurred.

As far as implausibility is concerned, we'll have to agree to disagree.  I've been around a few political campaigns, and some of the campaign workers (especially the paid workers) are not very sophisticated. If someone provided them with extra ballots, I could see this happening.

I'm sure you're right about Trump's motives.  No disagreement there.  But I think he sees the writing on the wall at this point, as evidenced by the fact that he is consenting to the transition.  
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Wickett
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 July 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 795
Posted: 24 November 2020 at 12:39am | IP Logged | 12 post reply

Jason- 

Trump just tweeted about GSA beginning the transition.  Based on what he said, you were right and I was wrong about the rhetoric.  It was a short wait to see which of us was correct.
Back to Top profile | search
 

<< Prev Page of 39 Next >>
  Post Reply | Post New Topic |

Forum Jump

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login

You are currently viewing the MOBILE version of the site.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FULL SITE