Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Former U.S. congressman, operative pleads guilty to election fraud charges

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

851–860 of 889 posts

Re: Former U.S. congressman, operative pleads guilty to election fraud charges

#851

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

javagram wrote: post #789
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn’t 2020 election was decided by 5 states and within them no more than a dozen counties?

No. It was decided by votes in the swing states. There wasn’t a swing in votes in “a dozen counties”. Votes trended toward the democratic candidate across demographically similar counties in all 5 states , and also trended the same way in states that were not critical to the election (for instance, in Texas: “Biden improved on Hillary Clinton's 2016 vote share by 3.24%, giving him the largest percentage in the state…

>Votes trended toward the democratic candidate across demographically similar counties in all 5 states ,

Categorically false.

Increased and majority number of Republican governors were elected. Republicans increased house seats. Trump out performed himself in all counties he won in 2016.

Democrats did not trend upwards.

Re: Former U.S. congressman, operative pleads guilty to election fraud charges

#852

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

krapp wrote: post #658
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t tell if this is a joke. Is that really a Democrat position? I feel like there must be a “quiet part” no one is saying out loud, because it makes no sense to me.

The "quiet part" is the US' long history of using ID requirements and other tactics to suppress and disenfranchise black and other minority voting[0,1], especially in the South, for example in North Carolina[1] and Texas[2], going all the way back to poll taxes[3]. If considered in a vacuum, completely absent the context of historical precedent, voter IDs seem like a simple common sense solution to the (practically n…

So, are you saying Europe’s voter ID laws exist to solve no problem? Because from where I sit, confidence in the electoral process seems to be a larger problem preventing than imaginary racism using real racism of low expectations.

Re: Former U.S. congressman, operative pleads guilty to election fraud charges

#853

Post by ronald_raygun »

mr_toad wrote: post #696
ronald_raygun wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, it doesn’t happen often enough to undermine the integrity of elections in the aggregate. Nah election fraud matters pretty materially. If it werent for this rigged election, we would have never gotten the 1964 civil rights bill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_13_scandal

Seems a stretch, the civil rights bill was JFK’s baby initially, and if JBJ hadn’t been president it’s pretty likely that another democratic president would have signed it, possibly Humphrey or McCarthy.

The book "master of the senate" makes a pretty compelling case against this. LBJ was a masterclass politician (honestly much better than JFK or Humphrey). It makes the point that basically every liberal president since the Civil War had tried to pass some sort of civil rights bill only for it to fail

Re: Former U.S. congressman, operative pleads guilty to election fraud charges

#854

Post by sneak »

bruce511 wrote: post #787
sneak wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to underestimate the intelligence of government officials. They would not put themselves in harm's way to stop thousands of armed people from doing what they wish to do. No shots need be fired by anyone. No Australian government agent is going to shoot fellow Australians, or be shot by fellow Australians, to enforce such an absurd prohibition on free and peaceful movement. Such unilateral authoritarian nonse…

>> No Australian government agent is going to shoot fellow Australians, or be shot by fellow Australians, to enforce such an absurd prohibition on free and peaceful movement. So then if Australians wanted to mass-disobey the stay-at-home order they could. As you say "No Australian government agent is going to shoot fellow Australians." So guns or no guns, if there was sufficient demand citizens who wanted to could si…

> It's widely reported that at least 40% of Americans believe the election was rigged. Whether they are correct or not is irrelevant. If 40% of a population _believe_ that democracy has been usurped, and are armed to the teeth, and yet clearly there has not been an (armed) uprising then I'm wondering what has to happen for said armed population to actually take action?

I don't think we're in the final inning yet. The only thing I know for sure is that I don't intend to be in North America for any day in January 2025, and that I will have full and complete backups of all my irreplaceable data on my person whilst traveling.

Re: Former U.S. congressman, operative pleads guilty to election fraud charges

#855

Post by hitovst »

epakai wrote: post #741
hitovst wrote: post #371

The democratic process, other than instances where it can be independently verifiable, like a show of hands in a room, or on a blockchain, is obsolete. It is a pretense for criminals to occupy and corrupt.

You invite coercion and retaliation when ballots aren't secret. Corruption can and does happen in either case, but we don't need to enable other bad behaviors. Transparency and sunshine laws are not a panacea.

I think you misunderstood my point. The democratic process is obsolete, aside from a show of hands. I'm not suggesting that we should therefore go with a show of hands.. I am suggesting that we should understand that voting is now a pretense meant to get us all to go along with whatever corruption.

Verifying an election process is one thing. If you're saying that if we can verify an election, and it can still be corrupted by criminals, so be it. All the more reason to end the farce. Sticking our head in the sand in pretending it's viable is not reasonable, and is perilous.

Re: Former U.S. congressman, operative pleads guilty to election fraud charges

#856

Post by tptacek »

willcipriano wrote: post #238
jcranmer wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For some reason progressives are against voter ID laws. I've said that before and will say it again: Most of EU requires ID to vote. I will support Republicans that want to do this. It is sad to bring EU in the picture to convince progressives but it is a magic word that somehow brings logic and reason. We shouldn't have to say "They do it in EU, so it must be good". There are several key differences between the US…

> Oh, and it'll cost you $50 (actual costs vary from state to state). And requiring voters to spend $50 to get an ID that lets them vote is totally not going to be in violation of the 24th Amendment (that bans poll taxes). That's why all states with voter id laws also have to offer a free "walking" id. > A final thing I'll bring up is this: to get my photo ID, I basically need to show up to the appropriate state offi…

The social security card is one of the hardest bits of ID to get (I've had the pleasure of replacing several, for myself and family members).

Re: Former U.S. congressman, operative pleads guilty to election fraud charges

#857

Post by 0xy »

phs318u wrote: post #728
0xy wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you claim elections are free and fair if the parties that win every election are subject to massive corruption including cash bribes in car parks? By the way, this is NOT an isolated incident or even an isolated area. I imagine if Biden or Trump was stacking state electors or state nominations with shills by using cash-stuffed manila envelopes you would've mentioned that in your original post -- why do you no…

You are not understanding what the "stuffed envelopes" was about. Federal elections are comprised of the people voting for candidates for specific electoral "seats" (geo regions equating to a seat in parliament). Some candidates are independents, others are party candidates. What you are referring to relates to the way parties select their own candidates for a given seat. Rules for such things are entirely party issu…

Lying about the security of elections is a bit beyond "not perfect", no?

It's one thing if their security was bad, but they actively covered it up and lied to the public. That shows malice.

Re: Former U.S. congressman, operative pleads guilty to election fraud charges

#858

Post by mulmen »

skissane wrote: post #770
mulmen wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The retirement home belongs to the county. I see no claim the van does. I don’t know the details either but I can’t find any evidence to support your claims. That is one example of literally dozens on that page alone. Many of them more concrete, with convictions.

> The retirement home belongs to the county. I see no claim the van does. So, yes, having read some more, it sounds like bus in question belonged to the activist group rather than the county. Still, what I don't quite understand here is – they got on the bus, did someone from the county force them to get off the bus? Ask them nicely? Threaten them with something if they didn't? Exactly what happened is rather unclear…

What are you even arguing here?

I have continually provided you with clear true facts that you either misinterpreted or ignored. With further evidence that you drew incorrect conclusions you then doubled down on your initial unfounded position.

I am left with no choice but to conclude that you have nothing constructive to provide to this conversation.

Is your point that the conviction doesn’t literally say “voter suppression”? If so you don’t understand how the US legal system works either.

Re: Former U.S. congressman, operative pleads guilty to election fraud charges

#859

Post by mulmen »

skissane wrote: post #782
mulmen wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean just logically the shifting voting habits of a given demographic don’t demonstrate the absence of voter suppression. Those shifting preferences could be for any number of reasons, including suppression itself. We don’t know. What we do know is that there is no evidence of meaningful voter fraud in the US. We also know there is an established history of voter suppression and to a lesser extent election fraud. W…

> Those shifting preferences could be for any number of reasons, including suppression itself. We don’t know. So, Trump improved his position between 2016 and 2020 in Laredo, Texas, by over 27 percentage points. Two possible explanations: Explanation (1): He achieved that outcome through the ordinary legitimate means that any politician uses to improve their vote share – adjusting his message to better appeal to that…

Your entire premise is flawed. There are more than two explanations for changes in votes by demographic. Your biggest mistake is assuming that race itself is a predictor of political affiliation.

In a world with established voter suppression efforts and a lack of evidence for voter fraud I see no reason to enact Voter ID. There’s no clear benefit and obvious downsides.

Re: Former U.S. congressman, operative pleads guilty to election fraud charges

#860

Post by cobbzilla »

dragonwriter wrote: post #818
t-3 wrote: post #816

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ID is required to register to vote in the first place though? It's literally a crime to not present ID when demanded by police. I'm all for removing the (negligible) fees associated, but it's not exactly a huge barrier to voting.

> It's literally a crime to not present ID when demanded by police. No, it isn't, anywhere in the US. A bare majority (26) states have stop-and-identify laws which allow stops to determine identity based on reasonable suspicion of crime, but many don't, and those that do don't (and cannot Constitutionally) require presenting identification.

IANAL, but it’s not this simple.

Everywhere in the US, the law around Terry stops[1] applies. In fact every time the police “pull you over” on the road is a Terry stop.

In such a stop, mere “reasonable suspicion” is required for police to require you to identify yourself. You’re not required to present ID but you must tell them your name (you could lie, but that’s another crime). You can be arrested for refusing to identify yourself.

In order to determine if your are experiencing a Terry stop, ask the officer “Am I free to go?”, if the answer is no, ask “Why am I being detained?” and the officer should state his cause. If it’s not valid you won’t be able to fight it until after the encounter, possibly after you’ve already been arrested.

Egregious example: The infamous NYC “stop and frisk” policy[2] was essentially a massive Terry-stop program.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_Cit...

Post reply on HN