Illegal Voter from Peru

From Reuters:

A Peruvian woman who voted illegally in two U.S. elections in 2006 can be deported as a result, a federal appeals court ruled Monday, despite her claim that she registered to vote only after a motor vehicle department clerk said she was free to do so.

The case involving Margarita Del Pilar Fitzpatrick, a legal permanent resident who arrived in the United States in 2002 and has three naturalized children, comes amid a debate over President Donald Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud, including millions of ballots from illegal immigrants.

The president and his allies have not provided any evidence to back those assertions, and elections officials and academics who study voting have said voter fraud is virtually nonexistent in the United States.

Fitzpatrick, who is married to a U.S. citizen, applied for an Illinois driver’s license over a decade ago, according to court papers. Like many states, Illinois allows individuals to register to vote when applying for a license under a “motor-voter” law.

She showed a desk clerk her Peruvian passport and U.S. green card when filling out the paperwork, her attorney said. The clerk asked her whether she wanted to register to vote and told her, “It’s up to you,” according to court papers.

Fitzpatrick’s lawyer, Richard Hanus, told the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago that his client therefore had “official approval” and should not be held responsible for an innocent mistake.

A three-judge panel wrote on Monday that Fitzpatrick had checked a box affirming she was a U.S. citizen and that the clerk’s response was not an authorization.

Barring a successful appeal, the Department of Homeland Security can proceed to deport Fitzpatrick.

Hanus, who said he was considering further appeals, called the result a “miscarriage of justice” and noted that Fitzpatrick had disclosed the votes herself when seeking U.S. citizenship.

An immigration lawyer, Hanus said he has seen dozens, perhaps hundreds, of cases over the years in which an immigrant voted without realizing it was illegal.

“There’s no fraud,” he said. “It arises out of confusion.”

On Saturday, the New York Times published a widely read account of a Texas woman sentenced to eight years in prison for voting illegally, despite her lawyer’s claim that she did not intend to break the law.

So, voter “fraud” is “virtually nonexistent,” but one immigration lawyer has seen “dozens, perhaps hundreds” of cases in which an illegal alien voted ignorantly. So, it appears our leftist opponents are playing a little word game. All of those illegal voters are voting ignorantly, so that doesn’t constitute fraud. And since voting illegally doesn’t constitute fraud if done ignorantly, voter fraud is “virtually nonexistent.” If voter fraud is virtually nonexistent, then we’re wasting our time complaining about fraud.

If but one immigration lawyer from Illinois admits to having seen “dozens, perhaps hundreds” of cases of ignorant illegal voting, what would that figure be in, say, California, New Mexico, Arizona or Texas? Some states are already pursuing proof-of-citizenship options in order to prevent illegal voting. Predictably, such commonsense measures are opposed by Democrats. After all, it’s not fraud if you’re ignorant, and ignorance, to Democrats, is bliss.

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners February 10, 2017
  • Hank_M

    Her actions were not an innocent mistake.
    According to the opinion Fitzpatrick vs Sessions, “she admits that she also checked a box claiming to be a citizen of the United States. The form sternly warns aliens not to check that box, and Fitzpatrick does not contend that she has any difficulty understanding written English.”

    As for voter fraud, look no farther than Coleman Vs Franken.

    As to why it remains under-reported, it’w worth nothing that in Minnesota, where ballot fraud was alleged, “Minnesota Majority took the information to prosecutors across the state, many of whom showed no interest in pursuing it.”

    Voter fraud is real, it does affect elections, and since the democrats almost always enjoy the benefits, they continue to oppose any reforms that ensure the integrity of the ballot.

    • Its only real when it affects Democrats, otherwise, you’re fantasizing…

    • fustian24

      The democrats go batshit crazy at every proposal to limit the voting process to citizens of the communities where the votes are taken.

      The reason they give is that common sense voter screening disenfranchises minority voters. Yet these same kinds of tests are required to cash a check or get a job or rent an apartment.

      If true, this would mean that democrats only care about whether they get their votes reliably. After that you’re on your own. I sure never see democrats fighting for less ID at the grocery store or at the bank.

      One can only conclude that this is about preserving the voter fraud advantage the democrats have.

  • Retired military

    Hey if we build a border wall then it may keep illegals from leaving because they cant get over it
    Since the Great Recession, more Mexicans have left the United States than migrated there. Constructing a barrier along the southern border may discourage more from going.

    In their popular song “Jaula de Oro,” which translates to “Cage of Gold,” the famous Mexican band Los Tigres del Norte tells the story of a migrant who finds himself unable to move across the U.S.-Mexico border. His lack of mobility does not keep him in Mexico, as one would expect, but in the United States.

    Donald Trump’s executive order to build a wall between Mexico and the United States overlooks how the fences, walls, and border-control measures that already exist between the two countries have come to act as a barrier—or a “cage of gold”—that discourages migrants from leaving the United States, rather than preventing their entrance in the first place.

    I would love to ask the writer of this article a question.

    “If they want to leave why not just flag down the border patrol and they will get a free ride out of the country?”

  • pennywit

    Point I: If DMV officials are giving these kinds of instructions to people getting drivers’ licenses, those DMV officials need to be canned.

    Point II: Under US law, government is supposed to provide voting instructions in multiple languages. If a voter or potential voter does not understand the instructions for any reason, then it falls on a relevant gov’t official to ensure the person understands.

    Point III: Given that instructions are available in multiple languages, and that further instruction is available, this woman should be given the appropriate punishment after a fair trial, up to and including deportation.

    • In re:

      Point I: They (DMV Officials) should be prosecuted.

      • Paul Hooson

        As a licensed car dealer for a time, I spent a lot of time at DMV offices processing titles. The best thing I can say for the DMV is that former NBA great Maurice Lucas was there until his death.

        • jim_m

          I had no idea he died waiting in line

          • Paul Hooson

            Good joke.

          • DMV employees are why my driver’s license pictures look as if I’m about to reach out and strangle the camera operator…

  • yetanotherjohn

    In Texas, we just convicted a voter fraud. She sent in a voter registration with the check box marked that she wasn’t a citizen. The county clerk rightfully refused the voter registration and responded with a letter saying that non-citizens were not allowed to vote. She then filled out a new form, marked the box that she was a US citizen. She voted in two elections 2012 and 2014. Her defense was she didn’t realize it was a problem. End result, Texas justice with the fraud receiving 10 years in prison. Gee, I wonder which party she voted for?

    • Paul Hooson

      Odds do say that many Hispanics voted against Trump this particular year, but in more normal election years, I do know some Mexicans, Native Americans, Jews and even a “log cabin” type gay friend who are strong reliable conservative Republican voters. Trump lost some minority voters this year. but won a larger share of White blue collar voters which was crucial to his victory.

      • yetanotherjohn

        “few cases have actually emerged”

        Can you point to any comprehensive investigation that would have turned up a definitive answer of the number of illegal votes?

        Perhaps, just perhaps, the fact that there are “few cases” has more to do with how they are discovered and prosecuted than the number actually occurring.

        • Paul Hooson

          No, I can’t point to any large scale investigation of this issue, as none have been done in any of the 50 states. But, Secretary Of States which handle elections do insist that overall, voter fraud is a very minor problem and have found few cases to prosecute. To be honest, I may have made more jokes about housefires than each state can find a case of voter fraud. But, that does not mean that voter fraud is not a criminal issue, but still few persons are as motivated to commit than identity theft or other criminal issues with money involved.

          • yetanotherjohn

            True the monetary rewards for voting illegally are few (unless you vote democratic ;), certainly not those offered like identity theft.
            But wouldn’t a thorough examination help to put this to rest. If voter fraud was rampant, wouldn’t the left like to know? If voter fraud was really rare wouldn’t the right want to know? Either one might have to rearrange their perceptions of the world which can be hard to do, but knowledge is worthwhile if you accept reality over your prejudices.

            For every voter fraud, you have essentially negated real voters. A false vote for a republican means a democrats vote was essentially not counted because their vote just brought the race back to a tie, rather than putting the democrats ahead (or vice versa). Further, a second true vote is needed to put one side up by one, but it should have been up by two at that point. Democrats have got their panties in a wad about the popular vote, but not voter fraud that makes a mockery of the popular vote.

            This last election showed us Detroit precincts that had more votes than voters. Franken was elected by 312 votes (including votes found well after the election in the trunk of a car). Out of more than 2.4 million votes. To put this in perspective, the number of write in votes was almost 8 times as many ad the margin of victory. How many fraudulent votes does it take to change history? We might have had a bipartisan “obamacare” if Norm Coleman had been re-elected with 313 more votes (or 313 fewer fraudulent votes for Franken. I can’t prove that there were 313 fraudulent votes or that 313 republican votes weren’t counted. But I can see how different history would be if even so few votes had changed.

            In the Wisconsin recount, Hillary vote total increased by about 700 votes and Donalds by about 800 votes (131 total more for Trump). That wasn’t even about fraud, just checking the count twice.

            Maybe the right’s concerns about fraudulent vote aren’t justified by reality. Maybe the left’s unconcern about voter fraud isn’t justified by reality. Would it be so bad to spend some resources and find out? Would it even be so hard to compare voter registries to deaths to see how many “dead” people voted? Okay, that might be a huge task in Chicago, but elsewhere it shouldn’t be that hard.

      • Vagabond661

        Since the highway patrol have only caught a few speeders, then there must not be a problem. ..right?

  • Paul Hooson

    Most illegals from the Southern border are not Mexicans. Of the estimated 415,000 illegals who entered over the Southern border, only an estimated 85,000 were Mexicans. Other nations in South America need to better improve their economies, civil liberties, politics to avoid a flight of so many citizens, many into Mexico, and then some into the U.S. Mexico has actually made many improvements to their economy and other reforms, making it more attractive to immigrants from nations where conditions have not improved as much.

    Mr. Trump needs to recognize that American and other economic investment in Mexico has greatly improved economy as well as the illegal immigration from there, making illegal immigration from Mexico the smallest part of the illegal immigration problem from the Southern border.

    • Scalia

      Paul, please re-read the lead post. We’re not discussing immigration. The topic is illegal voting. Do you have any comment on what should be done about it?

      • Paul Hooson

        A large part of your point appeared to be that the illegal voter was from Peru. Of the illegal aliens from the South, around 320,000 a year are not from Mexico, but other states. If illegal voting and other problems are resulting from this, then more efforts such as Mexico has done might somewhat limit this problem. But for most Americans, The Patriot Act has required so much ID from American citizens that it has just become a major hassle. If you send a $20 Paypal gift card to someone, they have to provide Netspend a photocopy of their social security card, their current driver’s license and a current utility bill or they cancel the card. This is absurd, because many of the persons who receive these cards as gifts are children who do not have these documents. Hysteria over citizenship can result in more problems to U.S. citizens than it prevents. You found one illegal voter from Peru, but how many legal U.S. citizens would be denied the opportunity to vote if document requirements are too strict? Oregon has a vote by mail process that has many checks and balances to prevent fraud in voting and fraud in counting. This would be a good enough model for the nation to follow. This system is strict enough that I was not allowed to vote while I owned the $2 million dollar nightclub, because I used this as my address. If you want to enact a voting system so strict that millionaire property owners cannot even vote, then Oregon’s system does that.

        • Scalia

          A large part of your point appeared to be that the illegal voter was from Peru.

          Then your reading comprehension issues are worse than I thought—and my opinion of your skills wasn’t very high.

          The fact that she’s from Peru is actually a very small part of the the topic. The whole point of the post is illegal voting. It’s best that you quit trying to defend the indefensible and just answer the question. You make yourself look worse.

          The Patriot Act has required so much ID from American citizens that it has just become a major hassle.

          It’s very easy to get an ID for voting. What we need is proof of citizenship. It’s time some jurisdictions are made to take voting seriously if we’re to protect the integrity of our elections.

          You found one illegal voter from Peru, but how many legal U.S. citizens would be denied the opportunity to vote if document requirements are too strict?

          Your reading comprehension tanks again. The post actually identifies two recent cases, but an immigration attorney admits that he knows of perhaps hundreds of cases of ignorant illegal voting. That’s one attorney from Chicago. Let’s ask for some candor among immigration lawyers from California. I personally know somebody who was mailed three voter registration cards over the course of a couple years while he was trying to get his citizenship. We’ve got a broken system, Paul.

          BTW, it’s very easy to get your birth certificate, and it doesn’t take a long time.

          Oregon has a vote by mail process that has many checks and balances to prevent fraud in voting and fraud in counting.

          How does Oregon verify citizenship? I want links, Paul, not speculation. Show us how your SOS verifies the citizenship of every voter.

    • jim_m

      Everything the left does they do ignorantly. Paul presents evidence of this fact above.

      • Paul Hooson

        Governments in South America represent all spectrums, right, left, centrist. Mexico has more solid economic agreements with U.S. companies such as Ford, etc. Honduras has very cheap labor at $1.30 an hour and should be attractive to companies, but Mexico remains more attractive to business investment.

        • Scalia


          And the Patriots won the Super Bowl.

          • Paul Hooson

            Well, I don’t think people from Peru are coming to the U.S. for the main reason to illegally vote. But, more economic opportunity might have kept them in Peru.

          • Scalia

            Completely missing Jim’s point.

          • jim_m

            In possibly the most humorous way.

          • Retired military

            It isn’t our job to ensure economic opportunities in other countries are such that their citizens don’t want to immigrate to our country.
            It is our job to keep out people who seek to enter the country illegally.

          • Paul Hooson

            No, but then again maybe we shouldn’t care about illegal immigration either. – If private Americans wish to invest in South America, and it becomes a win-win for his profits, low prices and South American jobs, it has many positives for everyone. It may not make economic sense to have some goods produced in the U.S., but then again I recently purchased a pretty good American-made pair of socks at Dollar Tree, proving that good socks for only a dollar can be made in America if the will is there.

          • Scalia

            If we didn’t care about illegal immigration, our resources would dry up. Is this a broken record? Finite resources demand regulated immigration. There is no alternative, Paul.

          • The only people on the planet who have a right to emigrate to a nation they are not a citizen of are Jews desiring to emigrate to Israel.

            Full Stop.


  • Par4Course

    With 11 to 20 million aliens in the US illegally, and the Democrats telling them that Trump planned to deport every one of them if he was elected, and voter ID laws rejected by either the legislatures or the courts, is it really any stretch to estimate that 2 to 5 million illegals voted last November? In many states, there is little if any check to see that a person who registers to vote is a citizen – many states simply accept the applicant’s word that they are. (In Chicago, you don’t even have to be alive to vote.) I agree with the critics that there is no hard evidence of voter fraud, but a serious, thorough investigation will likely turn up such evidence quickly.

    • Brucehenry

      In 2012 Gov Rick Scott of FL, after a “serious, thorough” investigation, alleged there were 180,000 non-citizens on the voter rolls and ordered a purge. Turned out there were 85.

      • Vagabond661

        85 would have helped in Palm Beach County in 2000.

        I would strongly suspect the 2000 election wasn’t even close if you threw out the dead and illegal vote.

        • Brucehenry

          85 across the whole state. And these were people whose names were on the rolls, not people who actually voted.

          • Vagabond661

            Sure and wasn’t it recently that they tried to flush out a lot of dead people on the rolls in Florida?

          • Brucehenry

            Maybe, got a link?

            The point is that Republicans are forever cying wolf about “massive voter fraud” but when, as Par4Course suggests, a “serious, thorough” investigation is conducted it seems to always turn out to be orders of magnitude less “massive” than is claimed.

          • Vagabond661

            If that’s the only link you found, you don’t know how to google. try “purging florida voter rolls”.

            It’s disingenuous for the Party of Obstruction, who rabidly questions Flynn’s phone calls (with no evidence), who screams about the Russians hacking the election (with no evidence), to turn a blind eye to voter fraud and NOT demand an investigation.

            The Looney Left knows like we do if there was a full scale investion in voter fraud it would unearth all kinds of evidence be it absentee or motor-voter fraud or the dead voting. it all adds up.

            What was the winning percentage in Michigan? Wisconsin?

            How many speeders are they in ratio to those getting caught? How about underage drinking?

          • Brucehenry

            I hereby DEMAND the “major investigation” promised by President Trump. Three weeks since he vowed to conduct one — heard any more about how it’s coming along?

            If the President of the United States sincerely believes that 5 million votes were illegally cast in the last election he will waste no time in getting to the bottom of it. Tell me, who has he named to head up this probe? Will it be an independent, bipartisan commission, like the 9/11 Commission was, or will he let the FBI and the rest of the DOJ handle it? Maybe a special prosecutor?

          • Vagabond661

            Seeing how you guys lost the election not to mention a whole shit load of Senate, House and govrnships, y’all (southern thing) are in no position to demand jack.

            Give Trump 8 years and he’ll get around to everything.

            After all, Y’all took 8 to kick the can down the road and run up a huge debt in the process. Not to mention a trillion bucks in “infastructure” repairs. Or give Iran 150 billion to NOT create a nuke (lol).

            I am loving every minute of this Prsidency. Can’t wait until next week when more of the Looney Left heads explode. Hell, Trump hasn’t got his full cabinet yet has he? By the way, we need some Justices approved, too.

            I can’t wait.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL you just said we Looney Lefties should demand an investigation. When I said I DID demand one you say I’m “in no position to demand jack.”

            BTW I know what “y’all” means.

            Gorsuch will be (and should be) approved. Puzder, lol, will not. DeVos shouldn’t have been, and many Republicans, were they possessed of functioning consciences, would admit it.

            Since you bring up Flynn, read this wrap-up from OTB about what you say there is “no evidence” of:


            I’m glad you are enjoying every minute of a presidency marked by chaos, amateur-hour incompetence, blatant lies, and the embarrassment of the US on the world stage. Me too. I especially liked the dealing with the North Korean missile issue in the dining room of the Mar-a-Lago stuff. The slow-walked “revelation,” as if one were needed, that Trump is Putin’s poodle is my second favorite.

            EDIT: Let no one scold me for being “off topic.” I didn’t bring this other stuff up.

          • Vagabond661

            The chaos you are feeling is on your end. Similiar to the disastor which are known as “the obama years”.

          • Brucehenry

            So I see you have run out of actual arguments and have resorted to “neener neener.”

            I also see that so-called “conservatives” today don’t care about America; they only care about pissing off liberals. A transparently incompetent, raving loon as President? Sure, why not? Liberal heads are exploding HAW HAW.

            Enjoy the Trump Administration. It’s looking like it may be a short one.

          • Vagabond661

            Hey if that helps you sleep at night. Maybe you can keep fooling yourself. It ain’t working here.

            Did you catch the press conference yestrday? It was great!

          • Brucehenry

            Here you go proving my point. You don’t care that the president is a buffoon, it pisses off liberals so you’re cool with it.

            I especially liked how he claimed his EC win was the “biggest since Reagan’s” when Obama’s, Bush’s, Clinton’s and Bush’s were all bigger. And was totally unembarrassed when called out on it.

          • Vagabond661

            Bigger than Hillary’s.

          • Brucehenry

            Yep more neener neener from you. You’re better than this.

          • Vagabond661

            At least he didn’t say we can keep our doctors and we would save $2500 in healthcare premiums.

          • Brucehenry

            No he said the other 17 false things in my link.

          • Vagabond661

            Who cares? Hasn’t cost me one penny and he is implementing his agenda.

            Soon he will have a full cabinet and a couple of new SCOTUS justices. And y’all be still stuck on stupid, screaming that he doesn’t have as many EC votes than Bush or Obama.

            Y’all need a message that resonates with Americans….not neener neener Trump exaggerated again.

          • Brucehenry
          • Let me explain this to you in terms a progtard uses. Shut UP!

          • This is the first reason I have seen not to investigate the issue of Ineligible voters voting.


            It’s hard to go wrong denying any demand of brucehemorrhoid. Then again, this may be that one time in 1,440.

          • It’s about the win. EVERYTHING is justified for the win.

    • Brucehenry

      Here’s another report about the results of one of these “serious, thorough” investigations:

      • fustian24
        • Brucehenry

          Yeah I’ve seen this link before. These votes were, apparently, cast by mail and would not have been caught by the kind of Voter ID laws that are being proposed all across the country.

          I have no objection to measures meant to tighten up absentee balloting. I have very few objections to photo ID, as long as inexpensive and convenient steps are taken to ensure everybody can get one. Many of these laws, however, have included restricting early voting, closing polling places in minority neighborhoods, etc, and the photo ID provisions are in there, one suspects, as a smoke-screen.

          • fustian24

            The dead people vote is, of course, the easiest to find. It’s the low hanging fruit of voter fraud.

            There are also the Project Veritas videos where they were able to get on the Minnesota voter rolls as Tim Tebow and Tom Brady. (They didn’t go through with it, but it’s clear there was nothing stopping them.)

            And there are the videos where Bob Creamer describes how easy it is to commit massive voter fraud.

            Bob, of course, after he got out of prison, was organizing violent protests at Trump rallies for the Clinton campaign. And he was a frequent visitor to the White House. To the tune of hundreds of times.

            The left continues to claim that there is no evidence to suggest voter fraud happens in this country. But that’s not true. There’s lots of evidence.

            But how WOULD you investigate voter fraud if you really wanted to get to the bottom of this problem? The easiest way is to compare voter rolls with other government databases. But those databases are just as apt to be incomplete or fraudulent. In a corrupt system, they would be by design.

            You could demand that poll officials carefully check ID’s at the time of voting, but against what? How do you, for sure, verify that somebody showing up to vote has a genuine ID and that it is their own and that they are, in fact, citizens?

            Back to the corrupt databases.

            It’s not clear to me that you can stop voter fraud particularly when partisans are running the system.

            The best you can do is make the cost of the fraud go way up.

            An interesting insight into this problem came when

          • Brucehenry

            So why do YOU think the GOP leadership, including many who routinely claim that Democrats are about to commit or have committed all this voter fraud, are reluctant to fund a “major investigation” into the Trump claims of 3 to 5 MILLION illegal votes cast against him in the last election? Because they ARE reluctant, you know. So reluctant that it ain’t gonna happen.

            And do you think, when Trump says that busloads of illegal voters from Massachusetts cost him and Ayotte their New Hampshire victories, that he is:

            1. Correct, there were indeed busloads as he alleges.
            2. Lying, there were no busloads and he damn well knows it.
            3. Misinformed by someone who is either lying or stupid.
            4. Stupid.

            Because it’s one of those things. Which do you think? And if you choose 1,. what is your evidence?

          • fustian24

            Well, I think the GOP leadership is barely distinguishable from the democrat leadership. They live in their own glass houses and have no intention of throwing a single stone. The dirty little secret of Washington is that it’s them vs us more than anything else, although Trump seems to have both sides rattled.

            Even if you believe all of our politics are on the up and up, the GOP already won the last election. They know they have to get some very specific legislation passed with current control of all three branches, and if they don’t, they’re gone voter fraud or no. So I don’t see this getting much priority, at least until much later in the term.

            I do believe suspect voters get bussed to the polls:

            Worse are democrat districts in urban areas that continually report 100% or higher vote turnouts. It’s just systemic corruption.

            Because there is nothing in our system stopping voter fraud, I believe that large numbers of non-citizens regularly vote.




            Interestingly, when polled, non-citizens admitted to voting in fairly significant numbers:

            And we KNOW from the behavior of democrat politicians that they believe there is significant voter fraud out there and it benefits them.

          • Brucehenry

            I see that your link from Human Events is an accusation from two anonymous pollworkers who saw these buses but no one else did. And I note that you did not affirm the specific assertion by Trump that busloads of Democrats were bused in from MA to vote in NH, maybe because there is absolutely NO evidence for that, even the anonymous and maybe-made-up kind like in your Human Events link.

            “Fairly significant numbers” do not add up to 3 million or 5 million votes, as Trump alleges. Is Trump telling the truth or not?

            The links where undercover agents go into polling places to “prove” that voter fraud is easy prove little. Sure, it’s easy to commit a crime if you don’t mind getting caught (or INTEND to get caught to prove your point). It’s easy to commit all kinds of crimes if you are going to turn yourself in immediately. I could walk into a 7/11 and rob it and then lay my gun down on the counter and give the money back to prove how easy armed robbery is, too. But I couldn’t have 60 co-conspirators helping me plan such a robbery without at least one of them spilling the beans.

            Project Veritas and James O’Keefe are serial liars and exaggerators and everyone knows it, even their defenders.

          • fustian24

            So, I didn’t notice that you are determined to prove the Trump himself has misstated things whilst I am arguing that I believe voter fraud is a fact and that we should do things to stop it.

            I am not a Trumpkin and, while I am finding him to be an extremely interesting President so far, I recognize that he says a lot of odd things with many of them simply wrong.

            Perhaps as early as the election some pundit recognized that Trump’s followers take him seriously, but not the specific things he says. His detractors do the opposite.

            I find it amusing that his attackers fixate on some random Trump comment and are so certain that their fact checking will finally cause people to see that he shouldn’t be President. This is a fool’s game.

            Trump will succeed for fail on his ability to get several things done. He needs to get a strict Constitutionalist on the Supreme Court. He needs to tighten our borders, he needs to repeal Obamacare with something better, and he needs to make the lives of working people better in some measurable way.

            If he does those things, he can spout whatever nonsense he wants to and almost nothing can hurt him.

            Personally I prefer my politician’s to be much more circumspect and rhetorically subtle. But the outrageousness of Trump is a feature for a large number of voters and not a bug.

            As for voter fraud I believe it is a problem and a large enough one to be determinative in some elections. In the case of one of those undercover voter fraud investigations, they DID vote. They all wrote in the same obscure person and they were never prosecuted for anything.

            The argument against non-citizens voting comes down to “but it’s illegal”. But this argument is made against a whole class of people that are here in this country against our laws who generally hold false ID so they can get jobs and government benefits and you think they won’t vote because it’s illegal and they might get caught? I don’t think so.

            The fact is that nobody really knows how much voter fraud is out there. A few links don’t prove anything, although mine should at least create some doubt. But I don’t KNOW and neither do you.

            As for Project Veritas, I am aware that desperate lefties have labelled them with all kinds of nonsense, but those videos stand on their own. They are long enough that you do get context and anybody that watches them realizes that they make their points. This is the same kind of stuff the fake news people have always done, just without the approved narratives.

            Finally, any fair-minded person has to admit the the democrats act like they know that voter fraud is real and that they benefit from it. Why can a bank require proof of ID when your polling place cannot? It’s ridiculous.

          • Brucehenry

            But if Trump continues to act like a crazy man he will not have the credibility to achieve any of the goals you want him to achieve. You may find it amusing that loonies like me fixate on his provably false gibberish, but it is NOT amusing that the rest of the world, allies as well as adversaries, are “fixating” on them as well. It is NOT amusing that he is the face of the United States of America, it is embarrassing.

            Trump WILL have a strict constructionist on the Court soon. However he will not achieve any other goals if he keeps this act up. In fact it may already be too late. And it should be noted that all these monkeyshines are taking place in a period of relative quiet. Sooner or later, likely sooner, a major crisis, foreign or domestic. will occur and that is what worries me. The guy is so obviously in over his head it’s bewildering to me that millions don’t (allegedly) see the danger in which he puts us all.

            Yes the undercover guys DID vote — knowing they would not be prosecuted because they were themselves law enforcement agents trying to “prove” how easy it was. That is different than a conspiracy of 60 criminals plotting to cast fraudulent votes and not be caught — do you know of any conspiracy involving 60 conspirators that didn’t unravel either before or after the fact?

            “The fact is that nobody really knows how much voter fraud is out there” you say. Yet many many wingnuts and Trumpkins say it is undoubtedly in the millions, with NO PROOF. They, like their cult-leader-figurehead, will swear up and down on national TV that there were buses full of fraudulent voters from MA voting in NH, with NO PROOF. This undermines the credibility of reports alleging lesser instances, which may have some validity. And it provokes suspicion that all this caterwauling about the alleged millions of fraudulent voters is a smokescreen for intended or accomplished voter suppression.

            The fact that Trump’s outrageousness is a “feature, not a bug, to large numbers of voters” is a sad sad situation. Sorry, those voters are rubes.

          • fustian24

            It doesn’t matter any more how Trump acts, the left will treat everything he does as the second coming of Hitler. His immigration pause is apparently less than what Obama did, but when Trump does it it’s the end of civilization. Ridiculous.

            While I believe voter fraud is a serious problem, it is not clear to me that there was enough to change the popular vote. But so what? Trump is clearly trolling you people. It’s a shiny object for you to play with. You’ve got to get over that stuff.

            Yet many many wingnuts and Trumpkins say is undoubtedly in the millions, with NO PROOF.

            And all leftist tools maintain there is almost zero voter fraud based on the very same standard: NO PROOF. There’s a lot of that going around it turns out.

            What I’m telling you is that nobody knows.


            The fact is that there are very large numbers of weaponized illegals out there with fake ID and with democrat pols running interference determined to prevent any reasonable controls at the polls. Obama practically told them to vote. In the face of these facts you really cannot deny that it is a reasonable thing to believe that there is substantive voter fraud out there.

            We have seen it demonstrated again and again that anybody can go vote as anybody else. Dead people are voting. People DO see busloads of immigrants showing up at polling places and prominent democrat operatives are caught on tape discussing how they do it.

            I guess I just don’t really see there is much of a counter argument here.

            Show me PROOF you say. Well there never will be any proof. Because Washington will never investigate itself. People that live in communities of glass houses never throw real stones. Particularly republicans since the biggest stone quarry by far is owned by the democrat press.

            Which means the most you’ll ever hear about this is local crusaders finding fraud in their small community. Poll watchers alleging there are buses. Investigative reporters finding dead people on the rolls here and there. Dribs and drabs. The tip of the iceberg.

            But without access to real proof you are free to believe whatever you want to believe and I will too. I continue to believe that to a fair minded rational person I have the better part of the argument, but that’s just the scientist in me talking. I know by now that none of these discussions ever change any minds. It really is an exercise in futility.

            As for Trump being in over his head, I would say that he’s demonstrably less so than Obama. That guy knew nothing. And the results prove just how horrible he and his administration were. From the failed gun running program that killed Americans to the disappearing “stimulus” to the foreign policy disasters, that’s a guy that was dangerously out of his depth.

            And you refuse to engage on the sorry behavior of democrat legislators in the voting fraud matter because you KNOW it’s fishy. While England was the last hold-out, no other industrialized country is as loose at the polls as we are. It’s a farce and it is perfect for voter fraud. By design. There can be no other reason.

            And if you lot were really serious about keeping Trump out of the White House how come you chose HILLARY as your standard bearer? She has to be the worst candidate I have ever seen take a serious run at the Presidency. Married to an alleged rapist, she violated our secrets laws by running her own unsecured email server over which she regularly sent highly classified information. She did this stupid thing so she could sell out our country’s foreign policy for donations to the Clinton Fund. Under FBI investigation, the head of the FBI makes the unprecedented move of detailing how she violated the secrets laws of our country but then declares that Hillary is above the law (I paraphrase). After years in the senate, Hillary only sponsored two bills one of which was to rename a post office. Libya was supposed to be her big foreign policy accomplishment but this is a woman too stupid to know that we might ought to have security at our Benghazi outpost. Meanwhile it comes out during the election that her extremely close aide is married to a pervert. To top it all off, it’s clear that there is something very wrong with her health.

            Didn’t you people have anybody else on the bench?

            When my Trumpalo friends get too full of themselves I point out that a rabid squirrel should have beaten Hillary, yet Trump BARELY squeaked by. They continue to believe that Trump has shown some kind of new path to the Presidency. At the risk of changing the subject here, I think the single lesson to be learned from this election is that democrats were very stupid to have run Hillary.

          • Scalia

            It doesn’t matter any more how Trump acts, the left will treat everything he does as the second coming of Hitler.

            Yes, they’re in perpetual hair-on-fire mode. It makes them look every bit as bad—even worse—than their target.

          • Brucehenry

            That’s hilarious coming from the side that spent 8 years wailing that Obama was coming for their guns ANY DAY NOW. That Zimbabwe-style inflation was coming ANY DAY NOW. The side of which a large plurality, if not a majority, believed (and continues to believe) that Obama was actually a Kenyan or a Muslim or both. That claimed Obama went on an “apology tour” (and yet is strangely silent about Trump’s interview with O’Reilly in which he claimed the US was morally equivalent to Putin’s Russia). That would not shut up about Alinsky and Cloward-Piven and Frank Marshall Davis. A side that includes Wizbang commenters like our own Jim, who routinely calls Obama and all his supporters, indeed all Democrats, “fascists.” Oh, and they “hate America” too.

            Yeah, THAT side looks ever so dignified.

          • Scalia

            Yes, so hilarious we won the House, the Senate and the presidency. So hilarious, we control two-thirds of state legislatures and the significant majority of governorships. The Left continues to screech and the Left continues to lose elections.

            The MSM is out of control, and it’s a sad day for liberals when Trump is more trusted than the press.

            You can laugh all you want; we’ll take the win.

            EDIT: You know what’s really hilarious? You lost to Donald Trump.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m sure you will, but you lost seats in both the Senate and the House (although the loss was expected to be greater) and Trump lost the popular vote.

            Much of the dominance in the House is because of gerrymandering in states where GOP legislators redistricted after the 2010 census. And in the 2014 elections, Senate Democrats won 20 million more votes than did Senate Republicans.




            Republicans can’t win on the issues, so they cheat — gerrymandering and vote suppression.

          • Scalia

            Just keep telling yourself that while we win elections. As fustian pointed out, we know nothing about Trump now that we didn’t know before the election, yet the Left continues to think that the tactics they used during the campaign will somehow work for them now. It appears they’re not going to change, so we’ll continue to dominate the elections until some sanity is restored in the Democratic Party.

            Anyway, I’ve got no more time for whiny sour grapes. Instead of acting like adults, your side has been in non-stop hissy-fit mode since the election—even before. “You cheated,” is the substantive equivalent of “Neener-neener.” Bring a lawsuit if you think somebody cheated. Since nobody’s been convicted, no crime has been committed, remember?


          • Brucehenry


          • And the way they are proceeding now, they’ll have him for 8 years and reduce their party and the LSM (BIRM) to ashes.

            Carry On!

          • Brucehenry

            How can one prove a negative? How can one prove something ISN’T happening?

            As to the second half of your reply, thanks for the rehash of every single anti-Obama and anti-Hillary trope of the last eight years. Some of this stuff was through-the-looking-glass of course — the “disappearing stimulus” stabilized the economy and rescued it from freefall — the rest is perception and opinion and a litany of tired complaints and allegations. Such as the Clinton Foundation bs. The FBI director HURT Hillary, he didn’t help her, and now it’s clear that he was vocal about investigating Hillary’s emails but super-circumspect about the ongoing investigation into Trump’s campaign’s contacts with Russia. What was up with that? Then the plainly false “to top it all off, it’s clear that there is something very wrong with her health.” Umm, no, it’s not clear, and by the time the first debate rolled around she had recovered pretty well and as far as anyone can tell is at least as healthy as Donald now.

            The reason Democrats oppose these “Voter ID” laws has as much to do with the OTHER restrictions in them as the photo ID requirement. These laws typically include provisions closing polling places in minority neighborhoods (or having that effect), allowing gun permits as valid ID but not college ID, and reducing early voting hours. All those things were included in North Carolina’s law, which has been struck down by the courts, but similar laws in other states remain. Forgive us if we view these measures with suspicion, since they are part and parcel of GOP gerrymandering and abuse of power in all the states in which they have gained ascendancy.

            To ask why Democrats chose Hillary is no different than wondering why Republicans were so stupid as to choose McCain, or Romney. She, and they, were the choice of their party’s respective primary voters. O’Malley seemed to me to be an OK guy but got nowhere. Bernie was my guy but lost. I’m pretty sure you would have preferred Cruz or Gingrich or somebody. We were always going to get two candidates with lots of flaws. More Americans chose Hillary, but she lost fair and square in the EC. I’d be OK with it if I thought Trump was going to grow into the job but it’s plain he is every bit the man-baby he demonstrated he was in the campaign.

          • fustian24

            It turns out that ID is a tricky thing for the federal government to manage.

            And I have no idea how you’d even prevent voter fraud. I don’t think you can really stop it. Particularly when the government agencies themselves are corrupt (IRS anybody? Sanctuary cities?). All you can do is make the cost go up a little by requiring verifiable ID, increasing the penalties for illegal voting and making an example of a lot of people that broke these laws.

            It would be nice if we could find a way for the voting bureaucracy to be at least honest, but that’s really asking too much I suspect.

            And count on democrats to be on the side of voter fraud as long as they believe it’s in their benefit.

            My understanding is that there were three tenets to the North Carolina law:

            1. You had to show ID to vote.
            2. No same-day registrations.
            3. Limits on out of precinct voting.

            None of those are discriminatory and all are clearly targeting voter fraud.

            The democrats are doing everything they can to make it possible for voter fraud to occur. This nonsense about calling the GOP racists is getting old. And by the way, the people that targeted black voters in the south were democrats if you will recall.

            As for the rest of it, if you really don’t understand just how corrupt Hillary was, then I don’t what to say. Nobody but the most partisan or the willfully ignorant are unaware of the level of corruption her Cankleness brought to the party. Next I suppose you’ll try to convince us that Bush took down those towers on 9/11. It’s ridiculous.

            And if the Clinton Foundation was in fact a charity, why did they close it down as soon as Hillary lost? The question answers itself if you’re the least bit honest. Apparently donations dropped to near zero once it was clear she wasn’t going to be Pres. Imagine that! What could ever be the reason?

            As for McCain and Romney, they were neither especially conservative nor very interesting, but they were standard politicians well within the usual norms for political corruption. McCain had some issues back in his home state, but that was papered over a very long time ago.

            Hillary, of course, is a horse of a different color. She had no business running for office and she’s lucky she isn’t in jail.

            And as for Comey, he did every single thing he could for Hillary. The problem was never Comey, it was the absolutely moronic and totally corrupt and inept behavior of Clinton that simply left no good options. She should NEVER have run for President.

          • Brucehenry

            Your understanding of the NC law is incomplete. It also restricted the hours and locations for early voting, which had increased participation by blacks and other minorities, to make it inconvenient for them to vote. It closed polling places in minority communities. It eliminated Sunday voting entirely. It forbade the use of college ID’s even though one has to show a birth certificate to obtain one.

            I’m sorry that you find accusations of racism to be tiresome. Their “getting old” doesn’t make them any less accurate. I happen to think that calling out racism remains important however uncomfortable it makes racists.

            “Conservative” perceptions of Hillary’s level of corruption were fed by 25 years of a drumbeat by Talk Radio and cable news and talking heads. Characterizations like “her Cankleness” betray a conservative tendency toward a certain contempt for women, in my opinion. The actual reason for such intense hatred is revealed with adjectives like “shrill,” “bossy,” and “angry,” and nouns like “harpy” and “bitch,” often used by so-called conservatives to describe an accomplished woman like Hillary.

            The Clinton Foundation is not closed — the Clinton Global Initiative is — and it’s closing was announced in August, not November.


            Did “every single thing” Comey could do for Hillary include announcing, eleven days before the vote, while Trump was floundering in the polls in the wake of the Pussygrabber Tape, that he had “found” new evidence? Did “every single thing” include NOT making public the FBI investigation of the Trump Campaign’s contacts with Russian intelligence?

            Funny I thought Chris Christie and Newt Gingrich were considered “adults” in your party but as soon as they themselves were out of the running — which was in, like, February — they were Trumpkins. Ditto Giuliani, only even earlier. Breitbart and Zero Hedge were on board all along, as were many if not most of the Talk Radio bunch.

            But you are right that the press devoted a lot of time to the freak show that was Trump. Ratings, baby! That was indeed shameful but not a plot. In your kind of language Trump’s parasitic and cynical manipulation of the TV press was a bug, not a feature, of the media.

          • fustian24

            Every article I’ve read about the North Carolina law says pretty much the same thing as this NYTimes article:

            The North Carolina law had imposed new photo identification requirements on voters and ended procedures favored particularly in black and Democratic political drives, including allowing voter registration on Election Day, and early voting. It also blocked out-of-precinct voting and preregistration of 16- and 17-year-olds.

            I’m not seeing anything about hours or polling places in any article I’ve seen so far. I’m no expert on North Carolina law, but I can’t find anything so far that sounds remotely like what you’re talking about.

            None of those requirements looks unreasonable to me or particularly directed at black people.

            As for charges of racism, I find spurious charges of racism to be an overworn tactic of a dying democrat party with a deep history of actual racism.

            Your defense of Hillary is as predictable as it is laughable. “Accomplished woman like Hillary”. I laugh. That’s your whole defense?

            Old lardbucket Christie has never been an adult, Guiliani is apparently a drunk and Breitbart is, in fact, dead, so we don’t really know who he would have favored. Zero Hedge is apparently a website I’ve never heard of. Newt used to be a heavy hitter, but he’s more or less a gadfly now. You’re reaching Bruce.

            As for the Clinton Foundation, you finally scored. They closed down the Global Initiative and spun off the Haiti fund. I did not realize the whole thing hadn’t caved yet, but give it time! Without any patronage to buy, the donations are drying up big time.

            But as soon as Clinton lost the election, many of the criticisms directed toward the Clinton Foundation were reaffirmed. Foreign governments began pulling out of annual donations, signaling the organization’s clout was predicated on donor access to the Clintons, rather than its philanthropic work. In November, the Australian government confirmed it “has not renewed any of its partnerships with the scandal-plagued Clinton Foundation, effectively ending 10 years of taxpayer-funded contributions worth more than $88 million.” The government of Norway also drastically reduced their annual donations, which reached $20 million a year in 2015.


            Perhaps you should consider a big donation to help them in their time of need?

            And finally “the Russians did it”?


            What happened. Did the reset button break?

          • Brucehenry

            “…and ended measures favored particularly in black and Democratic political drives, INCLUDING allowing voter registration on election day, and early voting.” It also (you know what “including” means, and know that it doesn’t mean that it EXcludes other things) blocked same-day registration during early voting, eliminated Sunday voting entirely, rolled back Saturday hours, and shrunk the period of early voting from 3 weeks to 2. It closed polling places in many black neighborhoods as well, I know, I tried to vote at one. Even after the law was struck down that polling place didn’t come back. You may not think it sounds like it was aimed at black voters until you look at the statistics showing how much black voter participation had increased since early voting was adopted.


            It is true that the Southern wing of the Democratic party had a shameful history of racism, and that the Democratic party as a whole was craven to cooperate with them in order to win presidential elections. Southern Dem racists were enabled, though, by the Compromise of 1877, in which the national Republican party threw freedmen under the bus and adopted a tacit policy of benign neglect for close to 50 years, until the civil rights movement came along, aided by white Democrats like Eleanor Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Hubert Humphrey, and later even Southern Dems like Lyndon Johnson, Terry Sanford, and Jimmy Carter. (That’s not to say there weren’t many Republicans who were on the right side as well, like Dirksen, Rockefeller, and lots of others.) Don’t lecture me about the history of Southern racism, dude, I live here. I know what happened in the 60s, 70s, and 80s and who is on what side today.

            My “whole defense” of Hillary is that conservative perception of her level of corruption has been driven by a quarter-century-long drumbeat of hatred, distortion, and allegations, many of which have NO basis in fact and many others only the most tenuous one. Or do you subscribe to the “Clinton Body Count” school of thought?

            So if not Christie, Giuliani, and Gingrich, who were the “adults” who tried to stop Trump? Cruz didn’t criticize him until it was clear he wasn’t going to implode and Cruz wouldn’t be able to pick up his mouthbreathing supporters. Priebus? Former President Bush? Ryan? McConnell? Who? And what did any of them actually DO to slow the Trump train? Did any of them call him a liar or a buffoon, which he manifestly IS?

            And I didn’t say “the Russians did it.” My point was that if Comey had commented publicly about the investigation into Trump’s campaign ties, as he commented publicly several times about Hillary’s emails, there may have been a different election outcome. He could have made a statement like the one he made in July about Clinton, that “so far we haven’t found a reason to indict anyone” or “we don’t see any criminal intent” but he didn’t. Why so circumspect about the confidentiality of the Trump case and a big spectacular public to-do about emails?

          • jim_m

            Please. One need look no further than the Clinton Foundation to see the cesspool of corruption that dominates the Clinton’s lives. There is no need to look at decades of anything, unless you want to examine Hillary’s epic disaster as Sec of State.

            Oh, and thanks for the comprehensive listing of dems in favor of civil rights. That is pretty much the complete list when you consider the near monolithic opposition to civil rights.

            Which reminds me, isn’t it ironic that 50 years ago the dems were standing in the school house door shrieking against civil rights and today they are still standing in the university shrieking against civil rights, this time against conservatives to speak their political ideas? OK, no it isn’t. The left hasn’t changed since they went to war to keep slavery.

          • Brucehenry

            Not interested in starting up with you today. As Scalia says:


          • jim_m

            Not seeking a big argument here. Just pointing out that your claim that Hillary is not corrupt and that such accusations rest on decades old fabulist stories is simply false. She really is corrupt.

            Also that your claims of huge dem support for civil rights are laughably wrong. Sure, there were prominent dems that supported it. They were in the small minority.

          • fustian24

            Interestingly, Dinesh D’Souza claims that the fall of the democrat party in the south corresponded to a decrease in southern racism and that studies show that the least racist southerners are the ones that left the democrats for the republicans.

          • jim_m

            The big fall in the South for the dems came with the establishment of abortion as the official sacrament of the democrat party.

          • fustian24

            You still haven’t shown me a link that shows the NC law was anything other than what I stated. I’m no expert in this subject, but I spent about 15 minutes searching yesterday and found nothing like your claims. Your own link does not explicitly say that it had the onerous provisions you claim in it. For my own edification, I would appreciate some source material so that we can at least agree on our facts! Is it possible you have overstated the case?

            And, here’s an interesting thought. The GOP wanted to put some fairly innocuous safeguards in place to prevent voter fraud (I’m waiting for your link), and the dems defeated those common sense provisions. This leaves it open for massive voter fraud. Then boom! Massive new turnout! The narrative says “see those laws were holding down the black vote”. But, frankly, I don’t see why it isn’t more likely that the dems instead got all of the voter fraud they’d paid for and were counting on.

            Moving on to the democrats, I just think that, like the confederate flag and the white robe, the symbolism of the democrat donkey should trigger revulsion in, not just people of color, but virtuous people of all stripes. As Yale finally renames its Calhoun college, isn’t it long past time to toss out the democrat party to the dustbin of history?

            Democrat rule has destroyed urban black areas from Detroit to Chicago to New York City. Everywhere democrats rule, blacks suffer. It looks to impartial observers that your party still is the party of racism.

            Switching to Hillary, I DID used to wonder whether I was falling for propaganda. It just seemed like too much. I was apolitical back then and I almost voted for Bubba Clinton. I didn’t see how Hillary could be guilty of all they said and still not be in jail or at least severely discredited and thrown out of her party.

            But I kept coming back to Hillary’s role in the cattle futures scandal. I just couldn’t explain that away. She’s simply a crook.

            Then they found the missing Rose Law firm billing records in the White House with her fingerprints on them. Her role in silencing Bubba bimbos. And on and on. If you’re honest, you know she’s corrupt. It’s why she lost. Too many democrats simply couldn’t pull the lever for her.

            As for GOPe support for Trump, you’ve really got to get out more. They still despise him with every fiber of their being. I really cannot see why this isn’t obvious to you.

            You’ll have to explain the whole Russian thing to me. I cannot for the life of me understand why Russia would prefer Trump to a fellow Marxist like “Hillary of the Reset”. She’s the one, after all, that sold out all those strategic uranium reserves to the Russians. They really ought to like her a lot.

            Here’s noted conservative news organ the New York Times:

            As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

            And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.


            Managing the sale of strategic US commodities together with our foreign policy was why Hillary needed her own email server. Let’s be real, shall we?

            I just took a look at the Clinton’s net worth. The big Bubba is estimated to have $80 mill, whilst his blushing bride has brought in some $30 mill. These are estimates and I cannot tell if Bubba’s $80 already has Hill’s $30, but holy cow! That’s a lot of moola. Bubba is in the charity business and Hillary has been in elective office. Where’d all this money come from? At $100,000/speech, it would have taken Bubba 800 speeches. Seems pretty unlikely. So, where did it all come from?

            I’m going with “corrupt influence peddling”.

          • Brucehenry

            Wonder no longer if you are the victim of being duped by 25 years of RWNJ propaganda. You are indeed.




            Also, here is a summary of the NC law. I was mistaken about the gun permit thing — that’s Texas, I think.


            In practice, the provisions on early voting and poll hours, while sounding innocuous perhaps, turned out to be the provisions the court had the strongest objections to. In the decade and a half since early voting became a thing, minority voters and Democrats were much more likely to take advantage of it than were whites and Republicans. Therefore, the measures taken by local, GOP controlled election boards to restrict early voting days and hours were found by the court to have the intended effect of reducing and suppressing minority and Democratic votes. Dude, I live here. I keep up. I can’t help it you didn’t google the right stuff to find out about what was objectionable and unConstitutional about this law.

            As to foundation corruption, well…just compare these two links:



          • fustian24

            Snopes? Really?

            That’s a partisan pervert and his stripper girlfriend. You take them over the NYT, house organ of the left? C’mon Bruce. Let’s be real.

            And you SAY that those common sense provisions hold down the minority vote, but it makes no sense to me why that would be. You’re just saying it. So you need to vote in your precinct? That used to be the law in the southern state I live in and it was no hardship. Even though I can, I’ve never voted outside mine and I’m a privileged white guy with 3 cars!

            But I DO see that the dems really opened up the field to voter fraud.

            I think you’re so tied to your narrative that you can’t see that it makes no sense.

            I’m not going to chase down the links, but there have been highly troubling activities in many of those urban polling centers for years. Any serious attempt to crack down on voter fraud would necessarily close down some of those places or heavily regulate them. But not if you lot have any say in it.

            And your links about Hillary are ludicrous. Dick Morris? Really? Is he still being humiliated by dominatrixes? And, disinterested observer, Bill Clinton announces that his investigation found out that his wife was not guilty of anything. Shocker!

            Go read up about the Hillary’s $100,000 cattle futures adventure. Be sure you follow the part about being partnered with a trader that had been thrown off the exchange for a practice known as “parking trades”.

            In the space of less than a year, Hillary managed to turn $1,000 into $100,000! That’s a pretty good return. That would be a 9,900% return. You really believe that? Because I don’t.

            Neither does anybody else. Here’s wikipedia:

            Various publications sought to analyze the likelihood of Clinton’s successful results. Clinton made her money by betting on the short side at a time when cattle prices doubled.

            The editor of the Journal of Futures Markets said in April 1994, “This is like buying ice skates one day and entering the Olympics a day later. She took some extraordinary risks. Her activities involved exposure to losses that potentially could have been greater than her family’s net worth if the market had turned sharply against her.

            The former head of the IRS chief counsel’s Commodities Industry Specialization Team expressed skepticism that a novice trader could make such a return. One analysis performed by Auburn University and published in the Journal of Economics and Finance claimed to find that the odds of a return that large during the period in question were about one in 31 trillion.

            Face it, she’s a crook.

          • Brucehenry

            The Dick Morris link was about debunking the specious claims he has made about the Clinton’s over the years, most of which have been echoed by the Noise Machine many times. As a matter of fact I included it precisely because the buffoon Morris is the source or conduit for so many anti-Clinton tropes. The other Snopes link wasn’t a link announcing that Bill was defending Hillary, but instead taking assertions point by point and examining them more closely. If you want to dismiss Snopes out of hand as partisan you may do so but it actually has a pretty good track record, despite RWNJ wishful thinking that it doesn’t.

            It’s not just me that says the restrictions on early voting days and hours have the effect of suppressing minority votes, it’s several Federal court rulings, so, yeah. EDIT: You can look them up too.

            I will admit to not being able to defend the cattle-futures thingie, but that’s more because I am ignorant of those matters rather than taking the word of your sources at face value. The Rose Law Firm “scandal,” to my satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the authorities, has been debunked, however.

          • fustian24

            One thing Dickie has said is that both the Clinton’s are serious racists and regularly drop the n-word when in private. I’ve heard this from others, and while it’s all circumstantial, and comes from people that do not like her, I wouldn’t be surprised at all.

            As for Whitewater, I think crimes were committed, but it’s complicated and difficult to prove. And it’s been pretty well whitewashed for years, so I just focussed on the fact that legal authorities were searching for various Rose Law firm billing records that nobody could find. My recollection (it’s been a while so my memory may be somewhat faulty) is that they proved that Hillary was billing both sides of the Whitewater matter. Which is itself not legal.

            Whatever the contents, they mysteriously turned up in the White House with Hillary’s prints on them. Seems like a clear obstruction of justice crime to me.

            But as we’ve learned, laws are for little people and not Hillary.

            As for Snopes, they have a pretty good track record… at being partisan. You really should take it with a grain of salt. And the people running it are fairly unimpressive.

            Here’s a Daily Mail article describing it all. Warning it’s really not safe for work:

            I particularly liked this excerpt:

            One of the lead fact-checkers, Kim LaCapria, has also been a sex-and-fetish blogger who went by the pseudonym ‘Vice Vixen.’

            She described her blog as a lifestyle website ‘with a specific focus on naughtiness, sin, carnal pursuits, and general hedonism and bonne vivante-ery.’

            She regularly provided intimate advice and reviewed sex toys, including a vibrating wand that ‘drives boys mad.’

            ‘If you are doing something to your fella, and you apply this to the base of his cash-and-prizes while you carry on, he will scream and perhaps cry,’ she wrote.

            She also recommended one book with the review: ‘How to Tell A Naked Man What To Do seems like the perfect how-to for the dominatrix-in-waiting, or any girl looking to get in touch with her domme side. Mine, I wish I could shut her up sometimes, but there you go.’

            In others posts, LaCapria claimed to be ‘addicted to smutty HP [Harry Potter] fanfic.’

            Describing her day-off activities on another blog, she wrote that she ‘played scrabble, smoked pot, and posted to Snopes.’ She added, ‘That’s what I did on my day “on,” too.’

            You’ll forgive me if I don’t take them too seriously.

          • Brucehenry

            So anything Morris may say is ludicrous and can’t be taken seriously because dominatrixes but you “wouldn’t be surprised” if his accusations about the Clintons are true. OK.

            And Snopes can’t be believed because something something prurient, scandalous, and, apparently to you, titillating but have a bad track record because oh wait you don’t say why and what specifically they’ve got wrong. And neither does your link. In fact your link makes no allegation of partisanship at all. You may prefer Conway-style alternative facts but Snopes, whatever the sexual peccadilloes of its writers, still has a pretty good rep for doing what it does. Except, of course, in RWNJ circles, since it often pops their bubbles.

            It always amuses me. “Snopes? Reeeeallyy?” “Politifact? Reeeaallyy?” Apparently only Breitbart and Newsmax and Human Events are reliable.

          • fustian24

            Morris does not have a particularly good track record, but because I keep reading the same thing about the Clintons (from bodyguards particularly) I suspect it might be true.

            The Snopes people have personal records as partisan democrats and their political postings have always shown that. I used to look at them when I got an offer from Bill Gates or something, but now that I know just how unimpressive the people themselves are behind this site, I think I’ll start to talk all of it with a grain of salt.

            Politifact has been in the business of badmouthing republicans for years. If you look at their statistics, they condemn republicans something like 10 to 1 over dems. They’re hacks. Everyone knows the dems are way more corrupt than the republicans (grin).

            And the truth is if you’re really looking for an unimpeachable news source, you’re just kidding yourself. There aren’t any. I have been aware for a long time that many of my preferred news sources, while pretty reliable (like the WSJ), do not always tell the whole truth. What passes for news on the left leaves me stunned though. That’s narrative-driven propaganda for the most part.

            I will say that those organizations that purport to be neutral are some of the worst. It’s long past time when the networks and the big papers need to just come out of the closet and admit that they are all card-carrying democrats or worse. Luce once said that objective news is as undesirable as it is impossible, and I believe it.

            This is one of the reasons that it is virtually impossible to prove anything to anybody. Because so much of the news really is fake news, you can always find somebody that backs your point of view.

            I’ve actually been in the news a number of times myself and it’s interesting how twisted it gets. It really makes you think. One time I was interviewed for what was intended to be a friendly article for the front page of the WSJ. And it was. But it was just all wrong. Partly because the guy didn’t fully understand what I did, but partly because he wanted to make the story better.

            It was eye opening.

            A long time ago I lived in a small lumber town and there was a rich guy that more or less ran the place. The town had two hospitals and he was on the record as strongly supporting one of them, but not the other. Well, he had a heart attack and the specific circumstances of his condition required he be treated at the hospital he did not favor. My mother was in cardiac care and she was in the room when this gentleman instructed the local reporter to report he was at the other hospital. Every day we’d read about this guy in one hospital when I knew he was at the other.

            Pretty typical I think.

            And with wikileaks we know the press was feeding Clinton debate questions and they were checking their reporting with the campaigns. It’s a cesspool out there.

            And truth be told, there really is nothing I could say that would make you change your mind is there? I could be the vessel of truth and you just wouldn’t believe it.

            Except for the intellectual exercise and the chance to order your thoughts a little, these conversations are spectacular exercises in futility I’m afraid.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I agree with much of what you say here. “Exercises in futility” they may be but I find posting here an enjoyable way to pass the time sometimes.

            Thanks for remaining civil even though you obviously think I’m very wrong. I tried to do the same, even though I think nuh-uh, YOU are.

            Enjoy the rest of your weekend, sir.

          • fustian24

            I appreciate the same!

          • You spend entirely too much time and inconvenience entirely too many electrons responding to a partisan hack who has repeatedly been demonstrated to be both impersuasible and distracting.

          • fustian24

            Well, at least he’s been civil to me, and while I do not agree with most of his positions, I cannot deny that he is reasonably well-informed.

          • And thoroughly indoctrinated.

          • jim_m

            Semi informed and as pointed out thoroughly indoctrinated. I used to be able to have civil discussions with Bruce and had many such. Unfortunately, he has taken to such dissembling and dishonest tactics in his discussions with me that there is little chance of civil discussion today.

          • It shan’t last.

          • Scalia

            I’ve provided (below) what I consider a better analysis of Snopes’ reliability as a fact-checking organization.

            As I mention, I had intended to write a lead post on the subject, and perhaps I will, but since you and Bruce are discussing it, I guess now is a good time to provide the bulk of it.

          • Scalia

            If you want to dismiss Snopes out of hand as partisan you may do so but it actually has a pretty good track record, despite RWNJ wishful thinking that it doesn’t.

            I had intended to write a piece about this, but I guess now is as good a time as any to post this:

            On the surface this looked like a classic case of fake news – a scandalous and highly shareable story, incorporating official-looking materials and sourcing, yet with no other mainstream outlet even mentioning the story. I myself told my colleague I simply did not know what to think. Was this a complete fabrication by a disgruntled target of Snopes or was this really an explosive expose pulling back the curtain on one of the world’s most respected and famous fact checking brands?

            In fact, one of my first thoughts upon reading the article is that this is precisely how the “fake news” community would fight back against fact checking – by running a drip-drip of fake or misleading explosive stories to discredit and cast doubt upon the fact checkers.

            In the counter-intelligence world, this is what is known as a “wilderness of mirrors” – creating a chaotic information environment that so perfectly blends truth, half-truth and fiction that even the best can no longer tell what’s real and what’s not.

            Thus, when I reached out to David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, for comment, I fully expected him to respond with a lengthy email in Snopes’ trademark point-by-point format, fully refuting each and every one of the claims in the Daily Mail’s article and writing the entire article off as “fake news.”

            It was with incredible surprise therefore that I received David’s one-sentence response which read in its entirety “I’d be happy to speak with you, but I can only address some aspects in general because I’m precluded by the terms of a binding settlement agreement from discussing details of my divorce.”

            This absolutely astounded me. Here was the one of the world’s most respected fact checking organizations, soon to be an ultimate arbitrator of “truth” on Facebook, saying that it cannot respond to a fact checking request because of a secrecy agreement.

            In short, when someone attempted to fact check the fact checker, the response was the equivalent of “it’s secret.”

            It is impossible to understate how antithetical this is to the fact checking world, in which absolute openness and transparency are necessary prerequisites for trust. How can fact checking organizations like Snopes expect the public to place trust in them if when they themselves are called into question, their response is that they can’t respond.

            When I presented a set of subsequent clarifying questions to David, he provided responses to some and not to others. Of particular interest, when pressed about claims by the Daily Mail that at least one Snopes employee has actually run for political office and that this presents at the very least the appearance of potential bias in Snopes’ fact checks, David responded “It’s pretty much a given that anyone who has ever run for (or held) a political office did so under some form of party affiliation and said something critical about their opponent(s) and/or other politicians at some point. Does that mean anyone who has ever run for office is manifestly unsuited to be associated with a fact-checking endeavor, in any capacity?”

            That is actually a fascinating response to come from a fact checking organization that prides itself on its claimed neutrality. Think about it this way – what if there was a fact checking organization whose fact checkers were all drawn from the ranks of Breitbart and Infowars? Most liberals would likely dismiss such an organization as partisan and biased. Similarly, an organization whose fact checkers were all drawn from Occupy Democrats and Huffington Post might be dismissed by conservatives as partisan and biased. In fact, when I asked several colleagues for their thoughts on this issue this morning, the unanimous response back was that people with strong self-declared political leanings on either side should not be a part of a fact checking organization and all had incorrectly assumed that Snopes would have felt the same way and had a blanket policy against placing partisan individuals as fact checkers.

            In fact, this is one of the reasons that fact checking organizations must be transparent and open. If an organization like Snopes feels it is ok to hire partisan employees who have run for public office on behalf of a particular political party and employ them as fact checkers where they have a high likelihood of being asked to weigh in on material aligned with or contrary to their views, how can they reasonably be expected to act as neutral arbitrators of the truth?

            Put another way, some Republicans believe firmly that climate change is a falsehood and that humans are not responsible in any way for climatic change. Those in the scientific community might object to an anti-climate change Republican serving as a fact checker for climate change stories at Snopes and flagging every article about a new scientific study on climate change as fake news. Yet, we have no way of knowing the biases of the fact checkers at Snopes – we simply have to trust that the site’s views on what constitutes neutrality are the same as ours.

            When I asked for comment on the specific detailed criteria Snopes uses to screen its applicants and decide who to hire as a fact checker, surprisingly David demurred, saying only that the site looks for applicants across all fields and skills. He specifically did not provide any detail of any kind regarding the screening process and how Snopes evaluates potential hires. David also did not respond to further emails asking whether, as part of the screening process, Snopes has applicants fact check a set of articles to evaluate their reasoning and research skills and to gain insight into their thinking process.

            This was highly unexpected, as I had assumed that a fact checking site as reputable as Snopes would have a detailed written formal evaluation process for new fact checkers that would include having them perform a set of fact checks and include a lengthy set of interview questions designed to assess their ability to identify potential or perceived conflicts of interest and work through potential biases.

            Even more strangely, despite asking in two separate emails how Snopes assesses its fact checkers and whether it performs intra- and inter-rater reliability assessments, David responded only that fact checkers work together collaboratively and did not respond to further requests for more detail and did not answer whether Snopes uses any sort of assessment scoring or ongoing testing process to assess its fact checkers.

            This raises exceptionally grave concerns about the internal workings of Snopes and why it is not more forthcoming about its assessment process. Arguing that because multiple fact checkers might work on an article, reliability is not a concern, is a false argument that shows a concerning lack of understanding about reliability and accuracy. Imagine a team of 50 staunch climate deniers all working collaboratively to debunk a new scientific study showing a clear link between industrial pollution and climate change. The very large team size does not make up for the lack of diversity of opinion. Yet, David provided no comment on how Snopes does or does not explicitly force diversity of opinion in its ad-hoc fact checking teams.

            A robust human rating workflow must regularly assess the accuracy and reproducibility of the scores generated by its human raters, even when they work collaboratively together. Typically this means that on a regular basis each fact checker or fact checker team is given the same article to fact check and the results compared across the groups. If one person or group regularly generates different results from the others, this is then evaluated to understand why. Similarly, an individual or group is also periodically given the same or nearly identical story from months prior to see if they give it the same rating as last time – this assesses whether they are consistent in their scoring.

            More troubling is that we simply don’t know who contributed to a given fact check. David noted that Snopes’ “process is a highly collaborative one in which several different people may contribute to a single article,” but that “the result is typically credited to whoever wrote the initial draft.” David did not respond to a request for comment on why Snopes only lists a single author for each of its fact checks, rather than provide an acknowledgement section that lists all of the individuals who contributed to a given fact check.

            One might argue that newspapers similarly do not acknowledge their fact checkers in the bylines of articles. Yet, in a newspaper workflow, fact checking typically occurs as an editorial function, double checking what a reporter wrote. At Snopes, fact checking is the core function of an article and thus if multiple people contributed to a fact check, it is surprising that absolutely no mention is made of them, given that at a newspaper all reporters contributing to a story are listed. Not only does this rob those individuals of credit, but perhaps most critically, it makes it impossible for outside entities to audit who is contributing to what fact check and to ensure that fact checkers who self-identify as strongly supportive or against particular topics are not assigned to fact check those topics to prevent the appearance of conflicts of interest or bias.


            David also did not respond to a request for comment on why Snopes fact checks rarely mention that they reached out to the authors of the article being fact checked to get their side of the story. Indeed, Journalism 101 teaches you that when you write an article presenting someone or something in a negative light, you must give them the opportunity to respond and provide their side of the story. Instead, Snopes typically focuses on the events being depicted in the article and contacts individuals and entities named in the story, but Snopes fact checks typically do not mention contacting the authors of the articles about those events to see if those reporters claim to have additional corroborating material, perhaps disclosed to them off the record.

            In essence, in these cases Snopes performs “fact checking from afar,” rendering judgement on news stories without giving the original reporters the opportunity for comment. David did not respond to a request for comment on this or why the site does not have a dedicated appeals page for authors of stories which Snopes has labeled false to contest that label and he also did not respond to a request to provide further detail on whether Snopes has a written formal appeals process or how it handles such requests.

          • Scalia

            I had at one time considered Snopes to be a reliable fact-checking source, but as time went by, I began to have misgivings. I noticed that I had strong disagreements with their assessments due to their leaving out important facts. Moreover, what they labeled False when committed by Republicans was labeled Mixed when committed by Democrats. It was clear, at least to me, that some bias was influencing their fact-checking.

            The information above, if true, is most troubling. Until Snopes can come up with something better, they’ll remain a suspect organization.

          • Brucehenry

            Geez. You’re a lawyer. What part of “BINDING settlement agreement” is unclear to you? Or to the author of this piece?

            Is it really equivalent to have, on the one hand, a site where ONE employee has run for office (not as a Democrat but as a Libertarian for God’s sake), and on the other hand a hypothetical fact-checking site in which ALL the fact checkers are “drawn from the ranks of Breitbart and Infowars”? It may be a matter of concern to Forbes’ readers that “we have no way of knowing the biases of the fact checkers at Snopes.” But the article, despite going to great lengths to cast doubt on the personnel practices and methodology of Snopes, does not point to ONE INSTANCE where Snopes declared something true that was later proven false, or vice versa. I’m sure there have been some instances of that, but until you list some of them, I’ll take this article for what it’s worth — food for thought and reason to be skeptical, perhaps, but not a negative assessment of Snopes’ actual track record of accuracy or inaccuracy.

          • Scalia

            The “BINDING settlement agreement” is related to a divorce which was the topic of the linked article in the main piece. It has nothing to do with Snopes’ methodology as a whole (which is described—or NOT described—in detail throughout the piece).

            The purpose of the article is not to demonstrate their inaccuracy on particular news sources. As stated by the author, he thought questioning Snopes’ credibility was fake news, and he expected the refutation of the allegation to be a slam dunk. The point is Snopes does not provide anybody with the standards they use to ensure objectivity or at least to lessen bias.

            If you really want some data on how Snopes spins, you can read about some of it HERE.

          • Brucehenry

            Well that’s a pretty damning article, although it itself has a little spin and some Hillary-hate snuck in there( “Her laughter is often unsettling.”) But yes, troubling.

            And yes, it is a matter of concern that a fact-checking site is itself less than transparent. The Daily Mail piece, however, is NOT particularly damning in my opinion, just a lot of salacious tidbits bandied about in an apparently very ugly divorce case.

            In any case, over the years Snopes has had a pretty decent run. If they are starting to go off the rails recently, that’s a shame, but again, over the years it has had a pretty fair track record.

            BTW this site of yours sure has lot of hinky and salacious stuff on it. Glad you’re not endorsing it, it’s kinda creepy.

          • Hey brucehemorrhoid, FOAD.

          • You still need to do a post on this if only to make it easier for us to link to it when our usual suspects trots out snopes.

            Can’t say that any of this suprises me. I have enough background to have found quite a few snopes findings laughable.

            Good work!

          • Scalia

            Thanks, Rodney. I’ll take your advice and try to upload something within the next day or so.


    So one anecdotal incident at a time to prove a point? Well, 3.9 million more to go.

    Again, a person slips into the country undetected, avoids being found and works off the books, but risks all of that to cast a vote in a state (California) that is already decided?

    Interesting that the assumption of how many illegal votes were cast in California is approximately the same as the margin of loss by Trump.

    Oh well, if widespread fraud exists it should be easy to prove with real, tangible evidence. I can only assume that is what everyone would demand for a subject of such importance.

    • yetanotherjohn

      How many instances of tax fraud are found absent audits or checking tax returns? I suspect that the number would approach the number of voter frauds found absent investigations.
      So based on your theory, we shouldn’t question if tax fraud exist or even bother looking for it because if it was wide spread we would spontaneously find it.


        So with that in mind it should be easy to simply find 100,000 cases in California, or even 50,000, oh heck, make it 10,000.

        Now let’s consider the claim that thousands are bused from Massachusetts to New Hampshire. Stephen Miller, one of the serial liars that inhabit the White House, stated that everyone was aware of the practice.

        Pursuant to that claim, Fergus Cullen, former chairman of the New Hampshire Republicans, has offered $1000 to anyone that can provide proof of any voter fraud in New Hampshire.

        Per his tweet: “I will pay $1,000 to first person proving even one out of state person took a bus from MA to any NH polling place last Election Day,” Cullen tweeted on February 10.

        So how much has he paid out so far? You already know the answer.

        Of course if the government would like to waste millions of dollars and thousands of man hours on this problem, so be it. I wonder what the over/under will be? Less than 100?

        • Brucehenry

          Here’s a funny article about Cullen’s reward offer:

        • Scalia

          Buster, how does Michigan verify the citizenship of its voters? Also, why were there more vote tallies than votes in Detroit?

          • Brucehenry
          • Scalia

            And nobody alleges that the discrepancy is sufficient to overturn Michigan’s election.

          • Brucehenry

            The article lists several possible reasons why there could be “more vote tallies than voters.”

          • Scalia

            Of course, but we need to know how that occurred. To sweep it under the rug with a nothing-to-see-here excuse is irresponsible.

          • Brucehenry

            Do we need to pass new, more restrictive legislation before we do know?

          • Scalia

            If you mean citizenship verification, yes.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            So what do you think happened?

          • Scalia

            Here we go again. When you answer my questions, I’ll consider answering yours.

            Now, if you bothered to read Bruce’s link, you’d see that if Michigan’s race were on par with Florida’s in 2000, they would see the discrepancies as a HUGE issue.

            Now, please answer my questions.

          • Scalia

            Hello?? How does Michigan verify the citizenship of its voters?

      • Brucehenry

        President Trump vowed on Jan 25 that there would be a “major investigation” of this allegedly massive voter fraud. Where is it? Who is in charge of it? Will it be an independent commission, or will he have the Justice Department handle it? The FBI? Has he asked any relevant Congressional committees to conduct it?

        What’s the hold-up? Who’s stopping him?

        • Jwb10001

          President Obama signed an executive order in Jan of 2009 to close gitmo, how did that go? Unlike living in say Venezuela the president can’t just do what ever he wants with out congress. I did read that some of the “leaders” in congress have stated they will not allocate funds for any broad voter fraud investigations. In a republic that’s how things are supposed to work. As far as I’m concerned we have much bigger issues so it can wait.

          • Brucehenry

            The point, or at least my point, is that Trump is saying every day, swearing up and down, that there was massive voter fraud (and if you think that 5 million fraudulent votes are no big deal you need to think more about how republics are “supposed to work”) without the slightest shred of evidence that such a massive fraud actually, you know….happened. It makes him look even more cartoonish than he already did.

            Several commenters here are saying that there is no proof because there has never been an investigation into it. Well, leaving aside that there have been many many many investigations, all of which have turned up next to nothing, I say let’s have the “major investigation” Trump promised on Jan 25.


            Congress, controlled by the GOP, could fund one if it wished to do so — many of the same Congressional leaders who are reluctant to fund Trump’s “major investigation” routinely push the voter fraud myth for political purposes. They don’t want to fund this one because they know it will turn up little to nothing and will make themselves and the president look foolish. Or in Trump’s case, even MORE foolish.

          • Your point remains hidden by your abdomen on all sides.

    • Scalia

      I see that you and Paul went to the same school.

    • Scalia

      Again, a person slips into the country undetected, avoids being found and works off the books, but risks all of that to cast a vote in a state (California) that is already decided?

      We’ve already had that discussion. You never replied to my rebuttal, so why are you repeating yourself?


        Because your reply did nothing to refute the logic of why someone would do such a thing.

        • Hank_M

          as the article states above, Hanus said he has seen dozens, perhaps hundreds, of cases over the years in which an immigrant voted without realizing it was illegal. Maybe it’s as simple as that.

        • Scalia

          Assertions are not arguments. I fully addressed your “logic” (and the term is used very loosely). You have shown here that if you think you have a comeback, you definitely offer one. More often than not, you slink away because you’ve got nothing else to say.

          If you really believe I “did nothing to refute” your “logic,” then demonstrate the incorrect inferences I made in my rebuttal.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Your link, (by the way, Breibart, c’mon, you are smarter than that) provides a theory of how it could be done. Is there something I am missing?

            I keep asking you why millions would risk detection to cast a vote in a state that is already decided. There is no reasonable motive that result in any substantial number of people to take that action. We fail to get Americans to the polls, but millions of people risk everything to cast a meaningless vote?

            Simply let me know when there is evidence of anything above a minuscule degree of intentional fraud. No anecdotal examples of things people suspect or have heard from their second cousin.

            So let me know when there is new information. As you may have noticed I have little desire to engage in circular debates that have no logical end beyond some condescending comments by you that are quickly followed by some obscene rancor by your acolyte, Jim.

            This is why I often mention that you guys should be nicer to Bruce Henry. Despite enduring what has devolved into behavior that is infused with no small degree of a mob mentality, he continues to engage in debates that go on for days. I have noticed, however, that it happens far less than it did previously.

            Of course he doesn’t need to me to stick up for him, but unless the desire is for everyone to post comments that are nothing but a group affirmation, perhaps some effort at civility, for the sake of entertainment, would be a wise strategy.

            That may, however, be a fundamental difference, in that I acknowledge that this is entertainment, nothing more, nothing less.

          • Scalia

            Your link, (by the way, Breibart, c’mon, you are smarter than that) provides a theory of how it could be done. Is there something I am missing?

            You didn’t engage either the arguments in the Breitbart column or my arguments.

            First, your disdain for Breitbart notwithstanding, their reasoning is valid. Your dismissal demonstrates a feeble attempt to ignore what you cannot refute. I wouldn’t post a link unless I felt it offered credible arguments. Dismissing an argument because of the source is a typical leftist ad hominem maneuver.

            Second, what you’re “missing” is a cogent reply to my supplemental argument in rebuttal to your assertion. The fact that I have to spell this out for you shows again that you don’t argue in good faith. That’s why you’re treated with contempt here. My history shows that I’ll respectfully engage any poster, liberal or otherwise, if s/he argues rationally. Your ad hominems, snark and dodging don’t count.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            This is no more than one issue, nothing more, nothing less.

            In my opinion, no one has offered compelling evidence of any substantial voter fraud. Instead, people do not refute claims of millions in California alone.

            How many millions?

            Approximately right around, or somewhere in the neighborhood of, the margin by which Trump lost California.

            Many of you are obviously in support of an extensive, albeit expensive, investigation, despite the lack any real tangible evidence that would support any such action.

            I can only guess that most of you are confident there will be ample evidence of widespread voter fraud. Heck, the current president may have lost California because of fraud on the scale that is currently being bandied about the White House. Once I see compelling evidence of such fraud I will issue a heartfelt apology. Since I recently read that Greg Phillips, the person that first made the claim of 3 million in California is not only going to release his data, but will list the names of these criminals, I may being apologizing very soon. Or perhaps not.

            Additionally, I will be very interested to hear why anyone, much less millions, would put their very existence in this country at risk to simply cast a vote. Perhaps we can then learn how to motivate average Americans to do their civic duty.

            Otherwise, what is there to really discuss on this subject? Theories? Anecdotes? The lone supporting study that was disavowed by the author (which hasn’t stopped the White House from citing it early and often)? Stories about how voter fraud could be done? Discussing why anyone would do it?

            No big deal, I can wait for the evidence, although I might initiate an investigation into the existence of those buses of voters that supposedly traveled from Maine to New Hampshire. At $1000 per tip for each incidence, an entire bus of fraudulent voters could be worth a pretty penny. Apparently the existence of these buses is common knowledge up there so it should not be difficult.

          • Scalia

            You write all of that to ignore everything we’ve said? Your elevator doesn’t go to the top floor.

            The only “investigation” I’ve called for is for states to verify the citizenship of its voters. The links I provided showed that illegal voters can be found very easily, but of course you have to go the dishonest route and moan about how much it will cost to prove “fraud.”

            If you’re not going to engage the arguments, you need to quit posting. You’re simply wasting everybody’s time.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Oh, I see the misunderstanding, we are discussing two different things.

            I continue to say I am only concerned with real evidence of anything beyond an infinitesimal number of votes cast by fraudulent voters, but you keep discussing how it could be done or what voting procedures each state currently has in place.

            Those are two different discussions. You apparently would like to discuss the latter.

            I contend that without any compelling evidence of fraud that this is nothing but a unicorn hunt. Now people can feel free to hunt them, but I have no interest in such things.

            So as not to waste your time, let me again make myself clear. If there is evidence of substantial fraud I would be very interested in how it occurred and what can be done to prevent it from happening. Until then I have no interest in such things.

            Now luckily for you Bruce Henry is currently having the discussion you want on this very thread.

          • Scalia

            Your continued dodging is quite tiresome. You asked why anybody would risk everything by voting illegally, but I showed you a person who admitted that to a television station.

            You pooh-pooh that there is no evidence of widespread fraud, yet I provided evidence on how such a thing could occur. It doesn’t have to be a conspiratorial plot; simply making it “easy” for aliens to vote with automatic enrollment with their drivers’ licenses (without verification) creates a climate where significant numbers of non-citizens can vote.

            If one attorney from Chicago knows of perhaps hundreds of non-citizens who ignorantly vote, why couldn’t that number be in the thousands, or tens of thousands or even millions across the country—especially in areas where you have automatic registration?

            I’ve already provided for you evidence that county officials in Florida have no means to verify the citizenship of their voters, yet it was very easy for news reporters to find illegal voters. I asked you how Michigan verifies the citizenship of its voters. Crickets from you, but I already know the answer. You’re just not interested in solving the problem.

            My solution is simply to require voters to produce proof of citizenship. All voters need to do is supply a copy of their birth certificate, and the information can be permanently logged into a state’s registry.

            Instead of engaging the arguments (which after all this time it’s clear that you know you’re incapable of doing so), you keep deflecting and asking for some proof that people like Soros, Clinton, etc., have an army of goons trying to manufacture votes across the country.

            If you have the slightest amount of integrity, you would call for reform which would include voter ID, proof of citizenship, and removing dead people from voter rolls.

          • Scalia

            Now luckily for you Bruce Henry is currently having the discussion you want on this very thread.

            Uh, no. The brief interaction I had with Bruce was over a couple of days ago. Moreover, he previously dismissed the Breitbart column the same way you did—ad hominem. Also, he and I never had the discussion you and I previously had that I’ve referred to in this thread.

            Too much static in your attic, man.

          • Scalia

            And just today:

            AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas election officials have acknowledged that hundreds of people were allowed to bypass the state’s toughest-in-the-nation voter ID law and improperly cast ballots in the November presidential election by signing a sworn statement instead of showing a photo ID.

            The chief election officers in two of the state’s largest counties are now considering whether to refer cases to local prosecutors for potential perjury charges or violations of election law. Officials in many other areas say they will simply let the mistakes go, citing widespread confusion among poll workers and voters.

            The Texas law requires voters to show one of seven approved forms of identification to cast ballots. It was softened in August to allow people without a driver’s license or other photo ID to sign an affidavit declaring that they have an impediment to obtaining required identification.

            Even after the affidavits were introduced, voters who possess an acceptable photo ID were still required to show it at the polls.

            The revelations come as President Donald Trump makes frequent claims that the nation’s voting systems are vulnerable to fraud. The president has repeatedly said, without citing any evidence, that he would have won the popular vote if not for 3 million to 5 million immigrants in the country illegally who voted for his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.

            An Associated Press analysis of roughly 13,500 affidavits submitted in Texas’ largest counties found at least 500 instances in which voters were allowed to get around the law by signing an affidavit and never showing a photo ID, despite indicating that they possessed one.

          • Never has, never will.

          • Scalia

            For anybody following this “discussion,” HERE is a link to a previous reply to Buster. It contains two links to a media investigation of possible fraud in Florida. Again, no reply from Buster.

          • Captain Sum Ting Wong

            Why would illegals risk detention to vote? Because their Prezzy told them that they could and nobody would come knocking on their door to deport them.

  • Wild_Willie

    Scalia, another excellent post. Which I agree with.

    Paul Hooson on the other hand is so missing the boat. He is the type of person that doesn’t pay attention to the first word of immigration. ILLEGAL. Then felonies to get SS# to work. I know, I’m wasting my breath. ww