I'd like to have the VA thumb drive handoff and the GA under-the-table ballot stash explained please.
> In many of these states, the entire counting was livestreamed.
Some of these videos purportedly show poll workers scanning the same ballot multiple times.
> Anyone can give statements, but election fraud requires more than just hearsay.
There are lots of sworn first-person statements, which aren't hearsay. Also fraud requires evidence of intent. Its much easier to show that serious, legitimate questions can be raised about enough ballots to sway the outcome than to prove why observers were prevented from observing.
> Numbers are easy to play with, see p-Hacking. In the majority of the cases, if you apply the same calculations to previous elections, or hell, even red counties in this very same election, you get very similar strange looking results.
Can you link me to those majority of cases? Quality of the statistical arguments varies widely and only the non persuasive arguments seem to have been responded to.
> Just because you've been told that it wasn't taken seriously doesn't make it true.
In a situation like this, demonstrating that the concerns are being taken seriously is more important than actually taking them seriously. The apparent legitimacy of the President is likely to have more of an effect on everything than who the president is, at this point. When these allegations aren't seen to be taken seriously it creates the appearance of illegitimacy, regardless of the facts.
> Courts have gone through the evidence for 2 months and none of it went anywhere.
Actually many of these cases never reached the stage of preventing evidence. And 2 months ago there hadn't been enough time to investigate and we were already being told that it had been debunked. So its not enough to do whatever they have done, it is necessary for it to be known that they have done what is correct.
> But for some people, being proved wrong means not being taken seriously.
Can you show me some of these claims "being proved wrong"? Thats a stronger claim than there not being evidence and if you could substantiate this it might help reach some people.
I can't find any information about "the VA thumb drive handoff". Do you mean this event [0] in Wisconsin? And I assume you're referring to this non-event [1], which the Georgia Secretary of State stated in a swore affidavit did not represent an opportunity for voter fraud based on continuous security camera footage.
[0] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/17/facebook-p...
[1] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-my...
[0]
> And I assume you're referring to this non-event [1], which the Georgia Secretary of State stated in a swore affidavit did not represent an opportunity for voter fraud based on continuous security camera footage.
Well that's great, someone should tell the GA SOS to release the chain of custody for those ballots. If its so easy to demonstrate that the ballots (that were hidden under a table and counted after everyone else left) are legitimate, then just release that evidence instead of asking people to trust your word.
[0]https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2020/12/04/that-is-some-handof...
You seem reasonable, and I promise I am not attacking you. I am just at a loss. I have to imagine you see that article or ones like it, but you are not satisfied by the explanation. So then what can I do to satisfy you that the claims of fraud have been addressed? What standard of proof do you need, and what guarantee do I have that you won’t shift the goalpost once I meet it?
I’m not saying you, personally, will shift the goalpost, but my discussions with those who are already convinced their is fraud is that no amount of evidence is sufficient. There will always be another “but what about.” That’s why this 11th hour demand for an audit by Sen. Cruz, Loeffler, et al is exhausting. Of course I don’t want election fraud, even if finding it means Biden loses. But after two months of courts looking into it, AG Barr refuting it, state legislatures refuting it, and more, I’d say it’s been pretty well looked at. At this point, is an audit really the difference between you feeling satisfied and not?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-my...
It doesn't really explain anything, it just reports some things people said.
> It took me literally 2 minutes to find it. Did you look for such explanations yourself before asking?
Indeed I did, and I took the further step of considering whether the allegations of fraud were responded to persuasively, and I saw they were not.
> So then what can I do to satisfy you that the claims of fraud have been addressed?
An investigator's report is the usual way of satisfying the public as to the results of an investigation.
> What standard of proof do you need, and what guarantee do I have that you won’t shift the goalpost once I meet it?
The same standard that would be applied to any other criminal investigation with similar consequences. When someone who is implicated in an activity offers an explanation, attempt to verify that explanation. Document this process. When someone makes a claim ("these are normal ballots that were removed and staged for expedited processing") attempt to verify the chain of custody on the ballots.
As far as shifting the goalposts, there isn't really a way for me to guarantee that to you. You'll just have to take the risk that you're wasting your time and update your opinion of me if/when that happens, or decline to risk your precious time proving something to a stranger on the internet. Its a personal decision, there is no right or wrong here :)
> I’m not saying you, personally, will shift the goalpost, but my discussions with those who are already convinced their is fraud is that no amount of evidence is sufficient.
I empathize and I'm certain there are people out there. Surely you would also agree that there are people out there who are goal-oriented and partisan enough that they would condone election fraud in order to replace trump?
> There will always be another “but what about.”
Thats true but if you acknowledge the possibility of having reasonable questions then you can't dismiss the reasonable questions on the basis of someone else's unreasonable questions.
> That’s why this 11th hour demand for an audit by Sen. Cruz, Loeffler, et al is exhausting.
The shit is fucking exhausting but people have been making accusations and pursuing legal remedies for 2+ months and its clear that its not exactly easy to challenge the integrity of an election regardless of the amount of evidence. We've been hearing that these allegations are "debunked" since before there was an investigation. People say there's nothing to them but they can't provide any evidence to respond to the allegations except testimony by persons who are implicated. We can't get a simple chain of custody on ~9,000 ballots that appeared from under a table in the middle of the night when no (R) observers were present, and the people there dispute the process by which the obervers were removed from the room. If someone doesn't understand that the results of an election can be changed by adding illegal/fraudulent ballots then they don't understand elections well enough.
> Of course I don’t want election fraud, even if finding it means Biden loses.
Honestly ask yourself why you care election integrity. Now consider whether election integrity can be meaningfully decoupled from the appearance of election integrity in this context.
> But after two months of courts looking into it, AG Barr refuting it, state legislatures refuting it, and more, I’d say it’s been pretty well looked at.
I mean, that's probably because you're satisfied with the outcome and you question all the allegations of improprieties. Which is fine. But have you considered whether AG Barr, some state legislatures, etc. have done anything that might alleviate the concerns of someone who feels differently? The scope of effort required to debunk something for someone who doesn't believe it is far less than the scope of effort required to debunk something for someone who does believe it. In this case, the latter standard is the one that should prevail for obvious reasons.
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-my...
Mostly just repeats the claims of various parties without making efforts to substantiate them. We already know the people involved disagree about the details of what happened, that's why there needs to be a chain of custody for those ballots. That way we are less reliant on the word of partisans.
I saw your fellow conspiracy theorists's YouTube analysis of the "thumbdrive hand-off". It's not even clear it's a thumbdrive in her hand. And the logic leap is incredible. How does this "hand-off" mean election fraud? Did you watch another video of someone on the Internet saying "It means this, it can mean this", etc, and if so, why hasn't it been investigated?
https://medium.com/curiouserinstitute/a-game-designers-analy...
Do you think this is a good way of persuading people to question themselves?
> I saw your fellow conspiracy theorists's YouTube analysis of the "thumbdrive hand-off".
I'm not sure I appreciate being associated with whoever but thank you for watching the video.
> It's not even clear it's a thumbdrive in her hand.
Ok, perhaps. What else was she attempting to steal from the election building?
> And the logic leap is incredible. How does this "hand-off" mean election fraud?
For some reason, votes are stored on removable storage media. There's no incredible leap of logic to understand that sneaking one of these drives out and modifying it or losing it without affecting the chain of custody or being seen would be a component of vote fraud. This appears to be that, therefore when someone asks for video evidence that suggests there might have been vote fraud, here is an example. But if you don't care about election integrity then its probably super boring anyway so don't fret yourself.
> Did you watch another video of someone on the Internet saying "It means this, it can mean this", etc, and if so, why hasn't it been investigated?
No, its pretty obvious what the logical implications are. And I don't know why it hasn't been investigated, probably because the voting system isn't even set up to defend against this type of fraud.
thanks for the link, very interesting.
If someone seriously posts "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" I'm going to associate them with 9/11 truthers.
> Ok, perhaps. What else was she attempting to steal from the election building?
You (or the allegers) are just creating a narrative that's convenient for you/them! And filling in the details. We don't even see them leave the building!
Here's another one: the lady on the left gave the other one her car keys, and the girl and guy were about to sneak off to the carpark to make out. Or, it was a bag of weed, and they're about to go to the back of the building and get high.
Did you even confirm how the votes are stored? There are boxes with United States Postal Service in the background. So surely they're counting mail ballots. There are no computers on the desks, so, it doesn't seem the results of the counted mail ballots are being stored digitally. Do these 3 look like master hackers, or is it so easy to tamper with the digital files that it's plausible anyone (including many in republican areas) could do it, but you've only "caught" these 3 doing it?
If you ask for a video that supposedly reveals something about 9/11, and someone posts a video that fulfills your request, you are not then entitled to consider the person who responded to you as "9/11 truther." That would be ridiculous.
> You (or the allegers) are just creating a narrative that's convenient for you/them! And filling in the details. We don't even see them leave the building!
What do you think it would look like for someone to violate the chain of custody of a thumb drive on camera?
> Here's another one: the lady on the left gave the other one her car keys, and the girl and guy were about to sneak off to the carpark to make out. Or, it was a bag of weed, and they're about to go to the back of the building and get high.
None of those require or suggest the behavior seen in the video.
> Did you even confirm how the votes are stored? There are boxes with United States Postal Service in the background. So surely they're counting mail ballots. There are no computers on the desks, so, it doesn't seem the results of the counted mail ballots are being stored digitally.
Actually lots of voting machines read the ballot and record the result onto digital media.
> Do these 3 look like master hackers, or is it so easy to tamper with the digital files that it's plausible anyone (including many in republican areas) could do it
In fact its so easy that up until very recently lots of mainstream orgs (like the NYT!) were sounding the alarm.
> but you've only "caught" these 3 doing it?
Well first people said there was no evidence, now you're saying there must be more evidence or this doesn't count?
What! And how can you say the behaviors in the video is inconclusive proof of voter fraud!?! Or at least suggest voter fraud?!
Where's even the thumb drive? You've managed to see things from a few pixels and what commentators are saying what it is. What if I tell you, that's a bag of weed. Can you see a bag of weed? What, no? Can you see a thumbdrive? I can't!
> Actually lots of voting machines read the ballot and record the result onto digital media.
So... this lady, who looks like her job is to sit there and count mail ballots, also has access to the voting machines (which is nowhere to be seen near her in the video), and is allowed to have custody of the results for who knows how long, while she does other work? These assumptions would mean such lax security, that then sure, rampant voter fraud is possible. Next you and the entire fraud-founding Internet commenters will want to see the security procedures of the whole voting operation and that are to your satisfaction. I don't have all the facts and can't deny that maybe they are that mind-numbingly lax (in which case, as a supporter of a US government based on sanity rather than nutjob conspiracy theories, I would be worried that rampant and easy voter fraud benefiting Republicans happened), but don't you think there would have been Republican party officials who have actually reviewed said procedures and who would've said "Hey, why are you letting random people have custody of the digital results?".
Yeah, when votes are stored on digital media, an apparent attempt to surreptitiously remove a thumb drive from a place where votes are counted suggests an attempt at compromising the election.
> So... this lady, who looks like her job is to sit there and count mail ballots, also has access to the voting machines (which is nowhere to be seen near her in the video), and is allowed to have custody of the results for who knows how long, while she does other work? These assumptions would mean such lax security, that then sure, rampant voter fraud is possible.
Those aren't really necessary assumptions but I'm glad you can see how its evident that its possible to have enough voter fraud to affect results.
> Next you and the entire fraud-founding Internet commenters will want to see the security procedures of the whole voting operation and that are to your satisfaction.
Yes that's what we want, any guesses on whether any of this will be better next time?
> (in which case, as a supporter of a US government based on sanity rather than nutjob conspiracy theories, I would be worried that rampant and easy voter fraud benefiting Republicans happened)
You should probably decouple your vote fraud concerns from your partisan concerns because comments like this suggest that vote fraud is worse when it benefits one party than the other and that's not the case. Vote fraud is bad because it violates the integrity of the election and because it threatens the legitimacy of the government.
> but don't you think there would have been Republican party officials who have actually reviewed said procedures and who would've said "Hey, why are you letting random people have custody of the digital results?".
The point of the sleight of hand is to remove the drive without the chain of custody documents reflecting that fact. A review of the procedure wouldn't show the conduct displayed in the video, that's the point.
Here’s a video[1]. Of course from your perspective, your position makes perfect sense and isn’t extreme, and by no means am I calling you a white supremacist, but you should watch and see if you relate in any way. Please don’t dismiss it out of hand, there’s valuable lessons in it that apply to everyone, not just former white supremacists.
Have you considered pretending for a moment that my perspective is valid instead of dismissing me like this? I'm aware that we still disagree, that's because of a variety of factors including the fact that we both, as humans, suffer from cognitive biases. But assuming that I can't be reasoned with merely because you've been unable to respond to my arguments isn't getting either of us closer to understanding each other.
> We could argue about the specifics all day, but I think you should ask yourself why you want it to be true.
I don't want it to be true, I don't want any of this crap to be true, the candidates we had are horrible (not speaking ill of Professor Jorgenson, mind you). I'd prefer that there was a reasonable explanation but the problem with this where there's evidence that raises suspicions but no reasonable response is that the losing side feels disenfranchised and that's bad for the country. We want everyone to feel as though their voice was heard.
> Do you seek community?
No I have a decent social life.
> Are you angry inside and need an outlet?
No, I'm fine.
> Of course from your perspective, your position makes perfect sense and isn’t extreme,
Thanks for the video, watching it now.
Maybe you’re in a position where you do believe him. His rhetoric is such that if you believe him, he tries to get you to believe only him, sowing distrust in news organisations and election officials.
I think another problem is it’s very hard to disprove a negative. For example, prove that there isn’t a spy satellite orbiting earth. You can always say “well what about that other satellite, what about this area of space?”. It’s unknowable, and therefore comes down to who you trust. If you look up Trump’s factual inaccuracies so far, unless you already have, then you’ll have a clearer picture on which to base your trust.
No further than I can throw him, he's ridiculous.
> So when he says there’s election fraud, I don’t believe him.
Thats fair. What are your priors on election fraud in general? Do you think it happens or nah?
> I think another problem is it’s very hard to disprove a negative.
I agree, the system is not set up in order to demonstrate election integrity. Everything is on the basis of trust. So we get this scenario where things look like fraud, but can't be proven to be fraudulent because no one is trying to prevent or catch fraud, and then when people have reasonable suspicions because of this, people say "this is normal" and "you can't prove fraud happened" but when you point out things that suggest fraud may have occurred, there's no way to disprove that.
> It’s unknowable, and therefore comes down to who you trust.
Well that's kind of the point, I don't trust people I don't know. I don't trust people to be honest when no one is looking. I don't trust vote fraudsters to be honest about their behavior. And I think its foolish to expect that they would be.
> If you look up Trump’s factual inaccuracies so far, unless you already have, then you’ll have a clearer picture on which to base your trust.
This doesn't rely on trump's trustworthiness (or lack thereof), but publicly available evidence and the public record.
It doesn't take much fraud to swing an election and, aside from 2020, both 1960 and 2000 are suspect. The main thing is that how would you know if there was election fraud? There would be some evidence. You might see poll workers acting strangely around ballots. You might have ballots without a proper chain of custody. You might have reports by poll watchers that they weren't allowed to do their jobs. Well, all of those are present. So we have reason to suspect there might have been vote fraud. Its that simple.
> That’s very interesting, why don’t you trust people to be honest?
Because they are capable of dishonesty so there's no reason to assume they are trustworthy. The same reason I lock my door at night and use long passwords on my accounts.
> I personally believe in the good of people, that >90% of people are good people who want to do the right thing.
My understanding of human nature leads me to consider that naive. Please don't take offense, I'm just being forthright.
> So when people without skin in the game or anti-Biden people say there was no election fraud, I trust them.
Thats a different kind of error, how would those people be in a position to know if there was fraud?
> This is why I believe Raffensperger. But I’d be very interested to hear why you don’t trust people you don’t know?
Because they haven't earned my trust. They haven't shown any reason to be trustworthy. People lie and cheat all the time. Sometimes they even lie, cheat, and steal when its easier and more productive to be honest. Since people lie cheat and steal, if you show me a person, I'm going to be aware of their potential to lie, cheat, and steal. Its that simple.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aokNwKx7gM8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etx0k1nLn78
And this third one just shows how much of a joke some of the claims in the lawsuits are:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua5aOFi-DKs
Like, this is basic high school level statistics they can't even get right.
That is flat-out not true. Hearsay refers to whether or not the witness actually witnessed the event they are referring to, or is merely recounting what someone told them about the event. Some of the "sworn first-person statements" have the person literally swearing that they heard someone say something, which is literally hearsay. I haven't combed through every piece of evidence in every case, but a lot of "sworn first-person statements" basically amounted to hearsay or other statements that could not legally be sustained as evidence.
> Actually many of these cases never reached the stage of preventing evidence.
The first set of cases did reach that stage, and were often rejected because the evidence they did present was insufficient to sustain allegations.
> In a situation like this, demonstrating that the concerns are being taken seriously is more important than actually taking them seriously. The apparent legitimacy of the President is likely to have more of an effect on everything than who the president is, at this point. When these allegations aren't seen to be taken seriously it creates the appearance of illegitimacy, regardless of the facts.
Here's the problem. The people who are alleging this conspiracy--first and foremost Trump himself--are unwilling to sustain any evidence to the contrary. The Trump campaign and affiliates have lost 62 lawsuits in the past two months (and that's not counting subsequent losses on appeal). The legal theories in the most recent lawsuits start making pro se sovereign citizen bullshit look sane. Hell, Michigan has already filed a motion to impose sanctions on the lawyers for making these claims, which is a rare step.
And where did that get us? They're calling Mike Pence a traitor for not exercising unilateral authority to miscount the electoral votes--an authority that he does not have (read the 12th Amendment for yourself; it's not a long document). For the first time in 230 years, a mob has broken into Congress to commit sedition [1] to prevent the election of the next president. Not even in 1861, when the treasonous South objected to Lincoln's presidency, did this happen.
Why? It's not because we didn't demonstrate the concerns were being taken seriously. It's because way too many people were willing to indulge a delusional conspiracy theory that was ungrounded in truth, and to pretend that frivolous lawsuits that were clearly contrary to all prior precedent fanned [2] that delusion.
[1] 18 USC §2384: If two or more persons in any State or Territory [...] conspire to [...] by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, [...] they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
The mob that broke into the Capitol is unquestionably guilty of the crime of sedition.
[2] I have read several of the lawsuits and their briefs. I actually left a detailed comment about the Texas v Pennsylvania case when it was first filed, explaining 6 different reasons for SCOTUS to toss the case that didn't even address the merits at all.
It actually is true that there are "lots of sworn first-person statements, which aren't hearsay." This isn't to say there are none that are hearsay.
> I haven't combed through every piece of evidence in every case, but a lot of "sworn first-person statements" basically amounted to hearsay or other statements that could not legally be sustained as evidence.
Right, and we could ignore them and talk about the ones where people testify to things that happened to them or in their presence but its much easier to respond to evidence you don't like by ignoring it and debunking "evidence" that's easy to respond to.
> The first set of cases did reach that stage
I'm not sure what you're referring to as "the first set of cases" but many of the cases were dismissed before evidence was heard. That means you can't faithfully dismiss the evidence on the basis of a dismissed court case because the court never looked at the evidence.
> The people who are alleging this conspiracy--first and foremost Trump himself--are unwilling to sustain any evidence to the contrary.
I disagree and if you could present evidence to the contrary we could perhaps resolve this.
> The Trump campaign and affiliates have lost 62 lawsuits in the past two months (and that's not counting subsequent losses on appeal).
Refer to my statement above. Most of those never even examined the evidence.
> For the first time in 230 years, a mob has broken into Congress
Its not that big of a deal, the last time a mob broke into congress was 2018.
> has broken into Congress to commit sedition
Actually they are trying (in vain) to avoid disenfranchisement. Or if you prefer not to appear to take a position on the object-level issue, its merely a "mostly peaceful protest."
> Why? It's not because we didn't demonstrate the concerns were being taken seriously.
that most certainly is why.
> It's because way too many people were willing to indulge a delusional conspiracy theory that was ungrounded in truth, and to pretend that frivolous lawsuits that were clearly contrary to all prior precedent fanned [2] that delusion.
I like how you compared the idea that people might cheat in an election to a delusion, when people cheat in elections all the time and its probably more properly considered delusional when someone insists (without evidence) that there was no fraud and all these people asserting fraud on the basis of evidence are delusional.
> If two or more persons in any State or Territory [...] conspire to [...] by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, [...] they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Would that apply to conspiracy to violate election law?
They broke the law. They committed sedition--I copy-pasted the actual definition of the law. It doesn't matter why they were trying to break law, they still violated the law. They ignored all proper legal avenues to take the law into their own lands. You cannot in good faith ever claim to support the rule of law if you support what they did.
Let me put it like this: if I were to kill the President, I would be a murderer. It doesn't matter if I think he's a deranged nutcase whose continued presidency would irrevocably damage the country: I would still be committing first-degree murder, and will still deserve nothing less than to suffer the full consequences of that crime.
> Would that apply to conspiracy to violate election law?
There are only 51 electoral vote certificates for the 2020 presidential election. There were only ever 51 electoral vote certificates. Some cosplayers did pretend to make electoral vote certificates to compete against, but cosplaying an electoral vote does not meet the legal requirements to create a valid electoral vote certificate. Congress's job is to count those electoral vote certificates. 3 USC §15 lays out what Congress was supposed to do yesterday. There is nothing that they did that would violate their actions.
I'm not going to respond to all of your points because my blood pressure can't take this, but I will close out with this comment: what happened yesterday is the electoral equivalent of lynching. Even if you think it is justified, it is still an extralegal attempt by a mob to execute their will, damning the due process of anyone they come across.
This presumes that your perspective on the alleged fraud is factually correct. If we don't presume the facts of the matter one way or the other, it looks like they may have been petitioning their government for redress.
> Let me put it like this: if I were to kill the President, I would be a murderer. It doesn't matter if I think he's a deranged nutcase whose continued presidency would irrevocably damage the country: I would still be committing first-degree murder
I think the same argument applies to vote fraud. It doesn't matter how much you hate the president (or think him incompetent, or whatever), vote fraud is vote fraud.
> Some cosplayers did pretend to make electoral vote certificates to compete against, but cosplaying an electoral vote does not meet the legal requirements to create a valid electoral vote certificate.
So they are trying to prevent the cosplayers from successfully impersonating actual electors.
> I'm not going to respond to all of your points because my blood pressure can't take this, but I will close out with this comment: what happened yesterday is the electoral equivalent of lynching.
Thats hyperbolic and undemocratic.
> Even if you think it is justified, it is still an extralegal attempt by a mob to execute their will, damning the due process of anyone they come across.
Yeah I didn't support their actions but its kind of like the protests last summer: riots are the language of the unheard.
The cosplayers are the people who pretended to be the Republican electors in the states of Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, despite failing to meet the statutory requirements of meeting in the appointed place, having the vote signed by the respective Secretary of State, and having the vote receipt submitted to the National Archives.
In other words, these are people whose actions as purported electors are not legitimate. It is as if I were to put on a shirt with the word "POLICE" on it and print out a badge that had the same word of it--it doesn't actually make me a police officer, merely someone cosplaying a police officer. (Although as electors are not public officials, they are unlikely to run afoul of any laws, unless there is some fraud statute that is broad enough to cover this).
Their actions did not have the force of law. The seditionous mob who wanted to stop the electoral count are the people who want to install cosplayers as electors in flagrant violation of the law.
> Thats hyperbolic and undemocratic.
A lynching is a mob taking it upon themselves to murder someone in response to an alleged crime in an extralegal attempt to achieve justice, completely in violation of all due process. What happened yesterday was a mob taking it upon themselves to overturn the lawful results of the election in response to an alleged crime in an extralegal attempt to achieve justice, completely in violation of all due process. That is the antithesis of rule of law; it is not hyperbolic or undemocratic to draw that comparison.
We've already seen that failure to meet statutory requirements is not sufficient to disqualify an election, elector, or ballot. Otherwise PA would have gone to trump because of the backdated postmarks.
> In other words, these are people whose actions as purported electors are not legitimate.
According to you. Other people feel that these are the legitimate electors. Since legitimacy is a social construct and not a physical phenomenon, there is no objective answer.
> It is as if I were to put on a shirt with the word "POLICE" on it and print out a badge that had the same word of it--it doesn't actually make me a police officer, merely someone cosplaying a police officer.
Likewise, if the result of an election is altered due to ballot stuffing and other forms of compromise, the apparent victor is not legitimate, but a cosplayer.
> What happened yesterday was a mob taking it upon themselves to overturn the lawful results of the election in response to an alleged crime in an extralegal attempt to achieve justice, completely in violation of all due process.
Yes that's your opinion. If you refrain from assuming your own opinion about unknown facts to be automatically correct, then you can see how they may have felt themselves to be members of the public who were petitioning their government or performatively airing grievances just like their antifa/blm counterparts have been doing for years.
I can obviously not cover every single one, but just seeing a random van and claiming it's full of fake ballots doesn't make it true. In many of these states, the entire counting was livestreamed.
> witness statements
Anyone can give statements, but election fraud requires more than just hearsay.
> and statistical anomalies
Numbers are easy to play with, see p-Hacking. In the majority of the cases, if you apply the same calculations to previous elections, or hell, even red counties in this very same election, you get very similar strange looking results.
> refusal of certain parts of the government to effectively examine these claims and their supporting evidence in a public
Just because you've been told that it wasn't taken seriously doesn't make it true. Courts have gone through the evidence for 2 months and none of it went anywhere. But for some people, being proved wrong means not being taken seriously.