Continuation 2020 Presidential Election part 3

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank

I'm sure the consensus in this thread (I haven't been keeping up with it)...

I bet you haven't.

Quote:

I personally have seen enough evidence going around to put us well beyond the point of justifying a careful, deliberate look and recount in specific states.

There has been precisely zero credible evidence of tampering or fraud... on the Biden side, at least.

Quote:

There are some serious abnormalities.

Considering the medical circumstances involved, there have been exactly no "abnormalities".

Quote:

When it all gets hashed out, will it be enough to overturn the result as it stands now? Maybe, maybe not. I would say the odds are probably against Trump here.

Trump lost this election by a significant margin, in a free and fair process. He would have lost the first one as well, had it not been for for an outdated gimmick.

Quote:

So why did I make the renewed declaration and the avatar bet, then?

Because the Jews will not replace you?

[Olmstead]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I think there's a certain amount of what you might call "maintenance" type investigations that are useful in assuring the public that there's nothing to the allegations. Not that it will ever be 100% effective, either. As the old saying goes, you can't reason someone out of something that he didn't reason himself into.

The people shouting the loudest about election fraud are, of course, not thinking at all. They're just saying that if their guy lost, it much be fraud. Those people cannot be reached at all. Beyond that, though, there's another group who hears the allegations, and can't come up with any explanation for the sketchy evidence, and sees the allegations dismissed, and begins to think maybe there's something to it.

People who come here are more likely to have investigated some sort of conspiracy theories before, and see all of the tell-tale signs of a CT in the "evidence" of election fraud today. However, most people have never done that. A little bit of official word demonstrating why the apparently suspicious activity has a perfectly innocent explanation, or that the effect is so tiny the suspicious ballots could not have changed anything, would go a long way toward convincing the ones on the fence about whether they think there might be election fraud.

For example, I just saw a video of a group of yahoos in our state capital of Lansing, Michigan, chanting "Dead People Voted!" So, they are sure that lots of dead people voted and they probably think Michigan was stolen, or at least that the evil Democrats did the same thing in Georgia and stole that one. Maybe they saw the video, posted on this forum from a tweet, showing what appeared to be evidence that a vote was received from a 120 year old woman in Jackson County. Well, I saw that video, and I cannot come up with a convincing explanation of how that came to pass. I'm sure lots of other people saw that video, too, and some, failing to come up with a non-fraudulent explanation, are sure that means it proves vote fraud.

So, I would like someone to look into what happened there. I don't mean a million dollar investigation. I just mean that I think it would be worth the effort if someone in the Jackson County Clerk's office checked out whether the video is really legitimate, whether the woman in question really represents a woman, long since passed away, but who is still on the voter rolls, but who nevertheless recorded a vote. I'm guessing not, but I don't know the explanation of how that might have come to pass any other way.

It just helps to reassure people. If you can show them that one or two of the "proof of voter fraud" videos that they have seen on youtube are not legitimate, they might think that there's probably good explanations for the others, too. If you ignore all of them, and just say, "There's no evidence.", the people might think that you are just ignoring the evidence.

ETA: Newt Gingrich is running around talking about vote fraud, and citing an example from the Franken-Coleman recount about an envelope full of ballots that magically appeared to put the Democrat, Franken, over the top. Well, I know exactly the envelope he's talking about, and why the overwhelming evidence is that it was a perfectly legitimate envelope full of real votes, that should have been, and was, counted. However, I follow this sort of thing a lot more closely than most. If you can find the most widespread allegations you can find, and put together a report detailing the reasons why this is almost certainly not voter fraud, it could make a difference in the mind of some of the protestors. Not all, of course. Some are hopeless, but some are reachable.

We do have explanations for the dead voters though:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/08/t...ing/index.html

Explanations:

- two people having an identical name
- completely legal votes using a temporary default birthdate (usually January 1900, which sounds like what the 120 year old woman would be about)
- other clerical errors
- genuine long-living individuals

At any rate, even if an actual dead person had voted, that vote would have been thrown out in line with counting procedures. This is also true for people who died after having voted but before election day.

[eerok]

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma

Thank you Roger. My only reason for posting this information is because it seems to be exactly what the Trump side is alleging. The merits of that are in question. I don't feel they are obligated(legally) to tip their hand before they file their suits, which I believe is happening tomorrow.

There are no merits in question. It's a tantrum because Trump is a baby. Taking this seriously is absurd. There is no way he can win this election. He has lost. This parrot is deceased.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Jr is a chip off the block. He has ZERO evidence of Voter Fraud and yet he insists that it be investigated.

Man am I sick of Trump family members pulling a turd out of their ass and demanding that we examine it.

Just think - they're all going to have to find employment for the first time in their miserable lives.

[eerok]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Just think - they're all going to have to find employment for the first time in their miserable lives.

I bet that whatever the Trump kids do next for a living will be skeezy.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally Posted by shemp

Originally Posted by TangyPoindexter

0n6ycytf06yg6/:'is gu dedicated for6yygg7pbb0 llllllllllllllllihjnnn ffgtdvftgrffgrx4vc6g6cm75a2g889s5zdfdcfcc6dcdccfcg gxx7yj5z

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Great first post!

I can beat that.

[Jim_MDP]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Just think - they're all going to have to find employment for the first time in their miserable lives.

What are you saying?
Being an exec in Trump Inc. isn't an "honest" living, but no one said big-time grifting is... easy.

[TangyPoindexter]

Apologies for my absolutely brilliant first post. It was indeed a pocket post. I read that and wondered who that dumbass was and then realized it was me.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[eerok]

Originally Posted by TangyPoindexter

Apologies for my absolutely brilliant first post. It was indeed a pocket post. I read that and wondered who that dumbass was and then realized it was me.

Such a moment is always illuminating. Welcome aboard.

[crackers]

Originally Posted by eerok

Such a moment is always illuminating. Welcome aboard.

Originally Posted by TangyPoindexter

Apologies for my absolutely brilliant first post. It was indeed a pocket post. I read that and wondered who that dumbass was and then realized it was me.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

I’m looking forward to reading your future posts - that are not in secret code!

[EvilBiker]

Originally Posted by Olmstead

We do have explanations for the dead voters though:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/08/t...ing/index.html

Explanations:

- two people having an identical name
- completely legal votes using a temporary default birthdate (usually January 1900, which sounds like what the 120 year old woman would be about)
- other clerical errors
- genuine long-living individuals

At any rate, even if an actual dead person had voted, that vote would have been thrown out in line with counting procedures. This is also true for people who died after having voted but before election day.

Somebody on Twitter took the time to go through all the claimed voting fraud occurrences. Good thread.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank

I'm sure the consensus in this thread (haven't been keeping up with it) is that the claims of election tampering / fraud, etc. are overblown, stuff that always happens, not enough to change the outcome, outright lies, rumor, speculation, whatever.

That is what I'd expect folks here to think.

I personally have seen enough evidence going around to put us well beyond the point of justifying a careful, deliberate look and recount in specific states.

There are some serious abnormalities.

When it all gets hashed out, will it be enough to overturn the result as it stands now? Maybe, maybe not. I would say the odds are probably against Trump here.

So why did I make the renewed declaration and the avatar bet, then? Because I find doubling down / long shots / die hard mentality to be appealing and worthy of subscription.

Re: The vote fraud. The problem is that we're just dealing with rumors and I heard this person say that thing and there was a video on youtube and etc. etc. When all is said and done, it has the same failings as all the other conspiracy theories.

How do you actually do it? In order to make it happen, the shadowy "them" can't do it. Very specific people have to execute very specific actions in such a way that those actions are not revealed to the public. I wish I had the project management skills to add 10,000 votes to Joe Biden's totals without being exposed, but I don't. Every scheme I think of requires the active participation of people who have every incentive to sxpose me.

But....I'm certainly for a careful deliberate look for voting fraud. We had one, with quite a big budget overseen by President Trump after the 2016 election, but it didn't turn up anything. So let's have another one, except I might go for a smaller budget this time.

Recounts? Absolutely. Count them. I haven't heard that Georgia has cancelled their recount. Go fort it. Once again there might be some budget issues, but at least, say, the two closest states. What would that be? Georgia and Arizona. Sure, why not? Last time around Jill Stein paid 3.5 million dollars for a recount. Surely Trump has enough that he could afford that, whether his own money or his campaign's. If any states are close enough to trigger a free recount, then by all means reacount.

And it's not because I'm confident Biden would still win. I am, but that's a secondary notion. The President of the United States has alleged fraud. That is so, incredibly, dangerous and damaging to our country. We ought to do whatever it takes to correct that damage, and recounts would be one part of that.

And those "serious abnormalities"? Well, if there are serious abnormalities, then not only should they be investigated, the results of that investigation should be clear and transparent, and the report should include explaining why the "serious abnormalities" weren't really serious or abnormal, except in the sense that the circumstances of this election were pretty seriously abnormal right from the beginning.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Olmstead

We do have explanations for the dead voters though:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/08/t...ing/index.html

Explanations:

- two people having an identical name
- completely legal votes using a temporary default birthdate (usually January 1900, which sounds like what the 120 year old woman would be about)
- other clerical errors
- genuine long-living individuals

At any rate, even if an actual dead person had voted, that vote would have been thrown out in line with counting procedures. This is also true for people who died after having voted but before election day.

Exactly, although I doubt most states would catch the fact that certain people died after having filled out their absentee ballots. I doubt the information systems are linked well enough to catch that. Maybe some states have taken steps to do that. Dead people on the voter rolls has been an issue for a long time, just because how would the people running the registration system know that someone had died?

When I say I have no explanation for that one that I saw on video, I just mean I can't tell you exactly how that one vote ended up being cast. I think it would be helpful to, somewhere, describe exactly how that happened, as an illustration of how something can be made to look suspicious when, in reality, it's quite straightforward

ETA: I wrote the above before I clicked on the link. I had thought that the link would be a sort of generic description, as opposed to dealing with the specific examples from the previously posted videos. I'm surprised that they can catch the "died before election day" cases.

At any rate, I think these sorts of journalistic investigations are extremely important. Sadly, there will be people who are unconvinced, no matter how much evidence is put before them, but such is the nature of humanity..

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Eric Trump tweeted
@EricTrump

Software from hell! There needs to be a manual recount of every ballot in this country right now!

And I'm gonna hold my breath till I'm blue if they don't!

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I think there's a certain amount of what you might call "maintenance" type investigations that are useful in assuring the public that there's nothing to the allegations. Not that it will ever be 100% effective, either. As the old saying goes, you can't reason someone out of something that he didn't reason himself into.

The people shouting the loudest about election fraud are, of course, not thinking at all. They're just saying that if their guy lost, it much be fraud. Those people cannot be reached at all. Beyond that, though, there's another group who hears the allegations, and can't come up with any explanation for the sketchy evidence, and sees the allegations dismissed, and begins to think maybe there's something to it.

People who come here are more likely to have investigated some sort of conspiracy theories before, and see all of the tell-tale signs of a CT in the "evidence" of election fraud today. However, most people have never done that. A little bit of official word demonstrating why the apparently suspicious activity has a perfectly innocent explanation, or that the effect is so tiny the suspicious ballots could not have changed anything, would go a long way toward convincing the ones on the fence about whether they think there might be election fraud.

For example, I just saw a video of a group of yahoos in our state capital of Lansing, Michigan, chanting "Dead People Voted!" So, they are sure that lots of dead people voted and they probably think Michigan was stolen, or at least that the evil Democrats did the same thing in Georgia and stole that one. Maybe they saw the video, posted on this forum from a tweet, showing what appeared to be evidence that a vote was received from a 120 year old woman in Jackson County. Well, I saw that video, and I cannot come up with a convincing explanation of how that came to pass. I'm sure lots of other people saw that video, too, and some, failing to come up with a non-fraudulent explanation, are sure that means it proves vote fraud.

So, I would like someone to look into what happened there. I don't mean a million dollar investigation. I just mean that I think it would be worth the effort if someone in the Jackson County Clerk's office checked out whether the video is really legitimate, whether the woman in question really represents a woman, long since passed away, but who is still on the voter rolls, but who nevertheless recorded a vote. I'm guessing not, but I don't know the explanation of how that might have come to pass any other way.

It just helps to reassure people. If you can show them that one or two of the "proof of voter fraud" videos that they have seen on youtube are not legitimate, they might think that there's probably good explanations for the others, too. If you ignore all of them, and just say, "There's no evidence.", the people might think that you are just ignoring the evidence.

ETA: Newt Gingrich is running around talking about vote fraud, and citing an example from the Franken-Coleman recount about an envelope full of ballots that magically appeared to put the Democrat, Franken, over the top. Well, I know exactly the envelope he's talking about, and why the overwhelming evidence is that it was a perfectly legitimate envelope full of real votes, that should have been, and was, counted. However, I follow this sort of thing a lot more closely than most. If you can find the most widespread allegations you can find, and put together a report detailing the reasons why this is almost certainly not voter fraud, it could make a difference in the mind of some of the protestors. Not all, of course. Some are hopeless, but some are reachable.

I appreciate what you say, but this is creating a never-ending cycle of claim-investigation-debunking in which those people claiming voter fraud are never satisfied because even if this case is explained (and they may not be satisfied with any explanation), what about the next case ?

Even if a handful of cases are proven, that merely confirms what the MSM has been saying - that voter fraud isn't entirely absent, but that the incidence is incredibly low and it has no influence on the outcome. OTOH that handful of cases is merely grist to the GOP conspiracy mill and proof positive that millions of people voted fraudulently.

I've had experience with UK government benefits systems and we've had our share of unfeasibly old people. It tends to come down to one of two things:

• User error when the birth date was entered
• Two people with similar names and addresses and the wrong one was marked as deceased

People actually trying to subvert the system use "valid" data - makes it easier to slip through the net.


edited to add....

Comprehensively ninja'd by Olmstead

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Jr is a chip off the block. He has ZERO evidence of Voter Fraud and yet he insists that it be investigated.

Man am I sick of Trump family members pulling a turd out of their ass and demanding that we examine it.

You've got that backwards. The turds pulled Trumps out of their ass.

[TofuFighter]

Originally Posted by TangyPoindexter

0n6ycytf06yg6/:'is gu dedicated for6yygg7pbb0 llllllllllllllllihjnnn ffgtdvftgrffgrx4vc6g6cm75a2g889s5zdfdcfcc6dcdccfcg gxx7yj5z

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Valid point. Something that I will watch with interest is how trump will continue to badger elected Republicans from the sidelines over the next indeterminate period of time.

It's not a new concept in politics, but trump is now a monster of their own making and while they may have enjoyed his assaults on Democratic participants, they've never been able to rein him in or control him as they may have hoped to have been able to when he first started his mindless rampage. They're still going to feel teeth.

As evidenced by Eric's tweet, "Where is the GOP? Our voters will not forget", the trumps view trump voters as their weapon, and you can be sure those will be wielded against Republicans in the future.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Eric Trump tweeted
@EricTrump

Software from hell! There needs to be a manual recount of every ballot in this country right now!

Gee, Eric, you have a long way to go before you sound quite as loony as daddy. But.... keep practicing.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by eerok

Every ballot in the country? What a buffoon.

Very much so. Flipping the election in Trump's favor would require there to be over 4 million fraudulent votes. Should be possible to show with a fairly small sample.

Hans

[The Don]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Very much so. Flipping the election in Trump's favor would require there to be over 4 million fraudulent votes. Should be possible to show with a fairly small sample.

Hans

Not quite. Winning the popular vote would require that.

Winning the electoral college would require the cumulative difference in the swing states, a couple of hundred thousand - maybe ?

I mean it's still a ridiculously large number and would not require a large sample BUT almost all of those who are arguing that the election has been influenced by fraudulent votes are doing so in bad faith. There is literally no evidence they will accept that there hasn't been large-scale voter fraud and the handful of examples which are found will be proof positive that the election has been stolen.

Indeed, for them, the lack of evidence of large scale voter fraud is proof positive that it must exist and clear evidence of how good the cover up is.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Some glitch is keeping me from linking to a Daily Beast story from a couple of days ago. The headline was, "Trump whines: Why isn't Barr coming to save me?" Trump whining is not news. The analysis within caught my eye though:







The key word there is "incoherent." I don't think there's going to be a coherent way out of this for Trump because Trump is fundamentally incoherent.

It doesn't even rise to the level of an incoherent plan, it's simply how Trump's petulance has always exhibited. He has always "sued" or rather threatened to sue people to bully them.

[rdaneel]

Originally Posted by TangyPoindexter

Apologies for my absolutely brilliant first post. It was indeed a pocket post. I read that and wondered who that dumbass was and then realized it was me.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

I lucky this hasn't happened to me yet. I can think of a few times I've pulled my phone out of my pocket to find apps open that I didn't even know I had and my browser has multiple tabs to a variety of places man was not meant to go.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank

I'm sure the consensus in this thread (haven't been keeping up with it) is that the claims of election tampering / fraud, etc. are overblown, stuff that always happens, not enough to change the outcome, outright lies, rumor, speculation, whatever.

That is what I'd expect folks here to think.

I personally have seen enough evidence going around to put us well beyond the point of justifying a careful, deliberate look and recount in specific states.

... snip... .

No you haven't, you are barefaced lying.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma

Thank you Roger. My only reason for posting this information is because it seems to be exactly what the Trump side is alleging. The merits of that are in question. I don't feel they are obligated(legally) to tip their hand before they file their suits, which I believe is happening tomorrow.

You are also woefully uninformed about your own justice system.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

How is he doing that?

He gave us some information on 'how the U.S. State Dept explained Ukraine electoral fraud', which presumably is factual. As to what relevance this has to the current US election or what it might mean, he did not state an opinion.

Please don't accuse other posters of 'intentionally promoting spreading false facts and promoting a false narrative' when they just quote from a link and otherwise 'have no opinion on that'. Because it's a trap.

I disagree - As JoeMorgue said, it's *insinuating* that there's something that presumably the authorities in Georgia and Arizona had colluded with their electoral opponents in order to deny Trump

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Darat

No you haven't, you are barefaced lying.

No, he isn't. His evidence is Trump's word, and that's more than enough evidence for him. Courts of law see things very differently, of course, but to the worshipper the Word alone is sufficient.

Dave

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

Wasn't that on Thursday?

Bonfire Night, as far as fireworks are concerned starts on the 1st of the month and lasts until about the 9th.

Single random fireworks get let off from the middle of October until the middle of November

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

No, he isn't. His evidence is Trump's word, and that's more than enough evidence for him. Courts of law see things very differently, of course, but to the worshipper the Word alone is sufficient.

Dave

But he didn’t say that he trusted Trump’s word, he was referring to other evidence that he had seen.

I could of course be wrong and equally of course if I am wrong I would retract my comment about him being a barefaced liar, all it would take is for him to provide the evidence that he claims he has seen. But unless he does I am going to judge his latest claim to be yet another lie.

[dann]

Originally Posted by The Don

There is literally no evidence they will accept that there hasn't been large-scale voter fraud and the handful of examples which are found will be proof positive that the election has been stolen.

If the handful of examples found are mainly Trump/Republican votes, it will be seen as proof that the election is still being stolen ...

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Bonfire Night, as far as fireworks are concerned starts on the 1st of the month and lasts until about the 9th.

Single random fireworks get let off from the middle of October until the middle of November

The weather forecast makes a big difference but as someone with pets who need to be kept in when fireworks are likely I can say that bonfire night itself, and the Saturdays before and after it, are the only days on which I lock the catflap before it gets dark. Families with young children tend to prefer an evening which isn't a school night. As bonfire night was a Thursday this year I expected Saturday 7th to be the day most families let off fireworks in their gardens around where I live, and I was right.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Bonfire Night, as far as fireworks are concerned starts on the 1st of the month and lasts until about the 9th.

Single random fireworks get let off from the middle of October until the middle of November

Yeah, I've definitely seen people claiming fireworks in the UK as being because of Biden, when fireworks around this time of year have been happening since long before Joe Biden was even born.

I wonder how many people who thought it was because of Biden would nonetheless recognise a Guy Fawkes mask thanks to V For Vendetta and Anonymous?

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Darat

But he didn’t say that he trusted Trump’s word, he was referring to other evidence that he had seen.

I can see two things he said.

"I personally have seen enough evidence going around to put us well beyond the point of justifying a careful, deliberate look and recount in specific states."

At no point does he specify that the "evidence going around" is anything more than Trump's claims and those of his retinue. If his required burden of proof is so pathetically low, then that's his business, and for certain there's no reason to suggest the courts should be that gullible, but it says more about his credulity and personal bias than his honesty.

"There are some serious abnormalities."

(1) He doesn't actually say that this is part of the evidence; but,
(2) Yes, there are of course some serious abnormalities, arising from the fact that there's a pandemic in progress, intelligent and well-informed people have mostly chosen to limit their exposure to the pandemic by voting by mail, intelligent and well-informed people for the most part do not support Trump, and the system has been rigged wherever Trump has been able to bring it about such that the votes of intelligent and well-informed people who so limited their exposure to a deadly disease were not counted until after those of ignorant and stupid people who believed a demagogue who exhorted them to risk their lives.

Though, again, intelligent and well-informed people understand that this has no bearing on the question of whether the election was unfair, I can see that the ignorant and stupid might well consider it evidence of foul play. Since Skeptic Tank at no point suggests that this is in fact his argument, one cannot comment further.

Dave

[Ryokan]

Fox News is reporting that Trump is planning to start rallies again.

Get ready, the circus is coming to town.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...ection-results

[Tero]

saw that:
Trump to go on rallies, dig up dead people and see if their signature matches the record at polling place

FOX news

Quote:

President Trump is planning to bring back his large-scale rallies that were a hallmark of his presidential run, but these will be focused on his “ongoing litigation” as he challenges the results of last week’s election.

According a report by Axios and confirmed by Fox News, Trump's campaign plans to take less traditional path to challenging the results of the election, including holding “a series of Trump rallies” focused on the campaigns ongoing legal efforts in numerous states across the country.

Along with the rallies, Trump is also planning to use obituaries of people who allegedly voted but are actually dead as evidence of the voter fraud he's been claiming. The campaign is also sending recount teams Georgia, Arizona, and Pennsylvania, with Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., heading up the effort in the Peach State.

[Captain_Swoop]

'recount teams'?

what authority will they have?

[Captain_Swoop]

First Barr, now Pence is missing too.
Where are the bodies?

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by Tero

saw that:
Trump to go on rallies, dig up dead people and see if their signature matches the record at polling place

FOX news

Jesus wept.

"The American people should be able to have confidence in the integrity of their democratic election processes. So...how do we further that?"

"I know! We'll litigate the hell out of this one in court! And, since we don't have the evidence for fraud that will actually make a difference in the law courts, we'll litigate the whole thing at rallies!"

[Fast Eddie B]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

No, he isn't. His evidence is Trump's word, and that's more than enough evidence for him. Courts of law see things very differently...

I think I recently read Trump was losing 9-0 in motions concerning the election and vote counting.

Which misses the point. Trump’s goal in going to the courts is rarely to win. It’s to delay, obfuscate, intimidate and in civil cases to wear down his opponents financially. It’s disgusting how effective his weaponizing of the judicial process has been - at least up to now.

After January 20 we’ll get to see if these tactics continue to work for him. I suspect they will - at least until the money to pay lawyers runs out.

[Captain_Swoop]

Matt Schlapp tweeted

@mschlapp
We are now aware of 698 verified cases, and thousands more reported, where people were unable to verify if their vote was counted.

The reason for this is the Nevada secretary of state’s website is barely functional.

Election observers from the United Nations would be appalled at the lack of transparency and the shocking number of vulnerabilities in Nevada’s ballot-counting process.

[Captain_Swoop]

Washington Examiner tweeted

@dcexaminer
Dead voters. Biden van full of ballots. Trump legal team details shock Nevada claims
NORTH LAS VEGAS, Nevada — President Trump's Nevada legal team beefed up its legal challenge to mail-in ballot signature verification in the state with startling claims of voter and ballot fraud.
washingtonexaminer.com