Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)

[Silvanus]

Yes, because that's what I thought you were talking about. People in the same position of those providing affidavits, but who are willing to contradict and denounce the affidavits as lies, not unrelated republicans, not officials who have skin in the game.

Not just any random republican. Why would you think I meant any random republican who wasn't even there?

Because you seemed to be making a point about how it's not just a "vocal minority". Apologies if I misunderstood.

Matt was not at the State Farm Arena, so he cannot comment on the video in question, as he was not an eyewitness.

Right. Then I cannot provide this, because as far as I know, Republican poll-watchers had left. There's nobody who can contradict it (except for non-aligned observers, who you've already discounted).

Please tell me what you don't understand about "Officials sent ballot counters home at 10:30 p.m. and said they'd return at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday" so that I can make it clear to you.

They were sent home. Not delayed. Sent home. At 10:30. The video, as well as the comments from the election director on the zoom call, corroborates this.
The "Fact-checker" site, the one posted before, says that they were never sent home.
A clear contradiction. Both can't be true.

Look at when it was written (3rd Nov, late evening) and when it was last updated (early morning 4th Nov). It's really, really obvious what happened here. We know for a fact that that counting centre aimed to be finished on the night of the third, because they put out a statement to that effect. Matt Mashburn was watching that announcement live, and attests that he and other poll-watchers thought the timeframe was unrealistic, because they knew how many ballots were left to be counted.

Then they miss the deadline, and keep counting. Which everybody is aware of, including the Republicans. They can stay if they want, but it's not required.

Early next morning, 11Alive update that old article. They don't know it was delayed as long as it was: you can tell that because there's no mention of the delay announcement, and there's still mention that they hope to be done just 2 hours later than announced. They update it in accordance with what they understood the schedule to be, because the poll-counters announced they should be done and dusted. It's an article with outdated information.

11Alive then write new articles later, attesting to the larger delay. Anybody following along knows the new article obviously supercedes the other one.

Nobody, except you, is talking about a delay of "two hours". I don't understand why this "delay" is so important to you, or why you think it even matters at all.
To me, the only thing that matters is the contradiction between "sent home" and "not sent home".

There's only a "contradiction" between an article written on the morning of 4th November, with outdated information based on the poll-counters' original statement, and the facts of the matter. They weren't sent home. Everybody, including the outlet you linked to, has made that clear. They just didn't update the old article with that information: they wrote a new one.

Please explain why you think this "delay" even matters.

You're the one drawing evidence of conspiracy from the delay in question!

If I'm at the Arena, and I want to count ballots in secret, I just need everybody IN THE ROOM to leave. So I'll lie to them and get them to go away, and then they will.
Everybody not in the room (like Matt) will have no idea that I just told them to leave, so they'll think we're still counting. PLUS, I can also make an effort to make it appear as though the count is still going on, and that nobody was told to leave, by simply lying to people who weren't in the room. So when my supervisor walks in and sees no media, or observers, I can just lie and say "oh yeah, I guess they all just got bored and left for absolutely no reason!"

Yes, that's one purely hypothetical chain of events.

Well then they must be disagreeing with the SCOTUS, because they ruled that "shall means must"
More likely, the case was A) from another jurisdiction and you're confusing it, or B) thrown out because of some other legal technicality.

"Shall" is not the word under discussion. "Allowed" is the word under discussion. They were allowed. It doesn't say they "shall/must be present".

 

[Houseman]

They weren't sent home. Everybody, including the outlet you linked to, has made that clear.

Okay, I think I understand now. It seems like you're trying to say that the media got a statement saying "we plan to send everybody home at 10:30", and then just assumed that the plan would be followed, and then wrote "everybody was sent home at 10:30" in their articles, in past tense, in advance, without even bothering to verify it. Okay, that's horrible journalism, but plausible. That doesn't work for this tweet, however:


Which was written at 11:34pm EST (Twitter uses client-side time localization, so the timezone you see may not be the local timezone of the author of the tweet)

And you're basing your theory off of the "original publish date" vs the "last updated date". Who's to say it wasn't updated several times in between the "original" and "last"? Who's to say it wasn't updated 11pm the night of the 3rd, after the "10:30" announcement happened, and then once again in the morning? Who's to say the "10:30pm" part was part of the original version of this article? Your hypothesis relies on too many assumptions to be true.

"Shall" is not the word under discussion. "Allowed" is the word under discussion. They were allowed. It doesn't say they "shall/must be present".

Makes sense.

 

[Houseman]

More subpoenas:

Michigan legislature committees subpoena election evidence from Detroit and nearby suburb

“Election integrity should not be a partisan issue, this information needs to be preserved,” State Senator Ruth Johnson said

justthenews.com

 

[Silvanus]

Okay, I think I understand now. It seems like you're trying to say that the media got a statement saying "we plan to send everybody home at 10:30", and then just assumed that the plan would be followed, and then wrote "everybody was sent home at 10:30" in their articles, in past tense, in advance, without even bothering to verify it. Okay, that's horrible journalism, but plausible.

I doubt 11Alive wrote it in advance; I would imagine that was part of their update in the morning of 4th Nov. I mean, it wasn't common knowledge that the count had been so severely delayed, and all they'll have had to go on was the official statement from the night before.

That doesn't work for this tweet, however:


Which was written at 11:34pm EST (Twitter uses client-side time localization, so the timezone you see may not be the local timezone of the author of the tweet)

Yeah, this is based on Regina Fuller's statement to ABC News. It looks like people started packing up at Fulton and heading home. Fuller appears not to have been keeping up with the latest information.

Something to remember: this was a last-minute change of plan for a lot of the workers there. There have been descriptions of people packing up and getting ready to head home before they got the call to continue. This was late in the night; some people, like Fuller or the writers for 11Alive, will have just wrapped up their work for the night and gone to bed, because everything appeared to be wrapped up.

So, stuff got written based on outdated assumptions and outdated information. Blame rests with them for failing to follow through with due diligence, though I can sympathise somewhat since it was very late at night on an exceptionally busy day. But what matters is that observers from both parties have attested they were well aware of the count carrying on; and other Republicans (see here) have attested they've reviewed video footage of the entire chain of custody for the ballots in question.

And you're basing your theory off of the "original publish date" vs the "last updated date". Who's to say it wasn't updated several times in between the "original" and "last"? Who's to say it wasn't updated 11pm the night of the 3rd, after the "10:30" announcement happened, and then once again in the morning? Who's to say the "10:30pm" part was part of the original version of this article? Your hypothesis relies on too many assumptions to be true.

See above: I see it as more likely it was part of the update, given the past tense. But it was still based on outdated information. It's pretty common procedure for reporters to use past statements to support suppositions of what has happened since the statement, but before the report goes out.

 

[Houseman]

Yeah, this is based on Regina Fuller's statement to ABC News. It looks like people started packing up at Fulton and heading home. Fuller appears not to have been keeping up with the latest information.

So not only are the 11Alive journalists horrible at their jobs, Regina Fuller is too, and so is ABC for printing unverified statements, and so are all of the other outlets that reported that everything shut down at 10:30, because not a single one of them could do their jobs and verify information.

Okay, that's plausible.

The last unexplained thing is this tweet:


He, the morning of Nov 4th, says that people were sent home, and that the chairman wasn't happy that counting had stopped. Was he just speculating based on earlier statements too? Did he speak to the chairman, or was he just guessing his feelings?

When are we doing to see the "independent fact-checkers" flagging all these sites for reporting false information about this event? Never, I'd imagine, which should say something about the so-called fact-checkers.

 

[Houseman]

Statement from Senate President Fann on subpoenas issued to Maricopa County Board of Supervisors

Tuesday, December 15, 2020FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEStatement from Senate President Fann on subpoenas issued to Maricopa County Board of Supervisors"Today, under my direction as Senate President, Judiciary Committee Chairman Eddie Farnsworth issued subpoenas to the Maricopa County Board of...

www.azsenaterepublicans.com

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors were served these subpoenas on Tuesday afternoon, and they call for the information to be delivered to the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman on or before 5 p.m. on December 18, 2020.

 

[Trunkage]

A Alex Jonesque takedown of Mitch. First 2 mins

 

[Agema]

Your hypothesis relies on too many assumptions to be true.

That's an amazing argument to come from you considering the last 100+ pages of this thread.

 

[Silvanus]

So not only are the 11Alive journalists horrible at their jobs, Regina Fuller is too, and so is ABC for printing unverified statements, and so are all of the other outlets that reported that everything shut down at 10:30, because not a single one of them could do their jobs and verify information.

Okay, that's plausible.

I mean, I really don't think it's 11Alive being "horrible at their jobs". They wrote new articles with the updated information. They just didn't update an outdated one, which... is pretty standard. Anyone actually following it would see the new one first. The only reason people are digging up outdated articles is because they're searching for "gotcha" lines. The information was verified, and new articles were written.

Regina Fuller appears to have failed to do due diligence, yeah. It's been reported that she also didn't answer questions from the press about it the next day, probably for that very reason.

The last unexplained thing is this tweet:


He, the morning of Nov 4th, says that people were sent home, and that the chairman wasn't happy that counting had stopped. Was he just speculating based on earlier statements too? Did he speak to the chairman, or was he just guessing his feelings?

Well, no need to guess how he felt about it: according to Gabriel Sterling, the Secretary of State heard they were finishing work that night, and made clear he wasn't happy about it "on the way out the door". This then prompted the Georgia Elections Director to call Rick Barron, who then called Ralph Jones (at State Farm, who can be seen on the video getting this very call and looking miserable that they have to keep going).

When are we doing to see the "independent fact-checkers" flagging all these sites for reporting false information about this event? Never, I'd imagine, which should say something about the so-called fact-checkers.

The sites provided correct information in the new articles. I imagine they had better and more important things to do than trawl through outdated past articles to update them, when the information had already been made clear in new articles. Nobody would get the wrong impression unless they were intentionally trawling old articles.

 

[Houseman]

The sites provided correct information in the new articles. I imagine they had better and more important things to do than trawl through outdated past articles to update them, when the information had already been made clear in new articles. Nobody would get the wrong impression unless they were intentionally trawling old articles.

Can you link me an example of one of those new articles from, say, 11alive, that contains the updated information? Apologizes if you have already done so, I might have missed it.


---
And now the news:


Everyone's favorite star witness, and Dominion whistle-blower Mellisa Carone refutes the Dominion testimony they gave at a hearing yesterday:

U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Election Fraud Hearing

 

[Hades]

Everyone's favorite star witness, and Dominion whistle-blower Mellisa Carone refutes the Dominion testimony they gave at a hearing yesterday:

Maybe people shouldn't hinge things on the testimony of a drunk with a very shaky legal history.

 

[Houseman]

Maybe people shouldn't hinge things on the testimony of a drunk with a very shaky legal history.

Remember the good ol' days where people argued on the basis of the arguments themselves instead of trying to discredit people through character assassination?

Yeah, me neither.

 

[Agema]

Remember the good ol' days where people argued on the basis of the arguments themselves instead of trying to discredit people through character assassination?

No I don't remember those days, and nor does anyone else, because they never existed.

There is a principle that an argument - in the sense of a set of propositions that can be put together to form a logical conclusion - may have internal validity irrespective of the character of the person who voices it. But that does not apply when we're talking about someone slurring some unsubstantiated accusations of various people rigging voting machines and doctoring voter rolls. For that sort of thing, character always has and should continue to be relevant.

 

[Silvanus]

Remember the good ol' days where people argued on the basis of the arguments themselves instead of trying to discredit people through character assassination?

Yeah, me neither.

Right, but when the argument in question is solely testimony, then character is relevant. It's not as if we can independently verify what she says; we're being asked to trust her on it.

You've been happy to dismiss the testimony of non-affiliated election officials and workers on the basis of a presumption that they're lying to cover their tracks. You've been happy to judge the speaker as unworthy of trust.

 

[Houseman]

It's not as if we can independently verify what she says

And it's a travesty that you don't have every tabulation room fitted with 24/7 audio and video recording so that you can.
It's a travesty that your only line of defense against the sort of fraud that is being alleged is people speaking up after the fact to partisan legislators and then hope they do something about it.

You've been happy to dismiss the testimony of non-affiliated election officials and workers on the basis of a presumption that they're lying to cover their tracks.

Yeah, because they have skin in the game. If fraud is discovered, it's their necks on the line. It's kind how you don't trust the phrase "We've investigated ourselves and found ourselves innocent".

Also we have a lot more affidavits from witnesses than we do from election officials.

 

[Hades]

And it's a travesty that you don't have every tabulation room fitted with 24/7 audio and video recording so that you can.
It's a travesty that your only line of defense against the sort of fraud that is being alleged is people speaking up after the fact to partisan legislators and then hope they do something about it.

I mean we also have those legislators shooting those claims down. And not just left leaning partisan ones either but also Trump cronies. If the courts, the supreme courts, cyber security and even Trump loyalist Barr all don't think the claims of fraud hold up then why should we?

 

[Houseman]

I mean we also have those legislators shooting those claims down. And not just left leaning partisan ones either but also Trump cronies. If the courts, the supreme courts, cyber security and even Trump loyalist Barr all don't think the claims of fraud hold up then why should we?

None of the courts have ever gotten so far as to actually investigate the evidence. The courts are playing hot-potato saying "you don't have standing", "this is a matter for a different court", "we aren't authorized to grant the relief you seek", and so on.

I don't know what you're referring to when you say "cyber security", and Barr has long (since June, earliest I can find) been viewed as a traitor, not a loyalist.



---
And now the news:
AMISTAD PROJECT News Conference on Dark Money Influence in 2020 Election

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

35 days to go. How exciting.

 

[Hades]

I don't know what you're referring to when you say "cyber security", and Barr has long (since June, earliest I can find) been viewed as a traitor, not a loyalist.

That just shows the zealous amount of loyalty the cult and Trump constantly demand. Barr repeatedly abusing his office to help Trump and his cronies stops being good enough the moment he becomes unable to do so for once.

And I meant the Cyber security chief who Trump fired for daring to say the elections were fair.

 

[Houseman]

Barr repeatedly abusing his office to help Trump and his cronies stops being good enough the moment he becomes unable to do so for once.

I just want to point out the double standard when it comes to things people don't like.
Whenever Barr appears to aid Trump, he's "abusing his office" instead of just doing his job.
Whenever the judges dismiss Trump's lawsuits, they're "doing their job" instead of abusing their offices.

It's like, when the system operates in our favor, it works perfectly, but when it leads to an outcome we don't like, it's a perversion of justice and the system is broken.

And I meant the Cyber security chief who Trump fired for daring to say the elections were fair.

Did the "cyber security" team, or whatever, conduct an investigation?