Voter Fraud Fraud

The Democratic Party sends me stuff. The latest is from Donna Brazile. You may remember Ms. Brazile. During the time when she was a CNN news analyst, she was also secretly providing Presidential Debate questions in advance to Hillary Clinton so that Hillary could pretend to be smarter than she is … in other words, Donna’s a common crook who is more than willing to lie for her cause. It is a mystery why anyone would listen to her after she’s demonstrated that, but what do I know, I was born yesterday …

In any case, as a reward for her duplicity, she now shills for the Democratic Party. Her latest screed contained the following claim:

And last week, we hit rock bottom when Kris Kobach — the man behind some of this country’s most severe voting restrictions, hand-picked by Trump to run this new sham of a commission — demanded that each state hand over its voter rolls.

Handing over all your personal information, including your political party and voting history, to Donald Trump? I don’t think so. Thank God almost every state has refused this absurd request.

Let me note that Donna is being Donna, which is to say, once again she is lying through her teeth. In a lovely example of recursion, she is perpetrating a fraud about voter fraud. To demonstrate this, I’ll start with the backstory, which most know.

After the election, President Trump claimed that he would have won the popular vote were it not for voter fraud. That would involve a swing of a couple of million votes, which seems most unlikely to me.

However, that doesn’t mean that voter fraud is non-existent. And the President played this issue beautifully. As I noted at the time, he kept making the same unbelievable claim of widespread fraud. The media quickly got fed up and basically said “OK, prove it. We’re tired of your election fraud BS. Put up or shut up”.

At which point, the President said in essence “Well, since you’ve insisted over and over that I prove voter fraud exists, I’ve created the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.”

And to bring this up to the present, since then a number of states have refused to cooperate with the Presidential Commission. In general, the state officials have put forward some version of the same lie that Donna is pushing above. They are claiming that they are being asked to reveal private data, and by gosh, they are noble warriors who are going to protect their citizenry from the terrible Trump people wanting sensitive personal information.

So … where is the lie?

Well, the lie is that they were ever asked to turn over private or sensitive data. Below is a quote from a typical letter requesting the voter data. This one went to Maine, but other than the state name it’s a mass mailing. Here’s the important part of the form letter from the President’s Commission requesting the Maine data, emphasis mine:

In addition, in order for the Commission to fully analyze vulnerabilities and issues related to voter registration and voting, I am requesting that you provide to the Commission the publicly available voter roll data for Maine, including, if publicly available under the laws of your state, the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social security number if available, voter history (elections voted in) from 2006 onward, active/inactive status, cancelled status, information regarding any felony convictions, information regarding voter registration in another state, information regarding military status, and overseas citizen information. SOURCE 

So despite Donna’s deceptions, there is no request for private or sensitive data. The letter is perfectly clear on that point. They say twice that they only want what is publicly available. They’re not in search of confidential data, they’re looking for voter fraud. You know, this kind of stuff.

voting while dead

SOURCE

I did laugh when I read the statement by our own California Secretary Of State, Alex Padilla, viz:

“The President’s commission has requested the personal data and the voting history of every American voter–including Californians. As Secretary of State, it is my duty to ensure the integrity of our elections and to protect the voting rights and privacy of our state’s voters. I will not provide sensitive voter information to a commission that has already inaccurately passed judgment that millions of Californians voted illegally. California’s participation would only serve to legitimize the false and already debunked claims of massive voter fraud made by the President, the Vice President, and Mr. Kobach

Just like Ms. Brazile, Secretary Padilla is lying. He has NOT been asked to release any sensitive or private data of any type. He has been asked to release publicly available data, and he is lying about that request.

What made me laugh was his claim that if he actually turns over publicly available data,  it would “legitimize” the claims of voter fraud … how does that work? Seems like concealing the voter data legitimizes the claims.

I say that because one of my rules of thumb is that when a man is hiding something … it’s because he’s got something to hide. Makes me wonder why California officials are so reluctant to provide the voter data …

Best to all of you on this lovely summer day, an afternoon replete with hummingbirds, buzzards and butterflies.

w.

Advertisements

27 thoughts on “Voter Fraud Fraud

  1. so, since this data is supposed to be public records that are available to anyone who asks, I’m eagerly awaiting the lawsuits against the states for refusing to provide public information as required by law.

    Now, the request does go beyond what’s publicly available, to additional things (as noted, to the extent permitted by law), but the list of voters, what party, etc are available to anyone who asks. That’s why you get a bunch of mail from various campaigns at election time. They don’t just mail it out to all addresses, they send it to registered voters, and usually registered voters of their party.

    Like

      • Understand your point, but check you’re 11th paragraph, first sentence. Looks to me that “ever” should be “never.” I’m being picky I realize, but I believe you like being precise.

        Liked by 1 person

        • If you refer to “Well, the lie is that they were ever asked to turn over private or sensitive data”, I concur with Willis.

          Like

  2. Are most “publicly available” data available on-line these days? The Commission could probably simply download most of it. The request to states seems to be designed to prevent them from claiming later “oh, we did not know about this”.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. In my former home state (Colorado), immigrants, even illegal ones, can get an official Colorado drivers license. All they have to do to get one is to promise to pursue citizenship or legal status in the future. Other states also offer this service, including (I believe) California, Oregon, Washington. In Colorado, an online web site operated by the Colorado Secretary of State allows anyone to register to vote requiring ONLY that you provide a valid Colorado drivers license number. Nothing prevents the illegal immigrants who got a valid license from also registering to vote. They have already illegally immigrated. They are told by the Progressives that they are citizens, too (not true), so they may feel they have the right to vote. And in Colorado, this issue is exacerbated by the all mail-in ballot system. As far as I know, no part of the state bureaucracy cross checks the non-citizen or illegal immigrant drivers license holders to see if they have illegally registered to vote. Voting requires American citizenship, something no longer guaranteed by the holding of a valid Colorado drivers license. To those who say the number of such violators is small are just as ignorant as those who claim there are millions of such violations. No one knows. And we need to know.

    Another big issue is the number of people who reside part time in multiple locations. While it might be reasonable to offer part time residents who own homes or do business in multiple cities to vote in the local elections and about local districts and boards. But it is decidedly awful to allow these people to be registered to vote in Congressional or Presidential elections in multiple states. In my new state (Florida), tens or hundreds of thousand of our residents live here during the winter and then return to homes in Northern state during the summer. Some non-zero number of them are registered to vote in both states. No doubt, some of those people illegally vote in presidential or Congressional elections in both places. I don’t know how many people do this, and neither does the state of Florida. And that’s the problem. Maybe the number is large enough to sway very close elections, possibly in both states. This is wrong, illegal and gives these people twice the voting influence of a legal voter, with half the polity claiming it’s not an big deal, only a tiny number, and that those who insist on eliminating such fraud are racists.

    Like

  4. I would like to see the Commission also ask for what documentation was used as proof a voter was a legal citizen of the U.S. and eligible to vote. My bet is that many states will only use a driver’s license as proof which would then allow the Commission to narrow the states to investigate. The next step would be to confirm the eligibility of all those who used a driver’s license to register to vote.

    Like

  5. In the UK, students have been sent voting rights in home and university towns. If they wish, they can apply for a postal vote. Some cities, such as Canterbury changed from safe Conservative to Labour in the recent election. I met a group of students 3 weeks before the election. Before, many did not bother to get out of bed to vote, but this time every one was keen to vote Labour- a.) as they have no memory of socialist overspending and b)- because Labour had promised to eliminate student debt of around £50k for a 3 year course. Universities had posters put up telling them to vote Labour. The student loan company has recently put up interest charges to 6% when most of us are getting 0.05% in bank savings. Our dozy leader had apparently not seen this coming, which is why she is now up sh1t street.

    Like

  6. In South Africa, everyone (legal) over 16 is supposed to have an identity document – in fact, an ID number is issued when a birth is registered, Now, to vote, you have to (a) be registered at your local voting station, AND re-register if you change address. (There’s a registration drive a few months before each election). Then (b) to vote, you have to have your bar-coded ID scanned at the polling station, and it has to be on the register for that station. The actual voting is by paper ballot, and there’s a supposed Independent Electoral Commission to keep the vote honest. So, any fraud that goes on (and it does) is by means of ‘losing’ ballot boxes in opposition territory, or alternatively by ‘stuffing’ boxes with fake votes. Both these methods have been caught out in recent years, but continue because most of the people involved in the balloting process (except the actual counting) are members of a strongly ANC supporting teachers’ union!

    Like

    • In the US, voting is a per-state thing, managed and controlled by the Secretary of State for that state.

      Most states do not require any ID to vote and suggestions to require showing any ID draw cries of “Racism” from Democrats. This is due to the history of the Democratic Party in the deep south after the Civil War. They imposed a variety of measures to try and prevent Freed Black (and to some extent Poor Whites) from voting. These included a “Poll Tax” and various “tests” (Literacy tests, Civics Tests) that claimed to be needed to make sure the Voter was “knowledgeable enough” to vote.

      The claim of the Democrats is that requiring that someone have an ID to be able to vote discourages poor people from voting because they won’t have any ID.

      Given that you need an ID to drive, get a job, or (I believe) even apply for welfare, I don’t buy their argument. I also expect that if there was such a rule in place, the various campaigns would gladly pay the $35/person to get IDs for people who they think would vote their way (and it’s either a one time, or once every 5 years cost)

      So I don’t buy their arguments, but that’s what they are arguing.

      Like

      • I would just add to your opening line that the Secretary of State for each state manages and controls the voting in accordance with the laws passed by that state legislature.

        Like

        • Good point. This is another example of how the US was formed by independent States who gave limited power to the Federal Government as opposed to (just about) every other country in the world that was formed by a central power conquering territory until stopped by their neighbors.

          The EU sometimes aspires to become a similar type of country, but the national forces are far stronger than the State forces and see their differences far more strongly and their commonalities far less than the States/Colonies did.

          (yes, yes, you can argue that the US expanded by conquest at times as well, but most of the time it was expanding by purchasing land. nobody and no country is perfect)

          Like

  7. Was Donna Brazile Fired From Dukakis Presidential Campaign For Fraud In 1998?

    “Rumors are circulating that Donna Brazile, the current head of the DNC who replaced the Wiki-shamed Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was once fired from her position as deputy national field director of Dukakis’ presidential campaign. Real Climate Science reported that Donna Brazile was fired almost 30 years ago for fraud. The strong accusation is being circulated Tuesday on social media and seems to trace back to an old Standard-Speaker article.”

    http://www.inquisitr.com/3642158/was-donna-brazile-fired-from-dukakis-presidential-campaign-for-fraud-in-1998/
    =========================================================================
    Fired or not,she was a sleazebag in 1988.

    Like

  8. I occasionally hear the lead-in to NPR’s morning news programme (while listening to an Indiana-based radio station from here in my home in Europe), and they repeat over and over that the Trump voter investigation is seeking “private” voter information. Sigh.

    Like

  9. Lying seems to be generally accepted in the political arena today, at least to me more by the Progressives than other groups. I wonder how much of that tracks back to Bill Clinton’s statement on national TV (i.e., “I did not have sex with that woman!”) and all the attempts by his supporters to trivialize it. It seems to me that ever since that act and possibly his impeachment there has been a concerted effort by most Democrats to catch or at the least accuse every opponent of lying, while their own truthfulness is never considered a requirement. Apparently among a rather large part of the coastal population truthfulness is no long a required part of moral character as it is and has been here in a rather mountainous part of “flyover country.”

    Like

    • The Democrats have been working so hard to catch their opponents lying because it’s effective. When a Republican is caught showing bad ethics, the voters have tended to punish them, but when a Democrat is caught, they are not punished. I think it shows more about the voters than the candidates.

      Like

      • You’re right. I think it actually shows more about the moral values held by the Democrats vs those of the Republicans. The Democrats, or at least their supporters, apparently don’t care if their representatives lye ‘for the cause’, so long as they at least say they support the cause.

        Like

  10. Something I don’t understand. In the US (and the UK, France etc) both sides try to discredit the other at election time and in between. The Democrats and officials are desperately trying to find a link between Trump and the Russians. One objective is to show that he is lying, through denial, and the other is to show that he has betrayed the country by working with a foreign power.

    At the moment his son is in trouble for meeting a foreign person who said she had information about Hilary having connections with the Russians, but she didn’t and nothing came of it. But he spoke to a Russian, and now the new FBI chief says all contact should be through him. But what if the information turned out to be true?

    Would it not be better for the electors to know the truth? And, even if the leaks sent to Wikileaks were from the Russians or from within the DNC, if they were true, why does it matter. Surely, the provider of truth is doing us a favor.

    Like

  11. I looked up California. Very lax about drivers licenses, and typical DMV voter registration all based on verbal statements or simple written answers to questions without any verification.. So definitely voter fraud is conceptually possible.
    Quite different here in Florida. To vote, you have to show up with drivers license or the paperwork needed to get one, plus current voter registration. Those are computer checked in real time before you are allowed into the actual voting room. Having just renewed my drivers license, this is the requisite paperwork:
    1. Valid current US passport or birth certificate.
    2. US Social security card.
    3. Two separate indicators of actual residency such as mortgage or utility bills to your name at address of record. Or, a written notarized attestation from the name on bills that you live there also. (My common law wifes case when she renewed.)
    The commission set up by Trump should look at those practices by state, which are a matter of public record in each. Says where voter fraid is easily possible and where it isn’t. Then bore into actual data only where it is easily possible, like California. Blanket request to 50 states for all applicable public records was IMO not the way to start off.

    Like

    • In California, the powers that be consider it horribly unfair if the Illegal Immigrants aren’t able to get drivers licenses, and voter registration is a simple checkbox on the drivers license form

      Like

  12. If the rajneeshees taught us anything, it is that voter rolls can be stuffed in your favor by providing some kind of benefit (aka “paying them to register”) to individuals to register and vote, something I call “soft porn voter fraud”. Remember Obama’s free phone offer? Soft porn voter fraud. In response to what the maroon gurus did regarding signing up homeless folks to vote, Oregon fixed the issue a bit by limiting registration to no closer than 21 days till election day. You can still change your address up to the deadline on election day. However, now we have a politician in Oregon who apparently has a deep-seated unvoiced late-to-the-soft-porn-voter-fraud party desire to convert to rajneesheeism.

    http://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-last-minute-voter-registration/

    Like

You are invited to add your comments. Please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING so we can all be clear on your subject.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s