Trump to sign order launching voter fraud commission

[Fargo]

If he truly understood policy he would have directed the commission to be transparent, break down in steps the information it will need, find ways to obtain that information legally while respecting citizens rights, and then compile the data in a meaningful and understandable way. None of that happened. When he did face multiple speedbumps he just capitulated and disbanded the commission. A true shame.

Very well said. The decision to disband and so try to moot out the injunction/discovery in the suit is pretty much the opposite of transparency, especially when the official line is that nothing has been hidden and there is nothing to turn over. I think that you are correct that both sides are afraid that the voter fraud data isn't going to show what they want it to.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Nope, the commission FROM THE START requested only PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION from the states. It explicitly says those exact words in the letters sent to the 50 secretaries of state. That's not opinion, that is fact.

So that means all documents related to dealings of the commission are publicly available information provided by the states? You can't honestly believe what you just wrote. Seriously, you can't. I refuse to believe that you legitimately believe the above. You have to be making this stuff stuff up, on purpose.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

So that means all documents related to dealings of the commission are publicly available information provided by the states? You can't honestly believe what you just wrote. Seriously, you can't. I refuse to believe that you legitimately believe the above. You have to be making this stuff stuff up, on purpose.

'Member this exchange.... IT was a "long time ago", back in July...

The WH is asking for some publically available information, and I'm generally ok with that. I'm not ok with them requesting the non-public info.

The WH commission request letter literally says "if publicly available under the laws of your state". They have requested NO non-public information... none, nada, zilch, zippo, squat and diddly-squat. Lol!

The Voting Integrity Commission requested ONLY PUBLICLY AVAILABLE information from the 50 states... and Dems sued them to stop it. I'm sure there is a legal term for this tactic, but in plain-speak, it's says they got sh*t to hide.

ETA: Link to Commission letter: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2017/06/PEIC-Letter-to-Connecticut-1.pdf

 

[Kutnupe14]

'Member this exchange.... IT was a "long time ago", back in July...

The Voting Integrity Commission requested ONLY PUBLICLY AVAILABLE information from the 50 states... and Dems sued them to stop it.

And? Yes, the WH asked for publiclly available information. Why do you assume that the documents requested by the Democrat member of the panel, that weren't provided, concerns that specific information? I'm seriously wondering if you're just trying to make excuses, or you sincerely don't "get it."
You ever been involved in any sort of investigation, exploratory committee, or anything similar? Serious question. You may gather quite a bit of public, or common known information during the course of an investigation. From that information obtained, you don't simply put it on pieces of paper, and call it a day. You implement methodologies, and tactics to extrapolate a final conclusion/outcome. You then justify your conclusion based on the methodologies used. Those methodologies, and final conclusions are provided so that all involved can have confidence in the work of the body.

You REALLY don't get this? Really?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

And? Yes, the WH asked for publiclly available information. Why do you assume that the documents requested by the Democrat member of the panel, that weren't provided, concerns that specific information? I'm seriously wondering if you're just trying to make excuses, or you sincerely don't "get it."
You ever been involved in any sort of investigation, exploratory committee, or anything similar? Serious question. You may gather quite a bit of public, or common known information during the course of an investigation. From that information obtained, you don't simply put it on pieces of paper, and call it a day. You implement methodologies, and tactics to extrapolate a final conclusion/outcome. You then justify your conclusion based on the methodologies used. Those methodologies, and final conclusions are provided so that all involved can have confidence in the work of the body.

You REALLY don't get this? Really?

YOU (and Fargo) compared the Republican members not being willing to release their internal emails (that's what the Dems sued for and the judge did not touch in the decision) to the Dems fighting tooth and nail (lawsuits out the whazoo) to prevent the commission from obtaining PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION on voter registrations in the 50 states, didn't want them even looked at.

One of those two is MUCH worse, IMO, big difference between fighting to keep PRIVATE emails, private, and fighting to keep from examining PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION for widespread voter fraud. One is normal "privacy", the other indicates that they know there is a problem and are attempting everything possible to keep it hidden... otherwise, the Dems would be happy to prove Trump wrong with his own commission.

The two are not the same... and, yes, I absolutely "get" this... either you don't or are being intentionally obtuse.

Those methodologies, and final conclusions are provided so that all involved can have confidence in the work of the body.

There are no methodologies and no conclusions... the Dems successfully STOPPED the commission from even starting it's work. It only "met" twice, and one was the "kick-off" teleconference. Like I said, good luck to them halting law enforcement from racking up the same numbers by prioritizing for apprehension and deportation illegal aliens who committed felony voter fraud... no "bipartisanship" needed for that.

 

[Kutnupe14]

YOU (and Fargo) compared the Republican members not being willing to release their internal emails (that's what the Dems sued for and the judge did not touch in the decision) to the Dems fighting tooth and nail (lawsuits out the whazoo) to prevent the commission from obtaining PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION on voter registrations in the 50 states, didn't want them even looked at.

One of those two is MUCH worse, IMO, big difference between fighting to keep PRIVATE emails, private, and fighting to keep from examining PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION for widespread voter fraud. One is normal "privacy", the other indicates that they know there is a problem and are attempting everything possible to keep it hidden... otherwise, the Dems would be happy to prove Trump wrong with his own commission.

The two are not the same... and, yes, I absolutely "get" this... either you don't or are being intentionally obtuse.

Ok, so you don't get it. Your first sentence, at least regarding me, is false. Making your second paragraph superfluous nonsense. Not even trying to be mean, but I think this conversation is above your understanding.

 

[Fargo]

Ok, so you don't get it. Your first sentence, at least regarding me, is false. Making your second paragraph superfluous nonsense. Not even trying to be mean, but I think this conversation is above your understanding.

Man, I just read his posts through the lens of a guy who will adamantly argue that where a criminal statute says "infraction or ordinance violation" it really means "felony or misdemeanor".

They make much more sense when you recognize that things can mean anything he wants them to.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Ok, so you don't get it. Your first sentence, at least regarding me, is false. Making your second paragraph superfluous nonsense. Not even trying to be mean, but I think this conversation is above your understanding.

BS. You said the Repubs were worse than the Dems for not giving them everything they asked for... I quoted from the court document that they were suing for any and every email of the Repub members. I think you understand that perfectly, and as usual, throw up a smokescreen and run because the facts don't fit your worldview.

Man, I just read his posts through the lens of a guy who will adamantly argue that where a criminal statute says "infraction or ordinance violation" it really means "felony or misdemeanor".

They make much more sense when you recognize that things can mean anything he wants them to.

You mean this interaction?

You do understand how court opinions work, right?

FIRST the court establishes WHAT THE STANDARD IS, then determines whether the case before it meets the standard. The standard is Hiibel, the fact that Starr did not meet the standard (he was a mere passenger, not at all involved in the reason for the stop, failure to signal a turn) doesn't change the standard. It also CLEARLY states that a passenger who is involved in an infraction or suspected of a crime can be compelled to disclose their identity if the officer can articulate the reasonable suspicion.

In Hiibel, SCOTUS established that reasonable suspicion was all that was required to compel a person's identity, without violating the 4th amendment, not probable cause

I started to type out the half a dozen or so fundamental errors in your legal argument, but then I realized I just don't care to try to have a discussion with someone that thinks that infractions and ordinances are the same as crimes.

Just to help you with your reading mis-comprehension, the word OR is used to join dissimilar words. As in either this or that, because this and that aren't the same thing.

Back on subject, so, in other words, you think Repubs should turn over internal emails, but Dems should not even allow PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION to be examined for felony voter fraud.
=============================================================================
=============================================================================

Bottom-line, the two studies of non-citizen voter fraud show that 14% of non-citizens register to vote and 8% vote on presidential election years (lower percentages in the off yers). If those statistics are accurate nationwide, 8% of 25-28 million non-citizens means MORE THAN 2 MILLION ILLEGAL VOTES, almost all for Democrats.

That's an existential crisis for Democrats at the national level if those illegal votes disappear. They are fighting tooth and nail like they either know, or at the very least fear, that it is true.

 

[Kutnupe14]

BS. You said the Repubs were worse than the Dems for not giving them everything they asked for... I quoted from the court document that they were suing for any and every email of the Repub members. I think you understand that perfectly, and as usual, throw up a smokescreen and run because the facts don't fit your worldview.
.

"BS," you said it. Because I didn't say that. I'd ask you to find that quote, but what's the point? I would undoubtedly be met with the "I'm not looking for the post" excuse. I don't know what your end game is, but lying to try and make it, isn't a good look. Lying makes anything you post afterwards, a non-starter.

 

[Fargo]

"BS," you said it. Because I didn't say that. I'd ask you to find that quote, but what's the point? I would undoubtedly be met with the "I'm not looking for the post" excuse. I don't know what your end game is, but lying to try and make it, isn't a good look. Lying makes anything you post afterwards, a non-starter.

I honestly don't think he is lying. He thinks that because the US Supreme Court says that a law compelling ID by criminal suspects can be passed, that Indiana magically has one. He really thinks words just mean what he wants them to.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I honestly don't think he is lying. He thinks that because the US Supreme Court says that a law compelling ID by criminal suspects can be passed, that Indiana magically has one. He really thinks words just mean what he wants them to.

He might not be lying about that. But he IS lying when he said I said "Repubs were worse than Dems." I made no such claim about either party being "worse" than the other, in whatever issue he's wanting to making up.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

"BS," you said it. Because I didn't say that. I'd ask you to find that quote, but what's the point? I would undoubtedly be met with the "I'm not looking for the post" excuse. I don't know what your end game is, but lying to try and make it, isn't a good look. Lying makes anything you post afterwards, a non-starter.

First, back to your original deflection, your claim that the court ruled on the "list" of documents the dem's demanded is refuted by the court itself, which I quoted FROM THE JUDGE, that he DID NOT RULE UPON that list of documents.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ng-voter-fraud-commission-15.html#post7368930

In your interactions with IndyDave just yesterday:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ng-voter-fraud-commission-13.html#post7367802
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ng-voter-fraud-commission-13.html#post7367906
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ng-voter-fraud-commission-14.html#post7367913

You characterize the administration and Republicans as "shady", "not transparent" and disrespecting "the sanctity of the vote", the last of which I can only interpret as attempting to steal elections.

If you've characterized the Democrats in anywhere near equal, or god forbid, worse terms, for blocking access to PUBLICLY AVAILABLE VOTER INFORMATION, then I've never seen it... perhaps you can provide those quotes?

I honestly don't think he is lying. He thinks that because the US Supreme Court says that a law compelling ID by criminal suspects can be passed, that Indiana magically has one. He really thinks words just mean what he wants them to.

And, you have the odd belief that while, in Indiana, someone pulled over for a broken tail light (infraction) MUST provide their name to police (we agree on that)... someone suspected of MURDER does not, and may not be taken into custody to ascertain their identity if they refuse to do so.

 

[Kutnupe14]

First, back to your original deflection, your claim that the court ruled on the "list" of documents the dem's demanded is refuted by the court itself, which I quoted FROM THE JUDGE, that he DID NOT RULE UPON that list of documents.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ng-voter-fraud-commission-15.html#post7368930

In your interactions with IndyDave just yesterday:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ng-voter-fraud-commission-13.html#post7367802
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ng-voter-fraud-commission-13.html#post7367906
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ng-voter-fraud-commission-14.html#post7367913

You characterize the administration and Republicans as "shady", "not transparent" and disrespecting "the sanctity of the vote", the last of which I can only interpret as attempting to steal elections.

If you've characterized the Democrats in anywhere near equal, or god forbid, worse terms, for blocking access to PUBLICLY AVAILABLE VOTER INFORMATION, then I've never seen it... perhaps you can provide those quotes?

None of that supports your lies. But keep lying, eventually you'll make it true in your head.

 

[Fargo]

And, you have the odd belief that while, in Indiana, someone pulled over for a broken tail light (infraction) MUST provide their name to police (we agree on that)... someone suspected of MURDER does not, and may not be taken into custody to ascertain their identity if they refuse to do so.

LOL, I am not slamming my head into the brick wall of your reading comprehension further. The refusal to ID statute is explicitly limited in its scope. There may be other ways in Indiana to get identity on criminal suspects, but as I have repeatedly posted, I'm not wasting my time trying to explain a fairly complicated are of the law to a person who believes words mean whatever they want them to.

 

[Kutnupe14]

LOL, I am not slamming my head into the brick wall of your reading comprehension further. The refusal to ID statute is explicitly limited in its scope. There may be other ways in Indiana to get identity on criminal suspects, but as I have repeatedly posted, I'm not wasting my time trying to explain a fairly complicated are of the law to a person who believes words mean whatever they want them to.

Ditto, he can have at it creating his own truth.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

LOL, I am not slamming my head into the brick wall of your reading comprehension further. The refusal to ID statute is explicitly limited in its scope. There may be other ways in Indiana to get identity on criminal suspects, but as I have repeatedly posted, I'm not wasting my time trying to explain a fairly complicated are of the law to a person who believes words mean whatever they want them to.

If you are suspected of MURDER and refuse to identify yourself to the investigating officers, you WILL BE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY until they get your identity.

It's not complicated at all... if you wish to continue, yet again, to argue otherwise because there is statutory language requiring identification for infractions and ordinance violations, but not for felonies, have at it... but I don't think anyone would believe you, though I would not presume to speak for Kut.

ETA: And good thing I didn't because he appears to agree with you...

Ditto, he can have at it creating his own truth.

 

[Fargo]

If you are suspected of MURDER and refuse to identify yourself to the investigating officers, you WILL BE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY until they get your identity.

It's not complicated at all... if you wish to continue, yet again, to argue otherwise because there is statutory language requiring identification for infractions and ordinance violations, but not for felonies, have at it... but I don't think anyone would believe you, though I would not presume to speak for Kut.

ETA: And good thing I didn't because he appears to agree with you...

I'm really getting a kick out of this. I put up a post saying there may be ways to do it, just not under that statute, and you respond with an argument that misses that completely. I really don't know how to reply to a person who can't/won't read.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I'm really getting a kick out of this. I put up a post saying there may be ways to do it, just not under that statute, and you respond with an argument that misses that completely. I really don't know how to reply to a person who can't/won't read.

Yes, I understand that you get a kick out of obfuscating what is simple and obvious... bottom line is that Dems do not want PUBLICLY AVAILABLE voter rolls examined for illegal voter registrations and illegal votes because those illegal votes HUGELY/BIGLY (take you pick) go to them and give them power, illicitly, but power none the less, which is all they care about. Sanctity of the votes, psshhha.

The fact that they are fighting any meaningful investigation of the level of fraud, fighting like their very existence depends upon it makes me believe them that their very existence (power in office) DOES depend upon illegal votes to establish majorities at a national level.

(Just like a murder suspect WILL BE detained, and if necessary, taken into custody, if he refuses to provide investigating officers his identity. Equally simple and obvious so I'm glad you brought it up.)

ETA: Forgot the red

 

[Fargo]

Yes, I understand that you get a kick out of obfuscating what is simple and obvious... bottom line is that Dems do not want PUBLICLY AVAILABLE voter rolls examined for illegal voter registrations and illegal votes because those illegal votes HUGELY/BIGLY (take you pick) go to them and give them power, illicitly, but power none the less, which is all they care about. Sanctity of the votes, psshhha.

The fact that they are fighting any meaningful investigation of the level of fraud, fighting like their very existence depends upon it makes me believe them that their very existence (power in office) DOES depend upon illegal votes to establish majorities at a national level.

(Just like a murder suspect WILL BE detained, and if necessary, taken into custody, if he refuses to provide investigating officers his identity. Equally simple and obvious so I'm glad you brought it up.)

ETA: Forgot the red

Carry on man, carry on.

 

[jbombelli]

If this information is publicly available, why so much difficulty in obtaining it? What am I missing?