The Nation Bows
Listen to Karoline Leavitt
Listen to Karoline Leavitt as she trashes Kilmar Abrego-Garcia, who was deported to El Salvador last month. Abrego-Garcia's lawyers note a judge had ruled that since gangs were after him, he should not be sent back to El Salvador.
Kind of a protective order, that.
But who are we to believe -- Abrego-Garcia's lawyer or Donald Trump's press secretary?
Eyes aflame, Leavitt lists what she says are four facts:
Fact #1: Abrego-Garcia "was a member of the brutal and vicious MS-13 gang."
Fact #2: There was "credible evidence proving that this individual was involved in human trafficking."
Fact #3: "This individual was a member -- actually, a leader -- of the brutal MS-13 gang."
Fact #4: "Foreign terrorists do not have legal protection in the United States of America."
Never mind that the first and third facts are the same. Maybe that "fact" was so important it needed to be repeated, right? At any rate, after reading these "facts," most of you are probably wilting - withdrawing any good and kind feelings you might have had towards Abrego-Garcia. The MS-13 gang, you say? And did you say he was one of its leaders? Did you say he was involved in human trafficking? And a foreign terrorist, to boot? Ouch, we can't have this guy around. Lock him up and throw away the key.
Nobody wants such people to not see justice - not you, not me, not anyone.
But here's something else: Not a one of us should want an innocent person to be sent to one of the world's harshest prisons -- a place where prisoners die early deaths because of the conditions. If the press secretary paints Abrego-Garcia as the worst of humans, his wife paints him as one of the best. No criminal, but rather an "amazing person" and "an amazing father," someone who has always been there for their children, two of whom are on the autism spectrum and one who has epilepsy. The wife speaks of his role as a provider for their household and of the love they have shared for seven years. She paints Abrego-Garcia as a devoted family man who dealt with great challenges.
So, who shall we believe? The high-and-mighty press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, or the lowly housewife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura?
In a nation of justice, you know what they would do? They have what is called a court system. They bring both sides together and require them to provide evidence. You know, proof. In America -- under Trump -- we no longer do that. Justice is a relic of past. The new and improved America has no room for it.
Vice President JD Vance has said Abrego-Garcia was a "convicted" member of MS-13. Leavitt was asked how the administration knows that, and she responded: "There's a lot of evidence. ... I saw it."
Did you? Then share it.
Yes, there's "a lot of evidence." Just don't ask us what it is. Just don't ask us to produce it. Such a thing is only required of free nations. Dictatorships have no use for it. So, get out of our way.
(Index -- Trump essays)
You Ask
The Voice of a Child
Don't Talk Politics
You Ask
The Avenues of Truth
All in the Name of a Flag
In the name of a flag
They pour hatred on their fellow men
In the name of a flag
They become bitter toward their own kin
All in the name of a flag
In the name of a flag
They speak lies of each other at night
And in the name of that flag
Come day, they continue to fight
All through the day and all through the night
They tell you who's wrong and the tell you who's right
They wave the flag in each other's face
And their words are filled with profanity's lace
All in the name of a flag
In the name of a flag
Wonder, if you will
Can our nation survive?
Or do we bring on our own kill?
All in the name of a flag
Same As
Save the Phone System at the Social Security Administration
In another week, the Social Security Administration will no longer provide phone service if verifying your identity is necessary. The SSA explains that they are fighting fraud, and fraudsters are having a heyday stealing identities and siphoning off money from the intended recipients.
That's a worth endeavor, you might suggest. But I suggest we could have all the security necessary without throwing away the phone. Customer service once was something important, and the new government -- the Trump / Musk administration -- is failing to recognize that.
And a secure system is possible.
Voice recognition is being used to verify telephone identity by various entities. Why not the SSA use it, then? Let's go ahead and recognize voices can be captured and words changed by the modern AI systems. It's called voice spoofing. Criminals record someone's voice, then mimic it. It's even possible to synthesize someone's voice to create what is known as a "deepfake voice."
But that can be dealt with. Have the system set up so the voice recognition is required throughout the conversation. Your voice has to match throughout as questions and answers are bounced back and forth. Let's see if the voice spoofers and deepfakes can maneuver past that obstacle.
But there is more that should be done prevent fraudsters from hijacking your Social Security checks. They have to have a bank account to put it in, right? Too often, the requirements for setting up a bank account are lax. Banks compete for customers and the bank that makes setting up an account the easiest often wins the prize.
So, hold the banks accountable. Make them be the ones who must verify in person. As is, a person can open an account online through identity theft. Steal the Social Security card. Steal the driver's license. Steal the birthdate and the whatever information is required. As it is now, you can send the image of the driver's license and Social Security card online. Don't allow the banks to be so careless.
And, if they are, hit them with criminal penalties. This is not a slight thing they are allowing. Put their feet to the fire.
And, thirdly, make a better effort to chase down the criminals. Throw them in jail. In today's society, they live large, not often getting prosecuted. Police investigations are often shallow, with the police explaining they don't have enough time.
Make time. If you have to hire more officers, do it.
And speaking of hiring more people, if the SSA needs to hire more people to make this work, it should. Musk is hell bent on cutting. Cut, cut, cut is all he thinks; that's his mindset. But having a smooth-operating SSA is more important than having a lean one. Government is there to serve the people, so that is the way it should be designed. A government so lean that it doesn't fulfill its purpose is useless.
Hold the Phone
Yes, You Scare Me, Donald Trump
When Only Praises can be Sung
The free press, I guess you know what that is
Let me tell you what it isn't
It isn't when something's happening
And you're not allowed to be present
The Associated Press
Has been banned from the White House
Reuters and HuffPost also can't come
Unless they sneak in quite as a mouse
Once an independent group
Decided who was in the press pool
But when Trump took office
He snapped away that jewel
He now decides who comes and goes
And guards more carefully
And if you ask hard questions
He responds like a big bully
The free press isn't free
When you have to watch your tongue
No, the free press will disappear
If only praises can be sung
A Bad Marriage
Lady Liberty and Donald Trump
Married in November 2023
And there is nothing but sadness
In this marriage decree
The bride gave him her hand
And rings, they exchanged
But little did she know
How her husband was deranged
The honeymoon was short
With who he was becoming clear
Just another abusive husband
Yes, a raging one, I fear
He sent some children far away
And locked others in their rooms
Then he went golfing
On Sunday afternoons
He riled all the neighbors
Claiming they owed him money
And soon his wife became dissatisfied
And no longer called him honey
If You didn't Care Then
If you didn't care thenWhere Could this Lead?
Just one stateTrump is That Rogue Actor
Trump's people purposely tried to outstep the court by getting the planes over international waters before anyone could stop them. The border czar has said "I don't care what the judges think." Trump and his administration are blatantly thumbing their noses at America's judicial system. "I'm the border czar," Tom Homan says, which suggests he believes he can do what he wants and has higher authority than the courts.
Over and Over and Over
The New America
Two quotes from Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick today underscore what America has become. Lutnick, being interviewed by Fox News host Martha MacCallum, asked this question of Canada:
"What are you doing for us?"
At another point in the interview, Lutnick laid down the first rule Trumpism: "America first." "The starting point is that we care about America first," he said.
America has become a me-me-me nation. Me first. Give me, give me, give me.
Caring about our own is good. But somehow, we have wandered beyond that -- wandered into callousness. Giving no thought to others is not something we should practice.
Battle of Kursk
The Battle of Kursk in World War IIFollowing news of the new Ukraine deal, I and AI (the AI on my computer is Copilot) entered a discussion. Yes, it was just like having a discussion with one of you - kind of. Anyway, I thought you would be interested in what we had to say to each other, so here is the full thread:
Me:
Putin is dead set against Ukraine getting in NATO. Why? It seems to me that if he doesn't plan on attacking Ukraine, he shouldn't care. But if he does plan on attacking, then he doesn't want NATO to step in and help Ukraine?
Copilot:
Ukraine has historically been within Russia's sphere of influence due to several factors:
Historical Ties: Ukraine and Russia share deep historical, cultural, and linguistic connections. Many Ukrainians speak Russian, and the two countries have intertwined histories dating back to the Kievan Rus' period in the 9th century.
Economic Dependence: Ukraine has been economically dependent on Russia for energy supplies, particularly natural gas. Russia has used this dependency to exert political pressure on Ukraine.
Political Influence: Russia has sought to maintain political influence in Ukraine by supporting pro-Russian politicians and parties. This influence was evident during the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych, who pursued closer ties with Russia before being ousted in 2014.
Military Presence: Russia has maintained a military presence in Ukraine, most notably through the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and support for separatist movements in Eastern Ukraine.
Geopolitical Strategy: Russia views Ukraine as a buffer state against NATO and Western influence. By keeping Ukraine within its sphere of influence, Russia aims to prevent NATO's expansion and maintain its strategic security interests.
These factors contribute to Russia's ongoing efforts to assert control and influence over Ukraine. What are your thoughts on this complex relationship?
Copilot:
Under President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukraine has been striving to reduce Russian influence and strengthen its ties with the West. However, the ongoing conflict with Russia and the geopolitical dynamics still present challenges:
Military Conflict: The war with Russia continues to be a significant factor. Russia's military presence in Eastern Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea have kept Ukraine under constant threat.
Political Pressure: Russia continues to exert political pressure on Ukraine. The Trump administration's recent actions have further complicated the situation, with the US pushing Ukraine to make concessions to Russia.
Economic Strain: The conflict has strained Ukraine's economy, making it difficult for the country to fully break free from Russian influence. The need for security guarantees and economic support from the West remains critical.
Geopolitical Strategy: Russia's broader strategy to maintain influence over former Soviet states continues to impact Ukraine. Zelenskyy has warned that without reliable security guarantees, Russia could pose an even greater threat in the future.
Despite these challenges, Zelenskyy and his administration are determined to pursue a path of independence and closer integration with Western institutions. The situation remains complex and fluid, with ongoing negotiations and international dynamics playing a crucial role.
What are your thoughts on Ukraine's current situation?
Copilot:
It's a hopeful sign that Ukraine's interests are being more directly represented. What do you think this means for the future of the conflict?
Copilot:
European nations have pledged to increase their defense spending and provide more military aid to Ukraine. However, replacing the extensive military intelligence and support that the US has been providing will take time and coordination. The ceasefire could be a strategic move by Zelenskyy to buy time and ensure that European support is in place before any further escalation.
It’s a complex situation, and the next steps will be crucial for Ukraine’s future. What do you think will be the key factors in determining the success of this strategy?
Copilot:
Absolutely, public opinion can be a powerful force in shaping political decisions. The backlash against Trump's previous stance on Ukraine likely played a role in the shift towards a more supportive approach. Public pressure can indeed influence leaders to take actions that align with the broader sentiment of their constituents.
As for the ceasefire, it provides a crucial window for Ukraine to bolster its defenses and secure more substantial support from Europe. The ability to leverage public opinion and international support will be key in maintaining pressure on Russia and ensuring that Ukraine's interests are protected.
It's a delicate balancing act, but with the right strategy and continued public support, there's hope for a more stable and secure future for Ukraine.
Copilot:
You're very welcome, John! I'm always here to help. If you have any more questions or need further assistance, feel free to reach out. 😊
A Guest in the White House
If you could be a guest at the White House
And gain the president's ear
What kind of advice would you give him?
Besides what he wants to hear?
Abortion, immigration
What would you have to say?
Would you straighten him out on a lot of things?
Would you have some sway?
Would the nation be better
Just because you were a simple guest?
I'm asking because it would be neat
If someone could pass this test
In Ukraine
Killed and Never Coming Back
Small Man Must
War is not friend to anyone on the front lines
Not to any who take the shrapnel wounds
No, all the kind words given to war
Are from those tucked safely in back rooms
The large man makes the war
And leaves the small man to fight it
The large man calls for blood
And it's the small man who must provide it
Along with the Savings, Consider the Costs
If Trump got his way, the Department of Education would vanish. And how much money would that save us? No small sum -- $268 billion dollars.
For the slash-and-gash fans, that goes a reasonable distance in solving our deficit woes. Somebody has suggested we shouldn't be spending more than we make, right?
But as important as gaining control of our spending is, other things are all so important. Let me float you a host of questions.
What of the student loan programs? More than half of our undergraduates receive federal loans to help pay for their college educations.
What of the jobs that will be lost if student loans are axed? Each college in the nation has a crew that administers the loans. Perhaps at some of these colleges, the role of dibbing out the loans might be a side task - I don't know. I do know it is a full-time assignment at many colleges. That is a lot of people heading for the unemployment line.
Speaking of people hitting the unemployment line, about 4,400 are employed by the Department of Education itself?
How about the people teaching special education? How many are there? Will they, too, lose their jobs, or will state and local funding be found?
How about those in DEI functions at our schools scattered across the U.S. Trump clearly would like to do away with these positions, but how many of them are there that we should be setting them up for unemployment?
Will the quality of education suffer? Federal spending soared in the '50s through the '70s as we sought to stay ahead of the Soviet Union in education. Is that no longer important?
How much time should state and local entities have to prepare for assuming the functions and expenses now carried by the DOE?
Will some children be left behind? Some state and local governments might take on all the functions, but others will choose not to -- or be unable to financially.
Don't just slash and burn, Mr. President. Along with considering the savings, consider the costs.
The Art of the Deal
There is irony in this: We live in a nation where we are told we will lose our freedom if we lose our weapons; the government will first take our guns, then take our freedom.
Freedom fades where guns are no longer found.
And now Trump has defunded the supply of weapons to Ukraine. I guess the moral of the story is, never fight with a borrowed gun. The Ukrainians are rallying to find weapons from other sources but, as Trump has observed, they don't have a chance without his help. He refers to it as their not having the cards, the U.S. has them all.
Cards, guns -- whichever. Depends on whether you're playing poker or fighting a war.
Have you ever seen on of those old westerns where a gun-less man gets in a fight and someone throws him a gun so he can defend himself? That's Zelenskyy and Trump. Zelenskyy is in a fight and Trump is refusing to throw him a gun. Well, not completely refusing to toss him a gun. He notes Zelenskyy has a mine up in the hills and exchange for half of what's in it, he'll toss Zelenskyy a gun.
Whoever thought the art of a deal would ever come to a gunfight.
That's Cool by Me
I watched it, the entire 50-minute video of the Trump-Zelenskyy meeting. I found nothing offensive by Zelenskyy. He disagreed, that's all. He pointed out the numerous times Putin had broken signed agreements. He noted nobody stopped Putin from 2014-2022, which didn't square with Trump saying Putin never broke any agreements during his presidency. He wondered out loud what kind of diplomacy is possible with Putin since Putin never keeps his word. He said there needs to be security measures while Trump said he was not worried about security. Offering your viewpoints to the president of the United States should not be considered offensive. He stood up for his nation; that's cool by me.
Shakedown in the Oval Office
America First Needs a Makeover
Zelenskyy 101, just a quick introduction to Volodymyr Zelenskyy. This will not be a complete accounting of the man who serves as president of Ukraine. Indeed, the history of the Ukrainian war is not covered, nor is an account of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict.
Nevertheless, this provides a background on the man who assumed the presidency in 2019.
Zelenskyy was born into a Jewish family Jan. 25, 1978, giving us a man now 47 years old. His grandparents were killed in the Holocaust, their house being burned to the ground during a massacre.
He became an actor, starring in the 2008 feature film Love in the Big City, followed by leading rolls a number of other films. From 2015-2019, he played the lead character in Servant of the People, a television series he produced in which his character arose from being a high school history teacher to become president of Ukraine by ranting against government corruption.
In 2019, he stormed to the front of the presidential race, conducting an anything-but-normal campaign. He eschewed the main street media, instead using social media platforms, including YouTube and Instagram. He did not present a platform, and held stand-up comedy shows instead of having campaign rallies.
He won the election on the second round of voting, securing 73 percent of the vote, the largest landslide in Ukrainian history.
Shortly after the election, the Secret Service of Ukraine revealed that he operated offshore companies, some of which owned London property. I'm not sure why that would be a negative. The Wikipedia article left me scratching my head on that, but it does appear there were ethical concerns. Otherwise, the Secret Service would not have been investigating it.
Concerns were also raised as he was connected to billionaire businessmen. I do not know why that would be a concern. In the U.S., our politicians not only have connections to the rich, but the rich can become president, and the richest man in the world can take on a leading role in crafting the government.
If we judge Zelenskyy by some of the measures he championed upon assuming office, we probably should be inclined to believe he is an anti-corruption figure. He proposed changing the media laws to reduce the influence of oligarchs on TV and radio broadcasters, an effort that was attacked as being anti-free speech. The law provided criminal liability for disseminating disinformation, and, for that, it was suggested he was censoring the media. Zelenskyy's measures also included requiring oligarchs to register and prohibited them from contributing financially to politicians.
Zelenskyy was attacked as being corrupt for taking a trip without reporting it. He responded that he paid for it with his own money but was still criticized for not being transparent.
His approval rating dropped as low as 25 percent at one point, but that was still equal to or higher than his predecessors at that stage of their presidencies.
For the Soldiers' Sake
The blood of two world wars will stain our handsSave Ukraine
You are eloquent and wonderful
And I can see that you are kind
And yet for all your kindness
You are neglecting all mankind
You argue for peace
In the land of Ukraine
You suggest Zelensky
From warring should refrain
You argue that Zelensky
Should put down his weapons of war
You speak of him as a wicked man
Wicked to the core
I confess I will need to study
All the charges that you make
But I am somewhat certain
Many of them are fake
Just the same, I wonder
Why should we cease to aid?
Will we watch them lose their freedom
While we just sit in the shade?
Protecting others is a privilege
An honor we've always had
But now you argue that doing so
Is something terrible and bad
I say we should help them
And not abandon good
It's a matter of honor
To do as we should
Everyone Wants a Piece of Me
"Everyone wants a piece of me"
The old city said with a sigh
Then she sat down on a rock
And she began to cry
"There are the Jews
They are here with me
But there are two others
And that means there are three"
Calling You Home
I'll be There on Time
Save My Life Tonight
"Someone save my life tonight"Feb. 16, 2021: that's the date I published this blog. Because today his claims still receive credence, I publish this again. Election deniers: I took the time to write this; please take the time to read it.
A review of each claim of election fraud cited by Trump as he addressed the would-be-rioters at the Capitol:
Trump: "That election -- our election -- was over at 10 o'clock in the evening. We're leading Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, by hundreds of thousands of votes. And then, late in the evening or in the morning -- boom -- these explosions of bull****. And all of a sudden -- all of a sudden it started to happen."
Consider how it all went down. It was known by all that mail-in votes were going to go to Biden. States such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin do not allow counting the mail-in votes until Election Day. And usually you don't get to your mail-in votes until after the live, Election Day votes. So, that means a lot of the mail-ins would be counted after Election Day. This, then, is significant: Early on Election Day, President Trump announced he wanted the door slammed on vote-counting at the end of the day. That was ominous. He knew the mail-ins would go against him, and so he started calling for them to not be included. And he further began setting the stage to call it all fraud by proclaiming, at 2:25 a.m., "We don't want them to find any ballots at 4 o'clock in the morning and add them to the list." Sure enough, those mail-ins would arrive, be counted, and make for a spike for Biden. By saying he didn't want any found at 4 a.m., Trump was already spinning it that these were not simply expected mail-in Biden votes, but rather they were mysterious, suddenly appearing illegal votes. Knowing they would be Biden votes, he was attempting to cut them off at the pass. "We'll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court; We want all voting to stop," he said at that 2:25 juncture in the morning. Note this: In Pennsylvania, it was projected that once Biden votes arrived, there would be a 21-point shift from Trump to Biden -- a 21-point shift! That's how much of a "spike" was expected. Now, if you are the kind of candidate that cannot take a fair loss fairly, what do you do?
Trump: "In every single swing state, local officials, state officials -- almost all Democrats -- made illegal and unconstitutional changes to election procedures without the mandated approvals by state legislatures that these changes paved the way for fraud on a scale never seen before."
Felons received the right to vote in Florida. Ohio instituted a "use it or lose it" policy requiring vote not to have a two-year lapse in their voting, lest it would be their voter registration that would lapse. Those are among the changes made even prior to 2020. Then, when 2020 came along and with COVID-19, there were a host of other changes. At least 30 states and the District of Columbia, no less, altered their laws. The right to call COVID-19 concerns your reason to vote absentee was recognized. Prepaid postage was provided for mail-in ballots. Ballot boxes were allowed to be installed. But the question of all the law changes is, Were they legal? Did they go through the proper channels to become law? Trump says there were illegal changes in all the swing states. There were at least six swing states. He should tell us what law was illegally changed in each state. Rather than just making a generalized statement and leaving us to wonder what he is talking about, he should back up what he says by pointing out what the "illegal" changes were.
Trump: "In Pennsylvania, or whatever, you have a Republican legislature, you have a Democrat mayor, and you have a lot of Democrats all over the place. They go to the legislature. The legislature laughs at them, says we're not going to do that. They say, thank you very much, and they go and make the changes themselves. They do it anyway. And that's totally illegal. That's totally illegal. You can't do that."
This follows in line with a story carried by Mark Levin, on his Fox Network show, in which Levin says that after passing Act 77, the Democratic governor said the law did not go far enough, that he wanted to do away with the signature requirement, the postmark requirement, and date for receiving the ballot. So, he went to the legislature, asking them to add these things. The legislature said no, and so the governor took it straight to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the court granted what he wanted. Though there are stories about the court's ruling on Act 77, resulting from a lawsuit, I could not find the story about the governor petitioning the court to add things that were not in Act 77.
Having been asked to watch that episode on Fox's of Life, Liberty, and Levin, I did. Mark Levin spoke of the election in Pennsylvania, and of how the legislature changed the election rules fourteen months ago, and of how that was illegal because you cannot change the law without changing the state constitution.
I searched the PA constitution as best I could. I could find no such provision. I searched as long and hard and arduously as I could. I did not find it. What I believe Levin was saying, is that the constitution specifies the date of the election, and therefore all voting must be done on that date, thus rendering all mail-in voting illegal. "The general election shall be held biennially on the Tuesday next following the first Monday of November," says the constitution. This, surely, is what Levine was referring to. And, if you take that alone, he would be right. The constitution would prohibit mail-in voting because all voting would need to be done on the date the constitution specifies. But, in the next sentence, it says. "But the General Assembly may by law fix a different day." Did Levin miss that?
Perhaps I am missing something. It would seem Levin could not be this off-base. Surely, he would read the very next sentence. Maybe I should try to call him, and attempt to ask him what I missed. I probably won't make such an effort, but don't put it passed me.
Trump: "In Pennsylvania, the Democrat secretary of state and the Democrat state supreme court justices illegally abolished the signature verification requirements just 11 days prior to the election. So think of what they did. No longer is there signature verification. Oh, that’s OK. We want voter ID, by the way. But no longer is there a signature verification. Eleven days before the election they say, we don’t want it. You know why they don’t want to? Because they want to cheat. That’s the only reason. Who would even think of that? We don’t want to verify a signature?"
The state supreme court did rule against allowing election officials from tossing out ballots because they supposedly did not match. The court could find no such requirement in the laws of the state, so the ruling of the court was legal. We often fault courts for creating laws, for ruling based on what they think the law should say, instead of what it does say. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court refused to do that, and is now being chided for its insistence on following the law. Note this, also: Allowing the election vote-counters to decide which signatures matched and which ones didn't opens the door for subjective review and even partisan vote harvesting. The election officials are not trained in handwriting analysis. To give them authority to toss some ballots out because in their opinion they do not match is to give them the ability to toss out votes of a candidate whose vote they do not like. Some states have signature-verification machines, so they don't need to rely on human judgement. But, in states that don't have machines, we should be wary of letting election workers do the handwriting analysis.
Trump: "There were over 205,000 more ballots counted in Pennsylvania. Now, think of this: You had 205,000 more ballots than you had voters. That means you had to --Where did they come from? Do you know where they came from? Somebody’s imagination. Whatever they needed. So in Pennsylvania, you had 205,000 more votes than you had voters. And it's -- the number is actually much greater than that now. That was as of a week ago. And this is a mathematical impossibility unless you want to say it’s a total fraud."
Trump appears to be referring to what was put forth by State Representative Frank Ryan, a Republican, who issued a press release saying there were 6,962,607 ballots cast, yet only 6,760,230 voters. Election officials suggest Ryan's figures were based on incomplete data. In actuality, there -- yes -- were 6.9 million ballots cast, but it was from a larger pool, 9 million voters.
Trump: "So Pennsylvania was defrauded. Over 8,000 ballots in Pennsylvania were cast by people whose names and dates of birth match individuals who died in 2020 and prior. Think of that, dead people! Lots of dead people! Thousands!"
If you are looking for people who match names and use the birth dates of others who have the same name, you'll find plenty. There are 9 million voters. Attaching wrong birthdates is an obvious way to twist the facts. Truth is, though, there was only one case found of a person registering for a dead person -- and that was for a Republican who said he cast that fraudulent vote for Trump.
Trump: "And some dead people actually requested an application. That bothers me even more. Not only are they voting, they want an application to vote. One of them was 29 years ago died. It's incredible."
Can we find anything on this specific claim? Can't. As stated above, though, only one case of a person trying to register as a dead person was found.
Trump: "Over 14,000 ballots were cast by out-of-state voters. So these are voters that don't live in this state (Pennsylvania)."
It might be that Trump is saying that of the absentee votes, 14,000 of them came from out-of-state. It is normal, however, that voters away in the service, serving church missions, attending out-of-state colleges, etc., are allowed to vote even though they are out of state. Is he suggesting that the 14,000 voters were not college students, soldiers, etc., but, rather, people who were fully living in other states and yet still voting in Pennsylvania? If that is what he is charging, he should state it in those words and explain where he got the information. If he is using the count of servicemen, etc., who are living out of state, he should not use that count to infer there were that many people fully living in other states with no right to vote absentee in Pennsylvania. That is twisting the facts.
Trump: "More than 10,000 votes in Pennsylvania were illegally counted, even though they were received after Election Day. In other words, they were received after Election Day. Let's count them anyway."
About 10,000 votes were received after election day. That part is true. They were not illegal votes, however, as a three-day grace period is allowed for the ballots to arrive. So, if your ballot was postmarked by Nov. 3, but didn't arrive until Nov. 6, it should and would still be counted.
Trump: "And more than 60,000 ballots in Pennsylvania were reported received back. They got back before they were ever supposedly mailed out. In other words, you got the ballot back before you mailed it, which is also logically and logistically impossible, right? Think of that one. You got the ballot back. Let's send the ballots. Oh, they've already been sent. But we got the ballot back before they were sent. I don't think that's too good, right?"
Much of the scanning is done by hand, with the date it gets scanned entered as the date it was received. So, if ballot counters fell behind -- and they did -- in inputting the ballots received, it would appear ballots were received back before they were mailed in. In addition, you can go pick up your ballot and cast it right on the spot, meaning it could have the same date for being received as for being mailed out. Should Trump have acknowledged this in making his accusation? Of course. Honesty tells the whole story. You can twist the truth to make it appear to be something it's not. Trump took the fact the scanning was done after-the-fact and spun it into an accusation of fraud.
Trump: "Twenty-five thousand ballots in Pennsylvania were requested by nursing home residents, all in a single giant batch, not legal, indicating an enormous, illegal ballot harvesting operation. You're not allowed to do it. It's against the law."
This charge originated from Sen. Lindsey Graham. He made the charge on Fox News about a week after the election. Graham did not say where he got this information. He did say the charge was being looked into. There does not appear to be any follow-up by Graham, or accountability for what he said. It seems odd that Graham would make the charge, say it is being looked into, and then fail to follow up and report what he found. With the gravity of false information being as high as it is, Graham should be held accountable by pressing him to tell us whatever he found out. If he found nothing, he should come clean.
Trump: "The day before the election, the state of Pennsylvania reported the number of absentee ballots sent out. Yet this number was suddenly and drastically increased by 400,000 people. It was increased. Nobody knows where it came from, by 400,000 ballots, one day after the election. It remains totally unexplained. They said, 'Well, ah, we can't figure that.' Now, that's many, many times what it would take to overthrow the state. Just that one element. Four hundred thousand ballots appeared from nowhere right after the election."
Trump appears to be drawing off a charge made by Rudy Giuliani, in which Giuliani claimed there were only 1,823,143 ballots sent out and yet somehow 2,589,242 mail-in votes were cast. Giuliani mixed the number of people who registered in the June primary with the number of people who voted in the November election. While it was perhaps just an honest mistake made by Giuliani, it made it appear there was election fraud when there wasn't. The issue gets further confusing when Trump apparently got his figures backwards. Florida political scientist Michael McDonald collected data showing 3,087,527 mail ballots requested and 2,629,672 returned. That would be 400,000, which is the figure Trump uses, but it is 400,000 more people registered to vote than voted, not 400,000 more people voting than were registered.
Trump: "In Wisconsin, corrupt, Democrat-run cities deployed more than 500 illegal, unmanned, unsecured drop boxes, which collected a minimum of 91,000 unlawful votes. It was razor-thin, the loss. This one thing alone is much more than we would need. But there are many things."
Some Wisconsin cities, including Green Bay, did have drop boxes where ballots could be dropped off. The boxes were secured to the ground, locked with security seals, and monitored by security cameras as required by the Wisconsin Elections Commission. It would seem possible that such extensive, widespread use of drop boxes was an innovation in America as it was endeavored to make voting as convenient as possible, thus encouraging voting and participation. The Trump people did not like it, however. They argued that unless the drop boxes were authorized by the state legislature, itself, they were illegal. What does the law say, then? "The envelope (containing the absentee ballot) shall be mailed by the elector, or delivered in person, to the municipal clerk issuing the ballot or ballots." It becomes worthy to consider how ballots are received normally, when people vote right at the polling place on election day. Are their votes delivered, "in person to the municipal clerk"? They certainly are not handed directly from the voter to the clerk. The municipal clerk probably isn't even in the room. However, when the clerk authorizes poll workers -- or drop boxes -- to be used to receive the ballots, then that becomes a just way to receive them. The votes do not have to be placed directly in the clerk's hands for them to be legal. Trump argues that the use of these drop boxes was "corrupt." Most of us, however, would not see it that way, at all. While he is right that "this one thing alone" (discounting all the votes from the drop boxes) would overturn the election in Wisconsin, it would be wrong to do so. There are those of us who would even suggest that this is what corruption really is. If you stretch to find a technicality to discount the votes of your opponent, and if that technicality does not even hold water, yet you still insist on throwing the votes out, then that is what corruption really is.
Trump: "They have these lockboxes. And, you know, they pick them up and they disappear for two days. People would say, "Where's that box?" They'd disappeared. Nobody even knew where the hell it was."
How often the drop boxes were emptied or how long they were gone supposing they were taken, we might not know. It is possible, since they were secured to the ground, they were not taken to the elections office to be emptied. But, if Trump didn't like them being used in the first place, why was he upset it would take two days for workers to get them back?
Trump: "More than 170.000 absentee votes were counted in Wisconsin without a valid absentee ballot application. So they had a vote, but they had no application, and that's illegal in Wisconsin. Meaning those votes were blatantly done in opposition to state law and they came 100 percent from Democrat areas such as Milwaukee and Madison -- 100 percent."
Back in 2010, Wisconsin legislators (of which, the majority were Republicans), changed the law to allow the voter application to accompany the ballot, itself. The process has been used since, including in 2016 when Trump carried the state, but did not argue that his victory should be tossed out because of the allowance.
Trump: "And they (the 170,000 illegal absentee votes) came 100 percent from Democrat areas such as Milwaukee and Madison -- 100 percent."
Only 170,140 in-person absentee votes were tallied in Milwaukee and Dane counties combined. Those are the two heavily Democratic counties for which Trump sued, and are the only counties he sued for. The law on absentee ballots, however, is obviously statewide. And absentee ballots clearly went out to all the state, not just to Milwaukee and Dane counties. But, Trump didn't mind votes from the other counties being counted because those were Republican votes. He would have allowed the absentee votes from the Republican counties, but not from the Democratic ones.
"In Madison, 17,000 votes were deposited in so-called human drop boxes. You know what that is, right? Where operatives stuff thousands of unsecured ballots into duffle bags on park benches across the city, in complete defiance of cease-and-desist letters from the state legislature. The state legislatures said, 'Don't do it.' They're the only ones that could approve it."
Madison poll workers thought they were doing a good and honorable thing, taking a Saturday in September and another in October to go to every park to register voters, answer questions, and let voters turn in their ballots. They proudly titled their event "Democracy in the Park" and thought it a wonderful thing they were doing. And, it was, right? Not to Donald Trump. Knowing largely it would be Democratic votes collected, Trump's people labeled it an unlawful event, and sought to have the votes received discounted -- thrown out. How many votes would they have been able to erase had they been successful? Ballots from the two days totaled 17,271. Trump spoke of "operatives" stuffing thousands of ballots into "duffle bags on park benches across the city." This would be the election workers accepting the ballots and placing them in security bags. Trump spoke of a cease-and-desist order. Yes, two Republican members of the state legislature -- Trump backers -- did issue their own "cease-and-desist order," but no such order ever came from the courts or from a government agency. That Trump supposes cease-and-desist orders can be issued in such fashion by his supporters as opposed to those who have authority to issue cease-and-desist orders speaks volumes.
Trump: "Your state legislatures said don't do it. They're the only ones that can approve it. They gave tens of thousands of votes. They came in in duffle bags. Where the hell did they come from?"
The Wisconsin State Legislature, itself, did not say don't do it. But, its two most-powerful members did. Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester issued at cease-and-desist order before the Democracy in the Park event in Madison. When Trump asserts that the legislators are the only ones that have power and they were saying don't do it, he neglects the fact that the whole of the legislature did not vote on the matter. He assumes the heads of the senate and assembly can act unilaterally on their own. This type of legislating is not practiced in America. It does take the full body to legislate, not just the heads of the senate and assembly. We should be concerned that Trump would be degenerating and taking apart the American system of government.
Trump: "According to eyewitness testimony, Postal Service workers in Wisconsin were also instructed to illegally backdate approximately 100,000 ballots. The margin of difference in Wisconsin was less than 20,000 votes. Each one of these things alone wins us the state."
Even if the claim that ballots were backdated on their postmarks were true, it would not impact how many votes either candidate received. The ballots needed to arrive by Nov. 3. If they arrived by that time, election workers took them and processed them. If they arrived the next day, however, they were late, period. There was no reason to even look at the postmarks. Election workers were going by the date they arrived, not the postmarks. Ethan Peace, who worked for a USPS subcontractor, made these charges of election fraud. He said one USPS worker said 100,000 ballots were missing and workers were out looking for them, and when Pease came back the next day, another USPS worker said they had been told to postdate the postmarks. One wonders how they would have known 100,000 ballots were missing. Had they already arrived, and been counted, only to disappear? And, once they were found, since by then they would be late, is that why they were going to be postdated? The story does have some holes in it,
Trump: "Between your governor and your secretary of state -- and now you have it again last night -- just take a look at what happened. What a mess. And the Democrat Party operatives (in Georgia) entered into an illegal and unconstitution -- unconstitutional settlement agreement that drastically weakened signature verification and other election security procedures."
With the Democrats concerned about ballots being rejected because they couldn't match signatures, the Secretary of State agreed to send out notices to those who were rejected because those signatures wouldn't match. And, he agreed to do it within 24 hours if the election was in the last 11 days. Trump might have felt the agreement was illegal and unconstitutional, but it was within the secretary of state's authority to sent out the notices reminding voters to live by the signature verification rules and to notify those who failed within 24 hours.
Trump: "But we've been trying to get verifications of signatures in Fulton County -- They won't let us do it. The only reason they won't is because we'll find things in hundreds of thousands. Why wouldn't they let us verify signatures in Fulton County, which is known for being very corrupt. They won't do it. They go to some other county where you would live."
With Trump's campaign calling for state officials to look into whether all signatures matched in Georgia, Georgia's secretary of state conducted an audit, and chose to do it in Cobb County, based on a complaint that signatures weren't adequately checked there. There were 10 absentee ballots questioned and investigators contacted those voters and verified they had submitted the ballots. With the audit showing no fraud, Trump then suggested it should have been done in Fulton County, because he felt that county was full of fraud.
Trump: "As a result, Georgia's absentee ballot rejection rate was more than 10 times lower than previous levels because the criteria was so off. Forty-eight counties in Georgia, with thousands and thousands of votes, rejected zero ballots. There wasn't one ballot. In other words, in a year in which more mail-in ballots were sent than ever before, and more people were voting by mail for the first time, their rejection rate was drastically lower than it had ever been before."
Trump's people took the total number of rejections for 2018 and compared them not to the total number for 2020, but to just those rejected because their signatures didn't match. That is comparing apples to oranges. If you do it apples-for-apples, it was even. There were 0.15 percent of the ballots rejected because their signatures didn't match in 2018 and 0.15 percent rejected because their signatures didn't match in 2020. Those figures are using the number of applications sent out. If you used the number of cast absentee ballots as the base, 2020 probably would be slightly lower, but not much.
Trump: "The only way this can be explained is if tens of thousands of illegitimate votes were added to the tally. That's the only way you could explain it. By the way, you're talking about tens of thousands. If Georgia had merely rejected the same number of unlawful ballots as in other years, there should have been approximately 45,000 ballots rejected."
It is a little difficult to follow his logic, but when you do spot it, it is this: He is arguing that since the rate was so low, the only possible way that could have happened was that so many illegitimate votes -- with none of them being rejected -- were dumped in, thus watering things down. He forgets he, himself, already offered another explanation, suggesting ballots that should have been rejected weren't.
Trump: "If Georgia had merely rejected the same number of unlawful ballots as in other years, they should have been approximately 45,000 ballots rejected."
We were unable to verify how many total ballots were rejected in 2016 and 2018, to know if it should have been 45,000 in 2020. Off top, that seems like multiple more ballots being rejected that are should. If it becomes a goal to reject ballots, especially if they are the ballots of your opponent, then a figure that high might be raised. And, it does so seem that is what Trump is doing.
Trump: "There's only one reason the Democrats could possibly want to eliminate signature matching, opposed voter ID, and stop citizenship confirmation. 'Are you a citizenship?' "You're not allowed to ask that question, because they want to steal the election."
Signature matching opens the door to fraud, as much as it closes it. A poll worker can say, No, I'm not counting that one because it doesn't match, when in fact he or she just wants to discount the vote because it is going to someone of the opposite party. Whether signatures match can be a subjective call, not always objective. And, poll-workers are not trained in handwriting analysis. Trump suggests the only reason for opposing such things as signature verification is to steal the election, but that is not true. People can have other reasons for not liking signature matching. And, the same goes for voter I.D. Many people do not have I.D.s. They are citizens, etc., but just do not have I.D.s. Among these are some who are suffer physical or mental disabilities and don't drive. Trump may believe the only reason for opposing I.D.s is to steal the election, but that just is not true.
Trump: "In Fulton County, Republican poll watchers were ejected, in some cases, physically, from the room under the false pretense of a pipe burst. Water main burst, everybody leave. Which we now know was a total lie."
Whether from a pipe burst or what, water did get in the carpet, prompting early-showing workers from getting started. The water-in-the-carpet appears to be fact, documented by video footage at securevotega.com/factcheck, with notes saying, "5:22am Videos of Discovery Water Leak When Workers Arrive," "6:30am Videos of initial clean up activities," "7:11am Video of carpet vacuuming and drying," and "8:22am Videos of re-setup of room to process ballots." The video notes do not specify if this was Tuesday morning or Wednesday morning, but it reportedly was Tuesday morning. Georgia does not start counting votes until the polls close, so reports that there was a large dump of votes during the water leak would not be correct. If there was a "dump" it would have to be at the other end of the day.
And, the asking of workers to leave would not have been during that early morning hour. Rather, it is understood that that would have been about 10 p.m. -- at the end of the election day. Now, the videos were going at all times. So, if, as Trump suggests, someone was physically removed from the room, it seems that would have been captured on the videos, and it would have went viral. Whether workers were asked to go home, or simply allowed to go home for the night, a call from a supervisor saying don't stop did result in 4-5 staying. If they had been working all day, it makes sense only 4-5 might have stayed. Were any election watchers "ejected," as Trump says? The videos being shown do not reveal that anyone resisted leaving or objected to it, but rather that they left without showing any commotion.
Trump: "Then election officials pull boxes -- Democrats -- and suitcases of ballots out from under a table. You all saw it on television -- totally fraudulent. And illegally scanned them for nearly two hours, totally unsupervised. Tens of thousands of votes. This act coincided with a mysterious vote dump of up to 100,000 votes for Joe Biden, almost none for Trump. Oh, that sounds fair. That was at 1:34 a.m."
The videos do show the election workers pulling boxes of ballots out. Trump suggests the election officials were "Democrats," but we must guess there were a split of Republicans and Democrats among the workers, and his typifying them as Democrats is but to incite anger against them. He refers to the ballot containers as "suitcases," which also might be to stir up a sense that what was happening was nefarious. They simply are doing their work. They pull out the batches of ballots and start working on them. That's their job. State law allows ballot watchers to be present, but does not require them to be. If they are not there, that is not illegal. Trump decries them for being, "totally unsupervised," but if they were no more supervised by their supervisors than what is shown in the videos, it was legal. Social media post do show graphs with spikes in the voting that morning. Were they created, or real? If the spike was real, why do not the pundits use video from the news coverage? They should be able to show what Fox News was reporting for Georgia at 10 p.m. Tuesday night and then compare it to what Fox reported early Wednesday morning. Show us the Fox News reports. Those videos are still around. If there was a spike such as Trump suggests, we should be able to look at the Fox News video footage at about 10 p.m. and compare it to what Fox News was reporting in the middle of the night. That said, it was known by all going into this election that mail-in votes were going to go to Biden. Whatever hour the mail-in votes were tabulated, clearly they would reflect a large jump in votes for Biden.
Trump: "They've rejected five separate appeals for an independent and comprehensive audit of signatures in Fulton County."
Georgia did an audit, but chose to do it in Cobb County, as that was the only county where they had evidence of a signature verification not properly done. Trump's officials wanted the audit done in Fulton County. Yes, it is possible they repeated that request for Fulton five times. It should be noted, though, auditing the absentee ballots at this point might be impractical, and maybe even seemingly impossible. The envelope with the voters signature has been separated in order to protect the voter's privacy. In addition, the ballots are now in the custody of superior courts and clerks, so to actually gain access to them to audit them, you would need to go thru the courts. So, regardless how many times the Trump campaign asked for audits, they are likely to be turned down.
Trump: "Even without an audit, the number of fraudulent ballots that we've identified across the state is staggering. Over 10,300 ballots in Georgia were cast by individuals whose names and dates of birth match Georgia residents who died in 2020 and prior to the election."
This might be a new charge, not one Trump had previously expressed. It is not found in the text of the telephone conversation between him and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. Although, in that call, one of Trump's lawyers, Cleta Mitchell, said they had requested information that only Raffensperger's office could provide, a list of those with the same names and same birthdates, but who had died. It is not clear what Mitchell might have been asking for. If you were to take a list of all those who had common names, Mike Smith or whatever, you would find many of them matched names with those who had passed away. If took the ones who had both the same names and same birthdates as people who were dead, that would probably be a short list. Are old voting records even updated with death information, that they say when the voter died? Did the elections office end up providing Trump such a list, and that is why he here says there are 10,300 such ballots cast? Or, were the Trump people looking for a list of those with common names to match with people with the same names who had died, so they could allege that people dead people were voting? If you are just wanting to ensure that the dead didn't vote, and you have a list of dead voters, don't you just audit all of them, verifying that that person did not vote? There is no need to look for a match with a living person, for they are two separate people, and if the living person voted, that is fair.
Trump: "More than 2,500 ballots were cast by individuals whose names and dates of birth match incarcerated felons in Georgia prison -- people who are not allowed to vote."
One wonders at how Trump arrived at this. He could perhaps get the names of people who voted, listed with their birth dates, perhaps, from the official voter rolls? And, then he got a list of those incarcerated in the Georgia prisons? It would not seem the second list would have their date of birth. So, that would leave him matching names on the voter rolls with names on the prison rolls. There would be many names, perhaps 2,500, common on both lists. James Smith, Robert Thompson, etc. The names would be the same, but they would be two separate individuals. Trump should be more specific. As is, we are left to wonder if he isn't trying to confuse people who shouldn't have voted with those who were allowed to. If he doesn't want it to appear that is what he is doing, he should be specific and explain where he is getting his data.
Trump: "More than 4,500 illegal ballots were cast by individuals who do not appear on the state's own voter rolls."
If he really had a list of 4,500 people who voted who weren't on the voter rolls, why did he not just turn the names over to the state to be investigated?
Trump: "Over 18,000 illegal ballots were cast by individuals who registered to vote using an address listed as vacant, according to the Postal Service."
If the Postal Service, as a department, were to have made this charge, it seems certain it would be able to be found on the Internet. After much searching, it just isn't being found.
Trump: "At least 88,000 ballots in Georgia were cast by people whose registrations were illegally backdated."
Trump might be referring to 87,000 voters who re-registered since they were removed from the voter rolls in 2017 as part of a use-it-or-lose-it voter roll cleanup. Altogether, 560,000 Georgians were removed from the voter rolls for not voting recently -- the largest single removal of voters in U.S. history. Was Trump upset that 87,000 of them re-registered? This is just a guess at what he is referring to, and unless he explains it, we can only guess. The 88,000 matches closely to the 87,000 and both figures are of registrations.
Trump: "Sixty-six thousand votes -- each one of these is far more than we need -- sixty-six thousand votes in Georgia were cast by individuals under the legal voting age."
While Trump does claim 66,000 underaged people voted, the state says there were none. The turnout of young voters was one of the major stories of the election. Traditionally, young people do not turn register and vote in anywhere near such numbers, but they accounted for 21 percent of all Georgia voters this year, and they tended to vote for Democratic candidates. Thus, if Trump could erase the votes of the young people, he could reverse the outcome of the election. It is not wrong to wonder if this is the reason Trump went after these votes. It is not that they were illegal, but that they were not votes for him. If Trump could have disenfranchised the votes of America's youth, he would have successfully done what he accused his opponent of doing -- he would have stolen the election.
Trump: "And at least 15,000 ballots were cast by individuals who moved out of the state prior to November 3 election. They say they moved right back. They moved right back. Oh, they moved out, they moved right back. OK. They missed Georgia that much. I do. I love Georgia, but it's a corrupt system."
Owners of vacation homes, college students, missionaries, military personnel, people on temporary work assignments, and others. Many people do temporarily leave the state, some moving back-and-forth, but they remain legal voters, the same.
Trump: "And not a single swing state has conducted a comprehensive audit to remove the illegal ballots. This should absolutely occur in every single contested state before the election is certified."
It will depend on what you call an audit. Georgia did three counts. The recount there is credited as being the largest in U.S. history. Wisconsin conducted recounts in two counties. There was a hand-count in Antrim County, Michigan. Georgia held an audit in Cobb County of its absentee ballots. Maricopa County in Arizona got around to audits in February. No state, though, has called for a removal of votes. No state has found irregularities warranting the removal of votes that Trump desires. If they are not finding reason to remove votes, it would be election fraud to remove them.
Trump: "In the state of Arizona, over 36,000 ballots were illegally cast by non-citizens."
One study suggests a 350 increase in Spanish-speaking residents in Maricopa County in the last 20 years. And, these tend to be Democratic voters. One poll showed 71 percent of Latinos in Arizona voted for Trump. While these are votes Trump would like to erase, there is not evidence that such illegal ballots were cast by non-residents as is being suggested by Trump.
Trump: "In the state of Arizona . . . two thousand ballots were returned with no address."
Voters are not left to write in the addresses. Absentee ballots are addressed for them. So, it becomes a riddle as to what Trump is saying. No, there was a charge in Arizona that 2,012 people were registered at the same address. And, maybe Trump is referring to that. The charge was from the Gateway Pundit. Here's the thing: If the Gateway Pundit really had a list of 2,012 people registered at the same address, it would seem that would be an easy enough accusation to check out. Just say what the address is, and it could be looked up. But, the Pundit did not reveal the address. It does seem if the allegation was real, and not fabricated, the Pundit would be willing to say what the address was. Yes, they are not likely to be believed when they don't even release the address.
Trump: "In the state of Arizona . . . more than 22,000 ballots were returned before they were ever supposedly mailed out. They returned, but we haven't mailed them yet."
It is likely, he is referencing ballots that were scanned in with the scanning machine automatically recording the date they were scanned as the date they were mailed out. No fraud. It gives him something to cry foul about, but it is nothing but a data-entry glitch. That he would have to look for things like this, and twist them into a fraud, speaks to how desperate he is to find fraud where no fraud exists.
Trump: "One-hundred fifty-thousand people registered in Maricopa County after the registration deadline."
Following a court ruling, registration was extended to Oct. 15. Trump would discount those registrations that came in within the new deadline, but these votes are valid and should count.
Trump: "One hundred and three thousand ballots in the county were sent for electronic adjudication with no Republican observers."
In February, 2020 Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signed into law a bill to allow "electronic adjudication" to take place, identifying ballots that cannot be read by standard vote-counting machines. The electronic adjudication helps resolve errors quicker. Both houses of the legislature unanimously approved the legislation before Gov. Ducey signed it. Law does not require Republican observers to be present for the process in question, and computers are going to make such adjudications more impartially than humans.
Trump: "In Clark County, Nevada, the accuracy settings on signature verification machines were purposely lowered before they were used to count over 130,000 ballots. If you signed your name as Santa Claus, it would go through."
Clark County did lower the factory settings on its signature verification machines. Clark County Registrar Joe Gloria explained that they did test runs and the machines were unnecessarily kicking out voters because their signatures were not close enough. Too nit-picky, and it was causing more work for the election workers, not less. They reportedly turned the factory settings down from 50 to 40. The change did not come close to letting a person signing "Santa Claus" get through.
Trump: "There were also more than 42,000 double votes in Nevada. Over 150,000 were hurt so badly by what took place."
The charge comes out of a study done by Jesse Kamzol. Kamzol, though, was unable to provide the courts with a single name of such a person, of such a double voter. Though his data suggests there were 42,284 times where in theory there might have been double voters, Kamzol was unable to cite a single time that it actually did.
Trump: "And 1,500 ballots were cast by individuals whose names and dates of birth match Nevada residents who died in 2020 prior to November 3 election."
A lawyer for Trump, Jesse Binnall, did allege 1,506 votes from people who were dead. Binnall did not substantiate his claim with evidence. He did not provide names of the dead people who supposedly voted. Election officials did not find evidence of 1,506 dead voters.
Trump: "More than 8,000 votes were cast by individuals who had no address and probably didn't live there. The margin in Nevada is down at a very low number, any of these things would have taken care of the situation. We would have won Nevada, also. Every one of these things we're going over, we win."
A Feb. 2 Facebook post by a Tammy Stanley repeats this charge. The charge might originate from a Dec. 2 Washington Examiner article, which in turn doesn't say where it got its information. It would be easy, though, if they were to provide the list of such voters to election officials for such an accusation to be checked out. Even if they were to provide just two or three names, at least officials would be able to check them.
Trump: "In Michigan, quickly, the secretary of state -- a real great one -- flooded the state with unsolicited mail-in applications sent to every person on the rolls in direct violation of state law."
I think of Utah, where I live, and where everyone also was sent a mail-in ballot. There was no controversy here. No one suggested it was illegal. But, that is what happened in Michigan, and there the Trump campaign contended it was illegal. Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson mailed the ballots to all the registered voters. It was not in violation of any law. In 2018, in fact, Michigan voters approved a constitutional amendment giving voters the right to vote absentee for any reason.
Trump: "More than 17,000 Michigan ballots were cast by individuals whose names and dates of birth who match people who were deceased."
Michigan uses Social Security Administration records to identify and remove deceased people from the voter rolls. Even if a person votes absentee and then dies before election day, those ballots are culled out. In November's election, 3,469 people were identified as voting early or by mail, but who then died before Election Day -- and their votes were removed. Thus, the state does a good job of preventing dead voters. There is no evidence that dead people voted in Michigan's election.
Still, there's a website claiming 17,327 registered voters with published obituaries voted. "Every name of this list has voted in the 2020 election," proclaims the website. There have been other such listings, before this one came along. The link to one was removed by Facebook. "Here's a list of 14+ thousands dead people who voted in Wayne County (Detroit)," read that Facebook post. These websites come across as every bit legitimate. They document their sources and provide the links to the public information. They show the headstones. Did the people really vote, though? When you click on that link, it does not actually show the listing of the dead person who voted. The headstones have screenshots, bu the voting records of those individuals do not. Many people on these list are old, but yet remain alive. If these names are indeed dead people who voted, then let these people making these websites pick up a few of the names and march right down to the courts and file a case. Yes, the charges will be tossed out, because they just are not true. They don't stand up when placed in the light of day. If they don't want to go directly to the court, then take the names to the elections offices. Let officials look them up one-by-one to see if they have voted. Have we heard of such an effort? Have we even heard of these accusers taking the names to any election office, to even try to see if election officials will look them up? Of course not. Those making these websites must know full-well the fraud and deception they practice, and realize full-well their list of dead voters will not stand if taken to an election office to be held up to the light of day.
Trump: "In Wayne County -- that's a great one, that's Detroit-- 174,000 ballots were counted without being tied to an actual registered voter. Nobody knows where they came from."
On Sept. 2, the Detroit News did report a report of absentee ballots being counted without being checked against the poll book. The story noted the envelopes would be saved and checked against the poll book later. One wonders if the story was accurate, however, as votes are not counted in most states until election day. You can do processing of the ballot, such as taking it out of the outer envelope and scanning it, but you can't count the votes until election day. So, one wonders if that is all they were doing, separating the outer envelope and processing the ballots so they would be ready for counting come Election Day.
Trump seems to be referring to something else, though. He says 174,000 ballots were counted without being tied to actual registered voters. There were 174,384 absentee ballots, all told, in Michigan. So, Trump is apparently referring to them. This suggests he is suggesting that none of the absentee ballots were connected to registered voters, which would seem an absurd charge. Nonetheless, this is in line with the case Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed seeking to overturn Michigan's election. It is what Paxton contended. It is possible that the explanation falls back to what we just discussed about the Detroit News story. The ballots can be processed. They can be taken out of the outer envelopes. Perhaps, they did that to all 174,384 ballots, then. It would be legal, as long as they saved the envelopes and entered them into the poll book later.
Trump: "Also in Wayne County, poll watchers observed canvassers rescanning batches of ballots over and over again. Up to three or four or five times."
Rudy Giuliani's witness, Mellissa Carone, testified that the machines would get jammed 3-4 times an hour, and election workers would then rescan the ballots without first discarding the initial scans. Carone suggested there might have been as many as 30,000 rescans. The accusation of rescans was not substantiated by any other witness. No other elections officer or watcher stepped forward to back what Carone was saying. State Rep. Steve Johnson questioned Carone's claim that the ballots were rescanned. If they were, he said, that would mean the poll book would have been thrown off in its count. "I guess that's my question," Johnson said, "is why we're not seeing the poll book off by 30,000 votes." "What'd you guys do?" Carone replied, "take it and do something crazy to it?"
Trump: "In Detroit, turnout was 139 percent of registered voters. Think of that. So, you had 139 percent of the people of Detroit voting. This is in Michigan -- Detroit, Michigan."
More than 506,000 people were registered to vote in Michigan. A little more than 256,000 votes were cast. So, roughly 50 percent of the people voted. That's 50 percent, not the 139 that Trump claimed.
Trump: "A career employee of the Detroit -- City of Detroit -- testified under penalty of perjury, that she witnessed city workers coaching voters to vote straight Democrat while accompanying them to watch who they voted for. When a Republican came in, they wouldn't talk to them. "
Jessy Jacob's own words, at least in her testimony before the Minnesota legislature, fall far, far short of this. She speaks of a poll worker standing near a water fountain helping a voter, and indicates she thought that was wrong. Simply helping the voter vote that way (from listening to her testimony), was what Jessy Jacob felt was wrong. In explaining what happened, she says nothing of the worker coaching the voter to vote for Biden. Rudy Giuliani then suggests another instance of coaching for Biden, and asks her about it. And, again, in describing what happened, she does not of anyone coaching voters to vote for Biden. Rather, she says she saw three people come in, and one took a picture as another cast a ballot and and a third one cheered. From her testimony, that is what Jessy Jacob felt was inappropriate -- one taking a picture and one cheering while a third cast the ballot. Watching the video of Jessy's testimony, it is clear that she is being coached in what to say -- by Giuliani. He asks her leading questions, putting words in her mouth.
Before quoting from her testimony to the legislature -- so you can hear exactly what she said -- it is worthy and important that you know that she had previously signed an affidavit to the courts that very explicitly did say there was coaching for Biden. She signed a statement, saying, "I directly observed, on a daily basis, City of Detroit election workers and employees coaching and trying to coach voters to vote for Joe Biden and the Democrat Party. I witnessed these workers and employees encouraging voters to do a straight Democrat ballot."
Now, compare what she says there in the signed affidavit with what she testified to the Michigan legislature. Giuliani poses the question, "The supervisor you originally had when you were there, did you observe her coaching voters to vote for Biden and the Democrat ticket?" There is an extended pause, then Jessy replies, "Yes." Giuliani then asks a follow-up question. "And, then, as it got closer to the election, in fact in the day or two before the election, were there others of the workers there, helping people vote for Biden and the Democrat ticket, and even going into the little booth with them?" "Yeah, I remember on November 2nd, specifically," replies Jessy, and then explains how one of the poll workers, "he was working as a ballot-counter, and he was going to the poll, the polling booth, and standing by the side of the water, and helping them to complete the ballot, assisting the water. I really -- I was really concerned, but I didn't say anything. I don't know whether my supervisor saw that -- she was in the room -- but, he was doing that. . . . I knew it is wrong . . . but . . . I didn't say anything." So, what was wrong? A poll worker helped people fill out their ballots. Did he coach them to vote for Biden? Jessy's testimony says nothing of that. She simply feels it was wrong that he was helping them. Giuliani then asks about a day when three people came in, wearing Black Lives Matter T-shirts, and helping people vote. "No," Jessy responds, "What they did was . . . one of them was dropping the ballot into the box, some other one was cheering, and the other was taking picture and things like that. I knew it is also not right, but I cannot do anything. I was just sitting on my desk and doing my processing job, that is all." It would seem Jessy simply felt it was wrong for them to be taking pictures and cheering while casting a ballot. So, did Jessy see co-workers coaching voters to vote for Biden? Perhaps, but her words to the legislature fall short of that. One wonders why.
Trump: "The same worker was instructed not to ask for any voter ID."
Would Trump require of the voters more than is required by law? Would he have the election workers enforce his own standards, his own rules, and not those of the state? Although Michigan does have a voter identification requirement, those voters who do not have an acceptable form of ID or fail to bring it with them can still vote. They simply sign a short affidavit saying that they are not in possession of a photo ID. One can argue whether that should be the law, but it was the law, and election workers should live within the law in what they require of voters. Trump should not be encouraging them to do differently.
Trump: "The same worker was instructed . . . not to attempt to validate any signatures if they were Democrats."
"The same worker" would be Jessy Jacob, who did report that she was instructed not to attempt to validate any signatures, but said nothing of Democrats in this regard. She was simply told not to verify signatures, period, with no mention of whether they were Democrats. Trump is wrong and misleading in suggesting Democrat ballots were singled out as not requiring IDs. And, why was Jessy Jacob told not to verify signatures? Election supervisors have testified signature verifications were not part of that stage of the process, but were done at another stage.
Trump: "She was also told to illegally and was told to backdate ballots received after the deadline. And, reports that thousands and thousands of ballots were improperly backdated. That's Michigan."
Jessy Jacob at no time suggests she was witness to when the U.S. Postal Service delivered the ballots. She had a stack of ballots to process, that's all, but was not in position to know when those ballots had arrived. If she was told to enter Nov. 3 as the date into the computer, it would probably be because that was the date they had arrived and election supervisors wanted the arrival date to be accurate, not inaccurate. Jessy makes no mention of why she assumes the ballots arrived after deadline. She doesn't say, "My supervisor told me the ballots just came in this morning." She doesn't say, "I witnessed the U.S. Postal carrier bring the mail in and then those letters were brought right over to my desk for me to process them." Instead, it appears that when she sat down to process ballots on Nov. 4, she somehow just assumed that since she was processing them on Nov. 4, that meant all of them must have arrived on Nov. 4. That was a wrongful assumption.
Trump: "Four witnesses have testified, under penalty of perjury, that after officials in Detroit announced the last votes had been counted, tens of thousands of additional ballots arrived without required envelopes. Every single one was for a Democrat. I got no votes."
The TCF Center, where the four ballot challengers were doing their watching, is not even a site the Postal Service delivers ballots to. Any ballots that would have arrived after the 8 p.m. Nov. 3 deadline would not have even made it to the TCF Center, at any time. What, then, of the charge? An elections spokesperson, Chris Thomas, explains blank ballots that would be needed to complete the duplication of military and overseas ballots did arrive. "No new voted ballots were received," Thomas testified. "The affidavits are likely referring to blank ballots that were being delivered in order to process AV and military ballots in compliance with the law." Thomas also testified that at no time after Sunday, Nov. 3, did "tens of thousands of ballots" arrive at the TCF Center from another location. Trump not only alleges that, but alleges, "every single one was for a Democrat." How would his ballot challengers have known who they voted for, to know that Trump received no votes? Did they have access to see how the voters actually voted? The secrecy of not having your vote disclosed would have been violated, if that were the case.
Trump: "At 6:31 a.m., in the early morning hours after voting had ended, Michigan suddenly reported 147,000 votes and an astounding 94 percent went to Joe Biden, who campaigned so brilliantly from his basement. Only a couple percentage points went to Trump."
Hillary Clinton won 95 percent of all votes in Detroit in 2016. That's not just a little window of time, but its all the voting. So, it should be no surprise that at some point as the results came in, Biden would be taking the bunch of them. Everyone knew going in that absentee ballots were going to go Democrat. Absentee ballots are often counted after the live, in-person, Election Day votes. So, it is no surprise that Biden dominated the votes at one point. One hundred forty-five thousand votes came in and of them 94 percent were for Biden? There may be some question as to whether 147,000 arrived at once, but the 94 percent would not at all be outlandish.
Trump: "There is the highly troubling matter of Dominion Voting Systems. In one Michigan county alone, 6,000 votes were switched from Trump to Biden and the same systems are used in the majority of states in our country."
Ted Nugent was among those joining in this charge, claiming 6,000 votes switched from Trump to Biden. One thing important to note is that, no, 6,000 votes didn't end up with Biden that belonged to Trump. Trump actually won Antrim County, getting 56% of the vote. But, for a while, some votes were wrongfully assigned to Biden. It wasn't due to Dominion Voting Systems, though, but to human error. The clerk failed to run a update to the software, resulting in unofficial results on Nov. 4 showing Trump in the lead by about 3,000 votes. The next day, as the mistake was corrected, it showed Trump back in the lead, with roughly a 2,500-vote advantage. So, the episode is not an example or showcase of the election being stolen for Biden. In the official results, Trump got these votes, not Biden. And, Dominion Voting machines were cleared of any wrong doing.
Trump: "Senator Ligon, chairman of the Georgia Senate Judiciary subcommittee. Senator Ligon -- highly respected on elections -- has written a letter describing his concerns with Dominion in Georgia. He wrote, and I quote, 'The Dominion Voting machines employed in Fulton County had an astronomical and astounding 93.67 percent error rate. It's only wrong 93 percent of the time. In the scanning of ballots requiring a review panel to adjudicate or determine the voters' interest, in over 106,000 ballots out of a total of 113,000.' "
State Sen. William T. Ligon did make charges against Dominion in a report his committee presented Dec. 3. President Trump, in what he said to the protesters at the Capitol, was repeating what he had said Jan. 4 in a political rally for U.S. Senate candidates Kelly Loeffler and Dave Perdue. Where the figures come from -- claiming a 93% error rate -- is mystery. Georgia counted its votes not just once, and not just twice, but three times -- the third time being a hand-count independent of any Dominion machinery. The Georgia recount is said to be the largest in U.S. history. Ligon and Trump can continue to say the election was unfair, but the investigation and evidence shows it was fair and that Biden won. Answer goes here Dominion is suing Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, as well as others such as MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell. It will be interesting to see what the ruling will be in those suits.
Trump: "The letter continues: 'There is clear evidence that tens of thousands of votes were switched from President Trump to former Vice President Biden in several counties in Georgia. For example, in Bibb County, President Trump was reported to have 29,391 votes at 9:11 p.m. Eastern Time, while simultaneously, Vice President Joe Biden was reported to have 17,213. Minutes later -- just minutes -- at the next update, these vote numbers switched, with President Trump going way down to 17,000 and Biden going way up to 29,391 -- and that was very quick, a 12,000 vote switch all in Mr. Biden's favor."
"Mr. Trump is sadly misinformed and must be getting his information and his news from social media, because what he said happened, never happened, " said Macon-Bibb County Election Chair Mike Kaplan. Kaplan said that no votes were switched, and noted that with all the poll watchers and media present, someone would have noticed such a switch if it really had happened.
Trump: "So, when you hear -- when you hear, "While there's no evidence to prove any wrongdoing" -- this is the most fraudulent thing anybody's -- this is criminal enterprise. This is criminal enterprise. And the press will say -- and I'm sure they won't put any of that on there because that's no good and did you ever see: "While there is no evidence to back President Trump's assertion.'? I could go on for another hour reading this stuff to you and telling you about it. There's never been anything like it."
There's no evidence to prove any wrongdoing? Trump lists item after item. Perhaps there are 60 accusations he made above as he spoke to the about-to-be rioters at the Capitol. What he said stirred them up to indignation. Rather than just dismissing his claims of fraud as lies and disinformation, let us look at each accusation and try to determine if it is true. This listing of answers might be about as complete a listing as you will find. It rebuts every one. It provides evidence. If Trump wanted evidence, here it is, on every single count.
