robertv3

The phrase I used was "v***r f***d". You say "e******n f***d".

I do believe there is e******n f***d (or more properly I should say "e******n trickery" because I'm not sure which parts of it meet the definition of "fraud") in all p**********l e******ns since (and including) 2000 if not before, but that's not the same as saying there is "v***r f***d".

(In the current nation, there's a huge difference between the question of whether there's "e******n f***d" and the question of whether there's "v***r f***d", and what these questions mean to the 2020 e******n.)

The author (Palast) and book I mentioned earlier discusses all this (up to some time in 2020 when he finished the book) (and who does the fraud (or trickery), and several exact examples of it), and also how to overcome it (though that is difficult).

Most of your last paragraph appears to illustrate the precautions to keep the e******n secure at the described location. I don't know what your point was with that.

JoyV

Please explain how v***r f***d is not e******n f***d.

My last paragraph goes to demonstrate there was massive fraud. And if so in AZ, then where else did this take place. In fact I barely included the tip of the iceberg.

There were 515,085 registered v**ers in Maricopa County on Nov 7th, 2020.
 Rep 203,858
 Dem 144,222
 Lbt 4,840

• Biden had 10,457 more recorded v**es than Trump in AZ
• 14 of the 15 counties in AZ went overwhelmingly for Trump.

In person recorded v**es cast: 167,680
Absentee b****ts recorded as received: 248,743 (Boxes of returned absentee b****ts were never folded)
Absentee b****ts total sent: 174,305
Number of unrequested absentee b****ts: 74,243
V**es cast by v**ers unregistered until Dec 6: 11,326
V**es cast by v**ers registered after deadline: 3,981
V**es cast by never registered v**ers: 11,559
V**es cast by people not residing in the county. 27,807

• Files were missing from the E******n Management System (EMS) Server.
• B****t images 284,412 on the EMS were corrupt or missing.
• Logs appeared to be intentionally rolled over, and all the data in the database related to the 2020 General
E******n had been fully cleared.
• On the b****t side, batches were not always clearly delineated, duplicated b****ts were missing the required
serial numbers, originals were duplicated more than once, and the Auditors were never provided Chain-of-Custody documentation for the b****ts for the time-period prior to the b****t’s movement into the Auditors’
care.

And here is the Arizona Senate Hearing on the Cyber Ninjas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG_uvVthV68

Arizona had one slate of e*****rs certified by the state legislature and another unconstitutionally certified (both state constitution and federal constitution) by the AZ Sercretary of State. It was the unconstitutionally certified e*****rs whose v**es were read into the count on J** 6.

robertv3

V***r f***d is a subset of all the possible e******n f***ds.

Another subset is v**er suppression.

V***r f***d doesn't occur much. V**er suppression is the big problem.

robertv3

Most (or possibly all) of what's coming from the Trump side is unproven assertions. My latest reference for this is yesterday's Select Committee hearing's live sworn testimony about what happened.

By now you will have heard about the 60 court cases he lost about the e******n. I found one of them documented online (regarding Arizona -- I think -- it's been many months and I don't have it handy now -- if it wasn't Arizona then it would have been Nevada) -- it was a long judicially-signed court document and I posted a link to it at least once to OPP, back when I found it) and from it I was able to get an idea of the detailed look that the court did about the case. Also online, casually, I've looked at a few assertions by Trump supporters about supposed fraud, and I've gotten an idea, from looking at them, of the general quality that they seem to be (not much good). After a while one learns to not keep wasting time on them.

It's really easy to assert things, but much harder to prove them. It's even easier to make false assertions than it is to make true assertions, because for every true fact there are a multitude of false ones, and to find a true one to assert, one has to either know something or be lucky.

False assertions get passed around a lot. One gets posted, and then reposted many times. It takes time, effort, and favorable circumstances, and sometimes requires background knowledge or education, to be able to _prove_ or _disprove_ a thing (or, sometimes, to understand its significance or lack thereof).

Moreover, once accomplished, then, a careful, responsible proof takes a lot more patience to read and understand, than does a frivolously-made assertion!

By way of example, regarding false assertions being passed around a lot: A year or two ago, on social media, I was able to debunk two posts that a friend made. It went like this:

In one post, there was a video almost a half hour long, with captions. The key sentence in it was the opposite in the caption from what it was in the sound. The whole point of it turned out to be false thereby. In the other post, there was a pointer to a newspaper article which was reporting on what a government paper had said. I looked up the government paper and found that it did not say what was reported. And then:

I reported my two careful debunkings to the poster, including telling her how I did them so that she could easily (and more quickly) trace my steps and see for herself what went wrong in what she was posting about.

But she didn't care and just kept posting more stuff (which appears to be of about the same poor quality as the ones I debunked).

That illustrates what people's typical information environment is. It's a lot more careless asserting than it is careful proving. And, as I said, once a false thing is posted, it gets passed around a lot, so its effect gets multiplied.

In the case of the 2020 p**********l e******n, Trump makes a lot of careless assertions, and every time one is shown to be false, he simply shifts to another one. There's no end to the variety of false assertions he can (and does) make up. This situation has been described rather well, and authoritatively, in the sworn testimony (much of which has been in person, televised live in the hearings) of the J*** 6 Select Committee hearings.

By the way, since I'm referring to those hearings, I want to also refer to why there aren't Trump supporters on the committee. It's because the House minority (Republican) leader decided (after his first two nominees or suggested people were rejected) to boycott the hearings and not nominate anyone else to be on the committee. (Trump is now lamenting that that boycotting decision was made by that Republican leader.). My reference about this situation is: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/22/us/politics/j***6-committee-republicans.html Personally I'm glad it turned out that way because now I and many others can finally hear a connected true relevant narrative supported by sworn witnesses, uninterrupted by what I would nicely call "something else".

However, I think it would be even more interesting if Mr. "equal time" Trump would take the witness stand _himself_ and give sworn testimony live, like several of these other officials have been doing (even, in some cases, while they're being stalked, harrassed, and threatened with death). Trump talks enough, one might think he has something important to say. But I gather that Trump giving sworn testimony in these hearings is the last thing his close supporters would want to happen. It's so unthinkable that one very rarely hears the idea even mentioned.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

The "Trump lost 60 cases" is a lie. A case dismissed is not a case tried and lost.

JoyV

Then if you admit that v***r f***d is a subset of e******n f***d, my use of the words 'e******n f***d' also encompass v***r f***d. So it still applies.

robertv3

Acknowledged (except for the word "lie") (I was sincere.) So, if your terminology is correct, then I need to use some other word(s) instead of "lost". Like this:

Trump and his closely supporting team presented approximately 60 cases to courts and "did not win" approximately 60 of them. In nearly all the cases they "presented", they "did not win".

robertv3

Oh, maybe. I did not go back and study all the statements.

Let me put it this way: I read the aforementioned book. I believe what it says. Basically, most of the e******n trickery (sometimes called "fraud") is by Republican officials suppressing valid v**ers; but there were so many valid v**ers this time that they overcame the v**er suppression, and won for Biden and against Trump.

Don't waste your effort trying to convince me that there was significant "v***r f***d" (fraud committed by v**ers). I'm sufficiently unconvinced and jaded about that, such that even if you were to give me really good evidence at this point I might not even look at it. I'm spending my time looking at the evidence presented by the J*** 6 Select Committee now instead.

I can tell you (and any reader) what I believe (as I did above). I understand you disagree.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

They were not heard.

JoyV

How much would it need to be before you would accept it is significant? When you have approximately 300,000 irregular b****ts out oof about 500,000 b****ts, and 175,000 of them are found to be ineligible or otherwise fraudulant; is that enough to be significant? Biden's "win" was by 10,000 in the entire State of AZ, but 300,000 b****ts were irregular in Maricopa County AZ alone.

Yes there has been some small amount of fraud by both Democrats and Republicans in past e******ns. But nothing like what t***spired in the 2020 P**********l e******n.

JoyV

In almost all cases, no evidentiary hearings were allowed. So no evidence could be presented.

robertv3

There are various assumptions in what you say. "300,000 irregular b****ts". Maybe that didn't happen. That somebody asserts it, and thousands of other people who want to believe it echo it, doesn't make it any more than just somebody's initial careless assertion. When people seriously check out the assertions from the Trump campaign, they evaporate away under scrutiny, and the Trump campaign just spews out more and more careless assertions. V***r f***d, that is, fraud committed by v**ers, is one of the topics examined in the aforementioned book. And one of the things I've noticed since then is that the Trump campaign tends not to name the individual v**ers by name, even though they claim there are thousands of them. Few if any have been prosecuted. A few false v**ers for Trump have been discovered, named, and convicted, but even fewer if any false v**ers who v**ed against Trump. True cases of fraud by v**ers are generally pretty easy to detect and examine closely (enough identity checking is built into the system, to find them out -- especially if there were a lot of them, some of them would be name-able people, detected by the way the e******n system works). But the Trump campaign makes airy assertions instead.

Similarly with "175,000" "ineligible or otherwise fraudulent", and "300,000". Name one person who cast a fraudulent v**e against Trump. That would be a start. Then we could go from there, maybe counting as we go, name by name, prosecution by prosecution. Here's one of the few named-v**er cases (but it's about "a _Republican_ v****g twice" (emphasis added by me)): https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/578012-texas-lt-gov-pays-out-first-v**er-fraud-bounty-to-progressive-pa-poll/ The v**er's name is Ralph Thurman, he has pleaded guilty "to v****g once as himself and a second time using his son’s name," and as a result he "has been banned from v****g for four years and was sentenced to three years of probation". "Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R)" has acknowledged this case by paying a bounty to the poll worker (Eric Frank) who discovered the fraudulent v**e. (Patrick had said he'd reward such finds, and now he's finally done it.)

If _that_ pattern holds, then maybe there are 40,387,281 fraudulent v**es for Trump, just like that one! Why not? Why are people not r**ting in the streets about these 40,387,281 fraudulent v**es for Trump? It's an outrage! (This last paragraph is satire.)