Did you know RNC “senior counsel for election integrity” Christina Bobb just got indicted in Arizona for the 2020 fake electors plot?

[Anonymous]

Question says it all.

Yes

No

[DryGermanGuy]

Yeah, I saw it on reported on various channels. Not a minute too soon. Also worth mentioning is that Mr. Trump is listed as "unindicted co-conspirator number one".

https://www.youtube.com/embed/rr2zHpLqfUA

[DrPepper12]

She's a traitorous criminal. She belongs ngs at the RNC

[Anonymous]

Yes anther example of lawfair intended to interfere in Arizona's elections.

There is nothing illegal nor particularly unusual about what was done, and democrats know this because democrat themselves did the same in prior elections.

Their very 'creative' reinterpretation of law as to criminalize their political enemies is just that.

[Asker]

It's lawfare, like warfare, and yes, what was done is both unusual and illegal. You don't get an indictment unless the prosecutors can point to a crime that was committed.

Conspiracy to commit crimes like:
1) FRAUDULENT SCHEMES AND ARTIFICES, in violation of A. R. S. §13-2310{A);
2) FRAUDULENT SCHEMES AND PRACTICES, in violation of A. R. S. §13-2311{A);
3) FORGERY, in violation of A. R. S. § 13-2002{A){1) & {A){3);
4) CHANGING VOTE OF ELECTOR BY CORRUPT MEANS OR INDUCEMENT, in violation of A. R. S. § 16-1006{A){3);
5) TAMPERING WITH A PUBLIC RECORD, in violation A. R. S. § 13-2407{A){3);
6) PRESENTMENT OF FALSE INSTRUMENT FOR FILING, in violation of A. R. S. § 39-161.

and dozens more.

www.documentcloud.org/.../24604435-arizona-indictments

[Opinion Owner]

Under the existing legal code there are a large number of crimes I could point to as being allegedly committed anyone with a similarly 'creative' interpenetration.

Without giving said jury any other such information I can even indite a ham sandwich, particularly if I venue shop to get a friendly grand jury. In many such places I need only name their party.

[Asker]

Sure. Who hasn't forged documents and sent them to the government?

[Opinion Owner]

Apparently democrats in every disputed election if you want to call preparing an alternative slate of an electors a "forged document".

[Asker]

There's a difference between producing them while a legal court dispute is going on and after you know you lost them. 2020 saw more alternate slates than all previous presidential elections combined, and none of them were real.

[Opinion Owner]

That simply isn't true, as you should know that dispute went on long afterwords, and producing such a slate is perfectly legal at ANY time whatsoever.

[Asker]

Bullshit.

[Opinion Owner]

You can lie to yourself and others all you want but I know better. In fact I can put together a slate of electors right now and it is legal, not fortuity, fraud or tampering with public records to which I have no access.

Your charges are BS and frankly the people making them know it

[Asker]

You mean printing out a list of names, or posting an official-looking document to the National Archives as if it was real? I can print a $100 note, it becomes a problem when I try to buy something with it.

[Opinion Owner]

Yes this is expected behavior during disputed elections.

[Asker]

Elections are only disputed until the any recounts are completed and courts have ruled on any lawsuits. Then they're decided. The fake electors knew they'd lost before submitting their forged documents.

[Opinion Owner]

Again simply not true, an election is disputed until all parties agree it was conducted legitimately.
Also not true on the court dispute route as investigations and appeals were still in process.

There was nothing fair or legitimate about how the 2020 elections we will never know exactly who cast most of the ballots because of the unverifiable black box thou which they were cast, collected and delivered or not delivered.

We have no idea how many of those votes were redheaded, how many of them were manufactured, how many of them only selectively delivered. We don't really even know how many of them were cast by citizens of the state.

The whole election scheme in 2020 in many states was a joke of fraud.

[Asker]

Bullshit. If the Green Party candidate claimed to be the winner in 2004, would that still be a disputed election? Once all legal avenues have been exhausted, it's over. Then Trump chose illegal.

[Opinion Owner]

Yes it would be a disputed election that's what disputed means, someone disputes it. The only thing that matters is how many people dispute it. Which in this case consist of a very large % of the country and a large majorly of the Republican party.

What that means is we really don't believe in the electoral system, which as I mentioned is fair as it is in many key states hilariously easy to commit fraud. The fraud has to basically admit to it.

Here is a recent case of a Wisconsin official who went to jail because she demonstrated how absurd the voting rules there are:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=676tRB-DB0E

Thus proving Wisconsin elections are a joke.

[Asker]

"we really don't believe in the electoral system"
Of course you don't. Based on lies.

[Opinion Owner]

If by Lies you mean systems of voting that lend themselves to easy fraud with little to no way to trace much less prevent it, yes.

The Idea of the outcome being the voice of the people is indeed unknowable.

[Asker]

And yes, for over 200 years, the country has had no problem with it. If Trump had lost in 2016, he'd have been telling the same lies as now.

[Opinion Owner]

possibly Hillary Clinton certainly did www.nationalreview.com/.../

Sadly given the unverifiability of both election systems in many key states they may both be correct. There is no way to know who actually cast the votes and for whom under the methods and laws carried out in key states.

In said states elections are conducted using highly questionable and unsecureable method that many if not most real democracies around the world would not engage in. Particularly democracies which are unstable with low social trust.

To hold a legitimate election the means of election must be simple and transparent enough that nearly all of the population can verify it was done correctly. Key states abandoned that system when they allowed more votes to be cast by mail and other unobservable methods than the margin of victory.

[Asker]

Clinton conceded in early November, Trump still hasn't. There are many safeguards in elections and Republicans love mail-in ballots where they mean Republicans win.

[Opinion Owner]

Some republicans like mail in ballots in some states where it is done in a way they feel is verifiable. That is not the case for the states in question nor is the mail trustworthy for every republican.

As mentioned in many states the level of effort that goes into verifying a State Citizen cast only one vote is pathetic past the point of being believable the people who made such laws had any intention of holding an honest election.

[Asker]

In other words: mail in ballots are great when they help Republicans win.

Guess which states don't have a paper trail in their elections?

Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, Oklahoma (but only for people with accessibility problems), Tennessee, and Texas. Only one of them stands out as being likely Democrat run.

ballotpedia.org/Voting_methods_and_equipment_by_state

[Opinion Owner]

Mississippi, Kansas, Louisiana, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas All require IDs to get a ballot in person.
as does Oklahoma which does have a paper ballot for an audit trail, as do most of the rest which are a mix, indicating the issue is local

[Opinion Owner]

I should like to note having a paper trail is simply to hold the machines accountable. Machines which can be audited and examined. Not as good as having a paper trail as only one of those states seems to entirely lack. But better than issues on the front end with the ballots that do get sent in form who knows where.

This as illustrated in the earlier example an unmanageable problem as the state has no means at all to verify the votes they received were the votes cast by their citizens. Such a paper trail is thus nearly useless as is verifying the operations of the machines.

Nor does the fact that republicans generally control the State Government mean they were successfully in imposing any voter secure measures nor particularity incline to do so.

I do not pretend that lack of voter integrity is simply a democrat problem, democrats simply push the hardest to undermine the same. In truth both parties in power have a interest in insecure elections as they have regardless put them in power.

[Asker]

There are multiple safeguards to ensure that mail-in voting works, and simply saying democrats are worse without any evidence is silly. So is the idea that elections are only fair when your side wins.

[Opinion Owner]

What Safeguards? Politicians counting the vote have no idea what happened in the mail and given they had just 'won' an election by said means even less inclination to care if it were underhanded.

A simple verifiable system is voting in person where representatives of both parties are present to verify citizenship with photo ID, give ballot, and counting ballot. In this way both parties know who cast the votes and that they were counted.

Taking that voting out of the observation of either as you do with BOTH parties in running it thou the mail. Then you suddenly have no idea what happened to the ballots. Your "safeguards" are limited to what that piece of paper can contain which given the power of the people inclined to cheat really could be anything.

[Asker]

"What Safeguards?"
For a start, mail-in ballots are delivered in the mail. If they were being intercepted en masse, there would be thousands of complaints from people not receiving their ballots.

If people were printing duplicate ballots, or turning up to vote as someone else, or attempting to vote by mail and in person, there would be thousands of cases of people apparently trying to vote twice.

There are external envelopes, to ensure the voter is entitled to vote, and internal envelopes to ensure the ballot is secret. The external envelope includes personally identifiable information that is at the very least labour intensive to duplicate.

There are entire states that only use mail in ballots, and neither side is complaining about it, because it's fair. Again, Republicans are only complaining in cases where they lose, even though they were content with it when they last won.

[Opinion Owner]

1: Why would you intercept mail before it reaches the voter rather than on the way back?

You might as well request your own fake or known inactive voter ballot. If you need something like a signature from the voter then you intercept the ballot on its way back. But if you have access to the voting system you would not necessarily need that at all since you have the original.

At which point is is far easier to simply use fake or inactive voters. Nobody would know because nobody sees who fills out the ballot.

2: There are cases of people voting twice, the nice thing about having axess the system is you know what voters will never try to vote and can manufacture voters too. Most states provide said information publicly so anyone can figure it out. Often enough you have to sue said states to get rid of their 'inactive voters' which of course presumes nobody ever got around to voting in their name.

3: That system is a joke, depending on the state that information is either publicly available or would be available to a dirty politician in control of the voting systems. It really isn't that expensive to buy a machine to print it. if you got a scheme within the post office or even receiving precinct it is trivial to read and duplicate said information. They could simply throw away the "secrete ballot".

Again depending on the rules of the state you don't even have to do that, in California for example its likely easy enough to simply selectively harvest the votes.

4: There are states that have more robust implementations and parties that have put their faith in the same. It may be fair in that both sides can cheat equally but that does not mean that it is honest.

[Asker]

LMAO.

" 1: Why would you intercept mail before it reaches the voter rather than on the way back?"
Because then you can put in what you want, not what the real voter wanted (and it's still in the USPS and a federal crime to steal in either direction). Are you now claiming that the record turnout in 2020 would have been even higher if some mysterious entity didn't steal all of Trump's mail-in votes?

[Opinion Owner]

I gave you a clear explication and a list of numbers to let you break down and address each point.
In regard to issue 1 the subject of hijacking mail. If your committing voter fraud (a state crime) your not going to be concerned about it also being a federal crime.

As explained however the reason you would tend to prefer the return route rather than outgoing route is precisely that the voter has already given you all the "verifying" information.

The subject of high voter turnout is likely the result of Attack vector Number 2 and 3 which is someone simply looking at the publicly available information to know who isn't likely to vote such as having moved or died and requesting/printing a ballot for them. You would then see a significant increase in voter turn out. Interestingly there was a very large number of people moving and dying in 2020.

None of that matters if the voting rules in said state are soo ridiculous as to allow you to register fake people as was the case in Wisconsin among other states. Then you can always have as many extra votes as you require.

[Asker]

What you never supply is any evidence that any of the things you say might theoretically happen have really happened.

So, you think tens of thousands of ballots going missing from the postal service wouldn't be noticed. There would be no evidence of tampering of sealed envelopes. Fraudsters using public information wouldn't accidentally get it wrong even 1% of the time (leading to hundreds of accusations of people apparently requesting two ballots). The election officials wouldn't notice that dead people are voting (they have access to the same public information). Election officials wouldn't notice that thousands of ballots were being delivered to just a few addresses.

The woman in Wisconsin (a high level Republican election official) was caught, charged, and convicted. That's the system working.

[OtterMan68]

GOP is all about voter fraud

[Asker]

Don't forget voter suppression.

[In_Trance]

Does anyone actually give a fuck about this?

[Asker]

Why wouldn't you?

[In_Trance]

Because it doesn't matter