What is the reason every media outlet is saying there is no fraud?

Can you provide examples of these first case reports of fraud please?

Here are two to get you started.

https://youtu.be/mgPJyEfG0C0

https://gellerreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/gov.usco...

The media also tried to say that dead people did not cast ballots in the election. I was able to find a dozen dead people in multiple states that requested and cast a ballot in the election.

Real journalists should be curious about this and actually want to find out why. It's very odd that so many are trying to deny it or cover it up.

That’s super interesting. What did you do with that information? Did you report it to the authorities and have them investigated and arrested? One person finding 12 cases of fraud is a huge deal and I think you would be hailed a hero and be on the news. Can you tell me what happened with your finding?

> One person finding 12 cases of fraud is a huge deal and I think you would be hailed a hero and be on the news.

Sadly this is not the case. The media has done nothing to report on this ballot harvester who was caught on tape:

https://youtu.be/mgPJyEfG0C0

That just looks like a dramatic reconstrcution

Do you have evidence for your interpretation? This is purportedly hidden camera footage and there is a lot of it.

I don’t need one. The trump campaign is desperate for evidence. They are scraping the bottom of the barrel and claiming ballots with chocolate sauce on it to be thrown out. If that’s the best they can provide, they would have jumped at this one and it would lead to a thousand lawsuits.

> I don’t need one.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion. It just appears to be motivated reasoning when someone asks for evidence and then, when provided evidence, interprets it in a way that diminishes its significance with no evidence for their interpretation.

> The trump campaign is desperate for evidence.

do you have evidence for this? Based on the number of sworn affidavits that have been filed, I'm not convinced they are short of evidence. The problem is that many people aren't concerned about election integrity when they think they have managed to compromise the election for their guy. Which is entirely expected, Republicans behaved the same way in 2000.

Sorry your rationale and line of reasoning is utterly unconvincing.

You say an amateur video is proof for widespread fraud. You say that inspite of this being the US and the election being the most watched in the world from media all over the world. You want me to believe that not a single media entity picked upon it and pursued it? There is a multi billion dollar right wing media like fox and others, that live for these and you want me to believe they didn’t look into this?

On top of that you also say that the trump administration has extremely credible lawsuits and proof of fraud? I was discussing purely out of intellectual curiosity if am done here. Have a good one.

> You say an amateur video is proof for widespread fraud.

Project Veritas are not amateurs. I did not say it was proof of widespread fraud, but certainly more than 12 cases.

> You say that inspite of this being the US and the election being the most watched in the world from media all over the world.

How many countries sent international observers?

> You want me to believe that not a single media entity picked upon it and pursued it?

I am not asking you to believe that. [0] They did a cursory report and stopped covering it. Media report on PV regularly, frequently lying or misrepresenting the truth, and often having to issue retractions. [1] You are free to come up with your own interpretation for this behavior.

> There is a multi billion dollar right wing media like fox and others, that live for these and you want me to believe they didn’t look into this?

Actually I want to illustrate that your perception ("One person finding 12 cases of fraud is a huge deal and I think you would be hailed a hero and be on the news.") is not accurate.

> On top of that you also say that the trump administration has extremely credible lawsuits and proof of fraud?

I didn't pass judgment on their credibility as the sworn affidavits of many witnesses stand on their own, since the witnesses would be subject to perjury charges if what they have said is found to be untrue. However the videos of Raquel Rodriguez are indeed proof of fraud. I'm not surprised that people who find them inconvenient would latch onto any interpretation ("dramatic reconstrcution") in order to maintain their worldview and/or rhetorical position.

> I was discussing purely out of intellectual curiosity

To be frank that doesn't seem to be the case.

> if am done here. Have a good one.

Yes, you as well.

[0] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/minneapolis-police-omar-bal...

[1] https://www.projectveritas.com/wall-of-shame-retracto/

> I was able to find a dozen dead people in multiple states that requested and cast a ballot in the election.

How do you know that the person requesting and casting the ballot was dead?

I think the common interpretation is that a living person fraudulently used the identity of a dead person to cast an illegal ballot.

Yes, but how did they know that it wasn’t just a living person casting a ballot normally?

Presumably they matched the name, location, and DOB with a person who had a public obituary. I'm not the op so I don't know.

That isn’t an accurate system—so if that’s all they were doing, they really shouldn’t be making claims they can’t support.

I'm sure its not foolproof but it clearly raises suspicion. How many people are born on the same date with the same name?

Real journalists have investigated claims like that, and actually tracked down those so-called "dead people" to find that many were very much alive. It turns out some people have the same name as other (dead) people, or that birthdates have been recorded incorrectly, or that older widows sometimes have very traditional ideas about married names, and so on.

Journalists and government agencies have done a better job investigating than you have, clearly.

If we really take election integrity seriously, it should not be the press doing the investigation, or breaking the news, it should be State law enforcement, on the authority of the Secretary of State for that State.

Again, no one wants to take claims of lack of election integrity seriously right now, because everyone is worried about picking up the stain of being some Trump supporter or something.

I don't care who wins, I care they win because the process in all cases happened as planned, and that every accusation of a threat to the integeity of the system gets investigated. No republic can afford the luxury of not doing so. If voting is in question, the very foundation of governmental legitimacy is in question. I want everyone to be able to accept that the results were legitimate and that assertions of lack of integrity were given best effort attempts at investigation and resolution which means bringing everyone to the table, like it or not, and laying it all out for God and Everyone.

Further, to all those up thread who see the Electoral College as a mere formality, that Elector, unless legislation in your State of questionable Federal Constitutionality, has not one reason to abdicate their right to go Faithless. The Faithless Elector is a feature, not a bug, and was never intended by the Founders to be influenced by some external covenant with what at the end of the day is a private, national scale, highly politically motivated organiztion, that in no way whatsoever is connected or a given with regards to the United States. People need to realize how broken the Two-Party system is, and what ills that two party division creates. As long as those two parties believe their survival or continued legitimacy is free from challenge, there is no end to the issues we'll run into.

Finally we are not a democracy. We're a Union of States arranged as a group of Constitutional Republics with a Federal Constitutional Republic with a highly restricted and largely explicitly defined jurisdiction to handle issues of an interstate nature.

I said "Real journalists" because I was responding to a sentence that started "Real journalists."

But I also said "Journalists and government agencies" because government agencies have been doing the investigations.

There is a lot of noise around this issue, and that is very deliberate--the noise started even before Election Day, on purpose--but if you filter through the noise, you will find that every state is carrying on, auditing where necessary, and certifying their results.

Monday will be the last state certification deadline that matters, in that it will clinch enough certified results to ensure Biden has won the presidency. Presumably people saying that we should wait for certification before declaring the winner will accept the winner then, right?

Right?

It's not doxxing when it's a public official. Also why was it that they refused to certify black communities after they already certified white communities with worse discrepancies. Also one of them was found with racist memes and Qanon conspiracy theories on their Facebook

When they are doxxed and their families are threatened (I saw the videos making the rounds and the tweets afterwards), it doesn't make it okay.

" refused to certify black communities after they already certified white communities with worse discrepancies"

Everything isn't attributed to race. You are trying to tell us the intent of these individuals without knowing what they are actually thinking or why they chose to make this decision. I suppose this is the definition of bias.

"Also one of them was found with racist memes and Qanon conspiracy theories on their Facebook"

Many Democrat officials still believe the Russian collusion conspiracy theory. Should we discount everything they say as well?

I'll address your points in detail below. But first I am curious if you really believe that the election was 'stolen' by the Democrats.

"When they are doxxed and their families are threatened (I saw the videos making the rounds and the tweets afterwards), it doesn't make it okay."

Again, they are public officials so calling them by name isn't Doxxing. Secondly, there is an angry Twitter mob saying all kinds of nonsense on both sides, so I think that cancels itself out. Are you saying Trump supporters have never asked for violence at all? Maybe you need to browse thedonald.win a bit first. So let's keep it focused on what was actually stated by the politicians in question.

"Everything isn't attributed to race. You are trying to tell us the intent of these individuals without knowing what they are actually thinking or why they chose to make this decision. I suppose this is the definition of bias."

You haven't really answered my question. If not race, then what was the metric, exactly, that made them question the validity of these black regions when by the same metrics the councilor was so concerned about several white communities with worse numbers were certified. But sure we can give them the benefit of the doubt and say they're not racists they're just trying to block votes from the party they don't like.

"Many Democrat officials still believe the Russian collusion conspiracy theory. Should we discount everything they say as well?"

There's two major problems with this.

1) There was real evidence that there was a russian conspiracy. In case you forgot several members of Trump's team, including his ex lawyer got arrested for crimes linked to this! Robert Muller didn't say Trump was innocent by the way, he said a sitting president couldn't be convicted for crimes by the investigation! 2) For all their whining on social media, Hilary never refused to concede the election, and called Trump the next day.

Look I'm fine if you want to say this wasn't a 'fair' election, you can even make a good argument for that. Tucker Carlson, who I really don't like, has made arguments to this. But for this to be a 'stolen' election, for the president to routinely say this without any evidence beyond affidavits is absurd.

This is exactly right. However, Trump has been harming his case dramatically by making hyperinflated claims to the public in the process, claims that are extremely unlikely to be true, and could undermine the very trust the court cases could produce.

Trump has every right to ask for a recount, and as far as I know, nothing is final until all votes have been counted and it's decided that there was no fraud.

Trump can run his mouth off, but it doesn't mean there isn't voter fraud. His attorneys are the ones that are collecting evidence and will present them to the courts.

> His attorneys are the ones that are collecting evidence and will present them to the courts.

Well, I mean, they haven’t in the couple dozen cases that have already been dismissed, and most of them have quit, and the remaining ones have often had to make humiliating admissions that they had no evidence of grandiose claims made in opening statements in those cases and the others that haven't yet finished petering out. But, sure, keep believing that eventually Rudy Giuliani is going to pull evidence of something out of some orifice.

> Trump can run his mouth off

It's frankly quite embarassing that the holder of that office, an office used to be held by people you'd expect to show leadership and some sort of level-headedness, is basically getting a pass that he behaves like a clown, a very entitled kindergartner, and... what else can I compare him to?

> but it doesn't mean there isn't voter fraud.

If I had to bet money, I wouldn't bet that all the votes cast were legal and good, there is probably at least 1 vote which was "bad", but come on, Biden's lead in each of the states being challenged are around a few thousand, and fraud that large is very hard to hide. So far Team Total Landscaping has failed 30+ legal challenges because they could only bring trivial bullshit before the judges, and the judges have mostly thrown their cases out.

> His attorneys are the ones that are collecting evidence and will present them to the courts.

See above. Giuliani is apparently charging the campaign $20,000 a day [0] (ok he's since issued a denial[1]) and he's the one whispering to Trump that there was fraud. Well done Rudy you scumbag, you're scamming the scammer. But I doubt you'll ever see the money, but maybe you'll be able to go to some nice dinners and pay with IOUs saying "Yeah the Trump 2020 campaign owes me a million dollars, when they pay me, I'll pay you, we good here?".

For $20,000 a day, I'd go on stage and scream quotes from My Cousin Vinny as well, aren't we all just prostitutes.

[0] https://www.thedailybeast.com/rudy-giuliani-is-asking-for-do... [1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/giuliani-denies-aski...

Sounds like a bribe.

"It's frankly quite embarassing that the holder of that office, an office used to be held by people you'd expect to show leadership and some sort of level-headedness, is basically getting a pass that he behaves like a clown, a very entitled kindergartner, and... what else can I compare him to?"

As compared to pretty much every Democrat in every office for the past 4 years calling Trump supporters Nazis and saying and tweeting things just as bad if not worse? Why are you giving them a pass?

"Biden's lead in each of the states being challenged are around a few thousand, and fraud that large is very hard to hide. So far Team Total Landscaping has failed 30+ legal challenges because they could only bring trivial bullshit before the judges, and the judges have mostly thrown their cases out."

This may be true, but it needs to be sorted out. They are most likely buying time while they put together the much bigger case that ties everything together.

I personally found dead people that voted in Multiple states that received a ballot. This was based on SSN, address, name, and birthday. If I could find a dozen of these people without much effort, I can't imagine the amount of dead people that actually cast a ballot. How does this even happen? Isn't anyone the least bit curious??

"See above. Giuliani is apparently charging the campaign $20,000 a day [0] (ok he's since issued a denial[1]) and he's the one whispering to Trump that there was fraud. Well done Rudy you scumbag, you're scamming the scammer. But I doubt you'll ever see the money, but maybe you'll be able to go to some nice dinners and pay with IOUs saying "Yeah the Trump 2020 campaign owes me a million dollars, when they pay me, I'll pay you, we good here?".

For $20,000 a day, I'd go on stage and scream quotes from My Cousin Vinny as well, aren't we all just prostitutes."

Now you lost me. You're high on emotions, low on facts.

> As compared to pretty much every Democrat in every office for the past 4 years calling Trump supporters Nazis and saying and tweeting things just as bad if not worse? Why are you giving them a pass?

"Well your team is cheating so it's legitimate that we cheat too!".. fucking hell, talk about undignified. It's always this "Well the other side is doing it too!", well, god damn, talk about a lack of self-respect and not expecting "your side" to have some dignity. "Oh it's fine that my beloved Trump is an incoherent clown spewing nonsense instead of showing some class and intelligence, because the Dems are tweeting about Nazis!". "Every democrat in every office", that sounds a little bit (a lot) of hyperbole...

> They are most likely buying time while they put together the much bigger case that ties everything together.

Oh, honey, bless your heart.

Bet you 1000 bucks they have nothing. I suppose we'd have to define what "bigger case" means. Maybe 1000 votes that a court confirms to be fraudlent and agrees to throw out? Although Biden would still win without said 1000 votes.

Although the next step in your conspiracy theorist mind is that the courts are in in the theft of the election. And so democracy gets undermined a bit further in the USA (except in your mind it was those god-damned libruls who are responsible).

They have yet to present anything compelling and have lost everywhere, including in some very “red” areas.

Can’t wait for this evidence that’s been promised for the last two weeks, but has yet to be delivered.

Trump also claimed there was widespread voter fraud in 2016, that caused him to lose the popular vote. He was never able to produce any evidence of this, even after having a committee do an investigation.

You are talking to someone who believes Trump when he says that he will release his tax returns.

The likelihood of him producing any fraud evidence is the same as real easing his tax returns.

Yes, I learned to argue by reading the myth of Sisyphus.

"You are talking to someone who believes Trump when he says that he will release his tax returns."

I'm an individual, not a group. You have no idea what I believe about Trump's tax returns.

I expected to have intelligent conversations/discussions here on HN, but all the half-hearted, biased responses I'm seeing, and the downvoting, tells me that it's probably not going to happen.

“Bias responses”

Trump claimed in 2012 that Obama won the election due to voter fraud. He claimed in 2016 that he lost the popular vote due to voter fraud. And again in 2020 he’s claiming that he lost due to voter fraud. In 2012 and 2016 there was never any evidence of massive voter fraud found, Trump even appointed a committee to investigate 2016 and found nothing.

Now for the past two weeks, lawsuits have been getting thrown out and nothing substantial has been found. But Trump somehow knew there was voter fraud one day after the election?

Trump must prove there’s voter fraud and given his history, there’s no reason to think he will. Every Secretary of State and even the director of cyber security has said there was no massive voter fraud, Trump fired the director for saying that.

Taking all of these facts together and saying that we have no faith in Trumps claims, somehow this makes us the biased ones?

> I'm an individual, not a group. You have no idea what I believe about Trump's tax returns.

If you tell me that you don’t believe that he will release his tax statement I will apologize.

I would absolutely love to be proved wrong. Genuinely.

it happens but not every time. you have to understand that humans are humans.