Former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell, a Trump campaign lawyer, suggested in a Sunday interview that there is still more evidence coming out in President Donald Trump’s claims of voter fraud and irregularities.
“We’re getting ready to overturn election results in multiple states,” Powell said, saying that she has enough evidence of election fraud to launch a widespread criminal investigation.
“I don’t make comments without having the evidence to back it up,” she added, saying that elections software switched “millions of votes” from Trump to Democratic nominee Joe Biden.
Powell notably provided legal counsel to Gen. Michael Flynn in 2019. She was named to Trump’s legal team in the past several days.
Powell said a whistleblower came forward and said the elections software was designed to “rig elections,” saying that “he saw it happen in other countries,” referring to voting systems Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic, or perhaps other software and machines.
“We have so much evidence, I feel like it’s coming in through a fire hose,” Powell said, while noting that she won’t reveal the evidence that she has.
“They can stick a thumb drive in the [voting] machine, they can upload software to it even from the Internet … from Germany or Venezuela even,” she said, adding that operations “can watch votes in real-time” and “can shift votes in real-time,” or alleged bad actors can “remote access anything.”
“We’ve identified mathematically the exact algorithm they’ve used—and planned to use from the beginning” that allegedly switched votes to Biden, Powell remarked.
Powell also made reference to a 2019 investigation from Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), as well as other Democratic lawmakers into Dominion Voting Systems, Election Systems & Software, and Hart InterCivic. The senators had expressed concerns about the security of the voting systems.
“(W)e have concerns about the spread and effect of private equity investment in many sectors of the economy, including the election technology industry—an integral part of our nation’s democratic process,” wrote the lawmakers in their letters to the firms about a year ago.
“These problems threaten the integrity of our elections and demonstrate the importance of election systems that are strong, durable, and not vulnerable to attack.”
Later in the Sunday morning interview, Powell said that her team has “detected voting irregularities that are inexplicable” in states where officials believe they have valid systems.
During the election, Republicans in the House were able to flip at least 11 seats while the GOP is poised to maintain control of the Senate. Some conservatives have questioned how such a voting pattern is possible for Biden to win the presidential election, let alone receive more votes than any other presidential candidate in American history, including President Barack Obama’s victory in 2008.
Originally Posted by patteeu:
All elections going forward need to be the kind of elections that nearly everyone can agree is legit. Sweeping everything under the rug this time, especially with the intent of setting a precedent, works in the opposite direction.
Were you OK with investigating Trump for colluding with Russia to interfer with our elections even though there was less, or at least no more, evidence of that than there is for election/voter fraud?
The problem is trump only thinks elections are legit when he wins, and now he has all his inbred followers thinking that too.
Additionally, the republican party doesn't actually care about election security and just uses it as a red herring to disenfranchise people they think won't vote for republicans. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Snopes Hammer:
That's not the way it works. The people challenging the results need to have some evidence of wrongdoing.
By indulging Trump's little tantrum, you set a precedent for all elections going forward.
Do you know what evidence is? Every one of these complaints that I have seen, including Sidney Powell’s complaints, has been accompanied by affidavits. An affidavit is a sworn statement that the court can rely upon as evidence. As one example, warrants for arrest are typically accompanied by an affidavit, which is a sworn statement by the law enforcement officer about the officer’s observations. That affidavit is evidence for the next steps.
Is it enough to convict? No, but at the initial stages of a criminal prosecution, the government does not need to introduce enough evidence to convict. That evidence suffices to justify any further action that the court may take, such as issuing an order for someone’s arrest or sending the case to the grand jury.
In the same way, the affidavits that have been attached are more than sufficient for the court to order that certain evidence be preserved and examined. That has happened in GA. Put another way, a federal court in Georgia found that there was enough evidence submitted to justify ordering that the machines be preserved so they can be examined. The court would not have issued the order without any evidence.
By analogy, then, the affidavits in this case are enough evidence to justify further investigation. There are 2 major areas that would be real simple to check. One allegation, sworn to by a few experts, is that the Dominion machines do not keep “papers and records,” contrary to federal statutes. That’s a huge red flag. Second, another allegation sworn to by fact witnesses, is that some people are listed as having voted in one state when they moved states prior to the election. There is evidence that both of those occurred. Subsequent hearings may show that evidence is incorrect or mistaken or even outright duplicitous. But that is why we have open and public court proceedings, so everyone can see what happens and why.
Those two allegations are quite easily proven or disproven. It would not even take long. A simple audit (not hand re-count) would show either that Trump is right or that Trump is a bitter, delusional fool. If your case is as air tight as you claim, why would you not welcome the chance to show that Trump is a fool? [Reply]
Originally Posted by patteeu:
All elections going forward need to be the kind of elections that nearly everyone can agree is legit. Sweeping everything under the rug this time, especially with the intent of setting a precedent, works in the opposite direction.
Crying "fraud" with no evidence when the election doesn't go your way doesn't warrant an investigation.
Originally Posted by :
Were you OK with investigating Trump for colluding with Russia to interfer with our elections even though there was less, or at least no more, evidence of that than there is for election/voter fraud?
Whataboutism.
But I'll answer anyway.
There was tons of evidence that the Russians interfered with that election. That was the main part of that investigation. Seeing if Trump colluded, was part of that investigation and there was some evidence that his campaign did. Way more than there is of wrongdoing in this election. [Reply]
Originally Posted by patteeu:
These "excuses" you're talking about, like relaxed signature matching, were complained about in advance and won't show up in a hand count.
It was all pre-emptively complained about for 5 years, but we can see that even as the nonsense accusations get shot down (more voters than people! 1000s of dead people!), a new excuse pops up until we get to, "well the counters/officials/judges are just lying!" There's no end of the road here. No proof that would ever satisfy most of you Trumpers.
I know you don't actually believe this BS about Trump being cheated. It's sad you won't just come out and say it. Sad! [Reply]
Originally Posted by frozenchief:
blah blah blah evidence blah
Irrelevant to the point you brought up.
Originally Posted by :
Those two allegations are quite easily proven or disproven. It would not even take long. A simple audit (not hand re-count) would show either that Trump is right or that Trump is a bitter, delusional fool. If your case is as air tight as you claim, why would you not welcome the chance to show that Trump is a fool?
If I accuse you of shitting in my yard, is it on you to do a forensic analysis of the feces to show that it isn't your dookie, or is in on me to present evidence that you did it? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Snopes Hammer:
Crying "fraud" with no evidence when the election doesn't go your way doesn't warrant an investigation.
Whataboutism.
But I'll answer anyway.
There was tons of evidence that the Russians interfered with that election. That was the main part of that investigation. Seeing if Trump colluded, was part of that investigation and there was some evidence that his campaign did. Way more than there is of wrongdoing in this election.
Precident isn't whataboutisms.
Try having some consistency for a change.
There was evidence that the Russians interfered, but not that they coordinated with the Trump campaign on behalf of the campaign. That's two different things.
Originally Posted by frozenchief:
Hand counts are not audits. Audits look at the electronic data trails from the machines. Audits compare voter names to people who are known to have died or moved out of states. Recounts merely re-tabulate votes. An independent audit is an independent examination to determine if: 1) all of the counted ballots are legal; and 2) if any rejected ballots should have been counted.
^This is incoherent uneducated babbling.
Look at the electronic data trail!:-)
People voted. They got a paper receipt that they review and turn in.
Recounting those gives you something to compare to what the machines recorded. It isn't just "re-tabulating" votes. It's comparing paper receipts to the previously recorded number. And that's only part of it.
But when you always have a "But the people are all corrupt and they're all in on it!" excuse, you can always keep whining. None of the things you or anyone else proposes to get down to 100% certainty of each and every ballot will keep you from crying about corruption somewhere in the process.
We've never had anyone make a stink like this, and compared to some elections, this wasn't even close. It took Trump, who preemptively complained about rigging being the only way he could lose, and who has always resorted to claiming Rigged! when he loses, to act like this. No one else has ever cried like this, even in closer elections, because they knew it was complete bullshit. [Reply]
Originally Posted by frozenchief:
Do you know what evidence is? Every one of these complaints that I have seen, including Sidney Powell’s complaints, has been accompanied by affidavits. An affidavit is a sworn statement that the court can rely upon as evidence. As one example, warrants for arrest are typically accompanied by an affidavit, which is a sworn statement by the law enforcement officer about the officer’s observations. That affidavit is evidence for the next steps.
Is it enough to convict? No, but at the initial stages of a criminal prosecution, the government does not need to introduce enough evidence to convict. That evidence suffices to justify any further action that the court may take, such as issuing an order for someone’s arrest or sending the case to the grand jury.
In the same way, the affidavits that have been attached are more than sufficient for the court to order that certain evidence be preserved and examined. That has happened in GA. Put another way, a federal court in Georgia found that there was enough evidence submitted to justify ordering that the machines be preserved so they can be examined. The court would not have issued the order without any evidence.
By analogy, then, the affidavits in this case are enough evidence to justify further investigation. There are 2 major areas that would be real simple to check. One allegation, sworn to by a few experts, is that the Dominion machines do not keep “papers and records,” contrary to federal statutes. That’s a huge red flag. Second, another allegation sworn to by fact witnesses, is that some people are listed as having voted in one state when they moved states prior to the election. There is evidence that both of those occurred. Subsequent hearings may show that evidence is incorrect or mistaken or even outright duplicitous. But that is why we have open and public court proceedings, so everyone can see what happens and why.
Those two allegations are quite easily proven or disproven. It would not even take long. A simple audit (not hand re-count) would show either that Trump is right or that Trump is a bitter, delusional fool. If your case is as air tight as you claim, why would you not welcome the chance to show that Trump is a fool?
Court after court has looked at the "evidence" and called it shit.
They're probably all in on it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by True North:
Precident isn't whataboutisms.
Try having some consistency for a change.
"Precedent"
So if you think the "Russia Hoax" was a witch hunt, then this is even more so.
Originally Posted by :
There was evidence that the Russians interfered, but not that they coordinated with the Trump campaign on behalf of the campaign. That's two different things.
Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk
There was, but not enough to warrant any charges. [Reply]
So if you think the "Russia Hoax" was a witch hunt, then this is even more so.
There was, but not enough to warrant any charges.
How so? The election wasn't even a month ago. Mueller's investigation went almost two years.
There's enough irregularities to launch a forensic audit. Don't you think the people deserve free and fair transparent elections? Or does getting the orange man out of office justify any means?
There's enough irregularities to launch a forensic audit.
According to whom? None of the "evidence" has seen the inside of a courtroom, and the lawyers avoid using the word "fraud" in front of a judge as well.
Originally Posted by :
Don't you think the people deserve free and fair transparent elections?
They do. But that doesn't mean you get to cry foul just because you don't like the outcome.
Originally Posted by :
Or does getting the orange man out of office justify any means?
I didn't like the results in 2016, but I accepted them. People need to accept these results as well. [Reply]
Originally Posted by patteeu:
To be fair, you haven't spent much time here in the past 4 years so I'm not sure you're the right messenger for this. :-)
Originally Posted by patteeu:
Were you OK with investigating Trump for colluding with Russia to interfer with our elections even though there was less, or at least no more, evidence of that than there is for election/voter fraud?
Remember when the Senate intelligence committee agreed Russia tried to interfere in our elections? Because of all the evidence before them?
