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

871–880 of 889 posts

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

#871

Post by themitigating »

pyronik19 wrote: post #870
themitigating wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-mules/fact-che... The movie is another attempt to use circumstantial evidence without actually having a proper investigation. Then all the Republicans angry that Trump didn't win will go to forums, like this one, and say "watch 2000 mules" without providing any details because when Trump lost they didn't get what they wanted and can't deal with it.

"Factchecks" are nothing more than left wing propaganda opinion articles, they offer little to nothing of value. The "circumstantial" evidence is damning and they STILL refuse to investigate it.

Circumstantial evidence is never daming by it's own definition, especially in a court of law and many claims were investigated by the Barr. They also performed recounts in multiple locations even those controlled by Republicans.

You have no proof and I consider it treason to continue to promote lies about election fraud as it attacks democracy.

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

#872

Post by ok_dad »

adamrezich wrote: post #848
ok_dad wrote: post #841

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get it, but why spend resources "punishing" a feeble attempt which was immediately turned away? Maybe take their names down and audit the voter logs to make sure those folks haven't actually voted two times, but honestly it's just a waste of time and money to "punish" these folks.

to deter it from happening again in the future? game theory wise if attempting voter fraud goes unpunished, then the optimal thing to do in order to win is to attempt as much voter fraud as possible, as you have nothing to lose by trying. is this not about as self-evident as it could possibly be?

I think it’s a few dumb individuals who won’t get anywhere with their schemes, not some organized group trying to overturn an election.

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

#873

Post by philwelch »

xadhominemx wrote: post #836
philwelch wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you’re one of the states that doesn’t have in person voting, like Washington.

It is of course possible to vote at a physical polling location in Washington state

Is it? Having lived in Washington since the age of 4 and voted in virtually every election since I turned 18, I’m not aware of this.

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

#874

Post by tptacek »

tptacek wrote: post #865
kasey_junk wrote: post #862

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I replaced 1 this spring and it was literally just a web form. https://www.ssa.gov/ssnumber/

I replaced one in 2019 and had to make an appointment at the Social Security Office days ahead of a time and wait 2 hours there in person. The web form existed, but I wasn't eligible.

Also? It's an unlaminated paper card (you're not allowed to laminate it), and you theoretically get a limited number of them before they'll stop replacing them. My feeling about social security cards is that you should keep them in a safe deposit box and never on your person. The idea of needing one to vote is ludicrous to me.

It's America's worst card.

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

#875

Post by skissane »

mulmen wrote: post #858
skissane wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 sup…

No, my point is two convictions for voter suppression are insufficient to tell us whether it is a serious problem in practice, just as two convictions for voter fraud (which you can also find) would be insufficient to tell us whether voter fraud is a serious problem in practice - yet you pointed to those two convictions as support for your view that voter suppression is a serious contemporary problem.

Furthermore, you clearly believe that one side of US politics is much more guilty of contemporary voter suppression than the other, yet the convictions you point to are 50-50 (1 Republican case, 1 Democratic) - and the Democratic case involved more defendants (4 vs 1), and a greater punishment (actual jail time vs no jail time). I think your belief may well have some degree of truth to it, but the evidence you point to in supporting it is rather poor.

I think you read something that you interpret as supporting your beliefs, and don’t stop to think about how well it actually does. And when someone else points out the poor quality of your argument, your response is to attack them rather than consider whether they actually have a valid point.

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

#876

Post by skissane »

mulmen wrote: post #859
skissane wrote: post #782

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Your entire premise is flawed. There are more than two explanations for changes in votes by demographic.

But which is the larger contributor? We of course will probably never be able to answer that with certainty, but which is more likely to be the larger factor?

> Your biggest mistake is assuming that race itself is a predictor of political affiliation.

But obviously there do exist correlations between race/ethnicity and political affiliation, both in the US and most other countries too. Almost never are they absolute (a group might split politically 60-40 or even 90-10 but almost never 100-0), and the correlations often change over time-the majority of group X might vote for one party now, but some decades ago they voted for the other instead, and maybe in a few more decades they might even swing back. Are you actually disputing this rather obvious fact?

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

#877

Post by thatfrenchguy »

david_p wrote: post #708
otikik wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It almost guarantees that the electorate won’t be consulted often, though. That’s something you can afford to do every 4 years, but not every 6 months.

I just checked, France has 70000 polling stations and 280000 volunteers for each election, so it’s rather 0.4% of the population. We just had presidential elections and are electing representatives for parlement next week, we had local elections in 2020, nation-wide elections are not that rare.

Yeah the volunteers you’re talking about here are the all-day (7am to 9-10pm!) volunteers, not the counting people who come for just the evening the day of the vote. They outnumber volunteers by a factor of 3-5 where I am.

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

#878

Post by dragonwriter »

cobbzilla wrote: post #860
dragonwriter wrote: post #818

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 i…

> IANAL, but it’s not this simple.

IANAL, either, but I passed Con Law in law school, and it is.

> Everywhere in the US, the law around Terry stops[1] applies.

Yes, that’s what we are talking about.

> In such a stop, mere “reasonable suspicion” is required for police to require you to identify yourself.

Wrong. In such a stop, it is not federally unconstitutional for such a demand to be made, but it still requires that there is actual state law authorizing it. In 26 states there is, and in the rest there is not.

> You’re not required to present ID

Yes, that’s what I said, that even in the 26 states with stop-and-identify laws, permitted by the Supreme Court, you are still not, as the upthread commenter, required to present ID.

You’ve literally repeated what I said (except for confusing the federal limits of state authority with what police can do without supporting state law), after saying “It’s not that simple”.

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

#879

Post by [deleted] »

dragonwriter wrote: post #878
cobbzilla wrote: post #860

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

> IANAL, but it’s not this simple. IANAL, either, but I passed Con Law in law school, and it is. > Everywhere in the US, the law around Terry stops[1] applies. Yes, that’s what we are talking about. > In such a stop, mere “reasonable suspicion” is required for police to require you to identify yourself. Wrong. In such a stop, it is not federally unconstitutional for such a demand to be made, but it still requires tha…

[deleted]

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

#880

Post by cobbzilla »

dragonwriter wrote: post #878
cobbzilla wrote: post #860

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

> IANAL, but it’s not this simple. IANAL, either, but I passed Con Law in law school, and it is. > Everywhere in the US, the law around Terry stops[1] applies. Yes, that’s what we are talking about. > In such a stop, mere “reasonable suspicion” is required for police to require you to identify yourself. Wrong. In such a stop, it is not federally unconstitutional for such a demand to be made, but it still requires tha…

> I passed Con Law in law school, and it is.

Maybe after I take that course I’ll agree with you. I don’t think that’s a great option for most.

Post reply on HN