California to DENY Voter/Election Records to Trump's Election Fraud Commission
-
We whine about his tax returns because every president since Richard Nixon has released his. There is no such precedent for states sharing their electoral roll data with the federal government
Absolutely, pppucci. And we whine about Trump's years of unreleased tax returns, Frederick, because he promised – so very many times -- to do so:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/times-donald-trump-release-tax-returns-article-1.3061868 or,
And yes, Frederick, Trump gave us taxes for "just one year," as you pointed out. It's obvious to the most casual observer that he cherry-picked his most acceptable tax year. Most presidents provide a dozen years or so, and Trump does not get a pass to provide fewer because he has amassed wealth.
And back to the core thread, here's a collection of research on the rarity of U.S. voter fraud:
https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth
Of course, the root of Trump's voter fraud commission is little more than Donnie's vanity project to explain away his garnering three million fewer popular votes.
It would be easy for this commission, overseen in Trump's offices, to misrepresent or cloud its numbers: by including, for example, persons on the voter rolls in two states due to a move, as well as people incorrectly on rolls because they had the misfortune of dying.
Ironically, people in the former category, who could well be used as supporting voter fraud data, include Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, Jared Kushner and Tiffany Trump.
-
No, some states gave all the requested information, some states gave some of the requested information, but states like California refused to comply 100%, because they are hiding their illegal actions. Quit trying to act like it's something else.
-
No, some states gave all the requested information, some states gave some of the requested information, but states like California refused to comply 100%, because they are hiding their illegal actions. Quit trying to act like it's something else.
Then someone should be fired in those states if they sent sensitive information to an unsecured email. Look at all the hacking that goes on these days. Trump said he knew about the cybers!
-
No, some states gave all the requested information, some states gave some of the requested information, but states like California refused to comply 100%, because they are hiding their illegal actions. Quit trying to act like it's something else.
Agreed, aadam001 – so many data security issues with this hastily assembled, bush-league commission and their inadequate experience and IT resources.
Here's a nice map of states and their compliance status as of the weekend:
States that will offer NO compliance include Mississippi – famous now for their refusal, and their invitation for Kobach to "jump in the Gulf" -- as well as Kentucky, Tennessee and South Dakota. So, mhorn, why not rag on these Trump-voting, red -- or crimson! --states for a while?
-
It makes me think that there was little involvement from IT people. You have to wonder how they plan to analyze all of that data without IT people. I suppose the more likely scenario is that they wrote the conclusion of their findings months ago.
-
Rumor has it that Trump himself leaked that one year–over 12 years ago--because it was the only year he paid taxes.
He took a $916 million dollar loss, most of which was with borrowed money that he could carry forward. He went bankrupt on those loans, so essentially he used bank money to avoid taxes. All perfectly legal. -
He did leak it himself. The Apprentice started in 2004. He likely did every well in 2005. The rest of the years will tell a very different story. He can release the 2016 return. It hasn't been filed yet. He requested an extension. He should release it to the American people at the same time of the filing. His supporters should demand that he keep his promise to them.
-
No, some states gave all the requested information, some states gave some of the requested information, but states like California refused to comply 100%, because they are hiding their illegal actions. Quit trying to act like it's something else.
Look at the states refusing to comply:
"Ten states — California, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Virginia — have fully rebuked Kobach’s call for voter data, including an invitation from Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann in a statement of his own:They can go jump in the Gulf of Mexico and Mississippi is a great State to launch from. Mississippi residents should celebrate Independence Day and our State’s right to protect the privacy of our citizens by conducting our own electoral processes."
Ref:
http://www.snopes.com/2017/06/30/trump-election-commission-rejection/I don't think you can argue that they all are trying to hide something.. They are evenly divided between Trump and Hillary states in 2016. You guys just eat up whatever is fed to you by the conservative press like a baby slurping oatmeal.
-
Regarding Mississippi, which has already admitted to fraud, they don't want this investigation because now you're talking punishment and national exposure. Now you're talking about a President who doesn't care if you are conservative or liberal, the law is the law. I've been trying to tell you he's an Independent.
Edit: This is a classic example of drawing from a conclusion rather than towards one. You already have the conclusion set in your mind that conservatives are free to break the law because Trump is in office. Clearly not the case.
-
Here's one article about Mississippi's admission of voter fraud (there are many):
http://thehayride.com/2017/05/mississippi-mayor-admits-voter-fraud-whats-done/
This is why Mississippi doesn't want an investigation. But like I said in my previous post, Trump don't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat or a Whatever. If you break the law, there will be consequences, and we need to clean up the mess. It's ridiculous that with our technology this is still going on. All the states that don't cooperate, have something to hide. You can say they're lazy and don't want to do a recount, but we know they're corrupt. They've been getting away with it for decades and this administration wants to do something about it. What's wrong with that? Why are you guys hating on Trump for trying to bring integrity to the election system? It's one of our checks and balances against the government. It needs to be fixed so we can be accurate and the people's voice is heard. I see nothing wrong with this and all you guys looking for something to blame Trump for are just lost souls looking for that which makes sense to the conclusions you've already drawn.
-
Here's one article about Mississippi's admission of voter fraud (there are many):
http://thehayride.com/2017/05/mississippi-mayor-admits-voter-fraud-whats-done/
This is why Mississippi doesn't want an investigation. But like I said in my previous post, Trump don't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat or a Whatever. If you break the law, there will be consequences, and we need to clean up the mess. It's ridiculous that with our technology this is still going on. All the states that don't cooperate, have something to hide. You can say they're lazy and don't want to do a recount, but we know they're corrupt. They've been getting away with it for decades and this administration wants to do something about it. What's wrong with that? Why are you guys hating on Trump for trying to bring integrity to the election system? It's one of our checks and balances against the government. It needs to be fixed so we can be accurate and the people's voice is heard. I see nothing wrong with this and all you guys looking for something to blame Trump for are just lost souls looking for that which makes sense to the conclusions you've already drawn.
If there are many examples of voter fraud in Mississippi, you'd better do better than the one you cited. The mayor of Gloster, Mississippi, population 914, admitted to helping 25 people fill out their absentee ballot. I'm sure that explains why Hillary won the popular vote!
-
That's not the point. It doesn't matter how small or how large. Anyone who is engaged in it will be adamantly opposed to an investigation, and that's why you have these 29 states that are opposed. Because they ARE involved in it. It isn't about protecting people's public voting records from the federal government. It's about Trump enforcing the law, as he is the executive. It's about curtailing fraud. The fact that they are pushing against Trump investigating their potential voting fraud, and they're pleading the fifth, speaks VOLUMES. It draws us to the possible conclusion that Hillary didn't actually win the popular vote. Especially since it was recently uncovered that 1.5 million illegals used stolen SSNs to vote illegally.
-
For whatever reason, some states are refusing to prove they are obeying federal voting laws.
If this happened under Obama, liberals would lose their minds, more than they already have.
I do feel that some states are only doing this to cuck to the anti- Trump crowd and others are falsely playing the "states' rights" crowd.
-
That's not the point. It doesn't matter how small or how large. Anyone who is engaged in it will be adamantly opposed to an investigation, and that's why you have these 29 states that are opposed. Because they ARE involved in it. It isn't about protecting people's public voting records from the federal government. It's about Trump enforcing the law, as he is the executive. It's about curtailing fraud. The fact that they are pushing against Trump investigating their potential voting fraud, and they're pleading the fifth, speaks VOLUMES. It draws us to the possible conclusion that Hillary didn't actually win the popular vote. Especially since it was recently uncovered that 1.5 million illegals used stolen SSNs to vote illegally.
Sorry, but gotta keep you honest. First, there are no federal laws regulating voters. The only federal election laws relate to campaign finances. Therefore, not only does Trump have not duty to enforce any laws regarding voter fraud, he has no jurisdiction over State laws. And although he may not be a conservative, conservatives strongly support states' rights. Also to suggest Mississippi has something to cover up is ridiculous. I found the case you cited, as well as two more that involved less than 50 votes. Sounds like they are doing a pretty good job.
They are not pleading the fifth, they are maintaining their sovereignty over their own data. I wouldn't be suprised if one of the states asked the Supreme Court to rule on the matter. I wouldn't count on the so-called conservative judges siding with Trump, either, given the whole states' rights thing.
Second your statement that 1.5 million illegals used stolen SSN to vote illegally is patently false. Yes, it is estimated that 1.4 million illegal immigrants used false SSN to get JOBS. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/22/14-million-illegals-working-stolen-social-security/ As it turns out, the IRS encouraged them to do so, in order to collect income tax on their wages. https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2016/04/13/irs-admits-it-encourages-illegals-to-steal-social-security-numbers-for-taxes/#1d58cf754c04There is no evidence that they also used these numbers to vote illegally. Although, I admit, that is a legitimate concern. If Trump's commission was really interested in the truth, they would provide those numbers to the states and have them cross-check their voter rolls. That, I think would be a legitimate inquiry and could be argued was helping the states do their own policing more effectively. It must, however be left at the state level or completely reform the way we vote for president.
Lastly, the facile assumption that all illegals would have voted for Hillary is a stretch. Maybe some don't want more immigrants coming in and competing for their low-paying jobs. Some might believe he would create more jobs. Some, as strict Catholics, might be opposed to the Democratic pro-choice stance. There are very few groups these days that vote monolithically for one party or another.
-
For whatever reason, some states are refusing to prove they are obeying federal voting laws.
If this happened under Obama, liberals would lose their minds, more than they already have.
I do feel that some states are only doing this to cuck to the anti- Trump crowd and others are falsely playing the "states' rights" crowd.
I will give you a pass since you have lived in the UK for so long, but there are no federal voting laws, except the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 which was passed to outlaw practiced that disenfranchised uneducated, mostly black, voters.
Believe me, if any president tried to impose federal regulation of voting, liberals would have a cow, because these tend toward voter suppression.
Outside of the 1965 law, the states and only the stateshave control of who does and does not vote in their states, as long as they abide by the Constitution. -
Illegals voting is a states' issue?
-
Illegals voting is a states' issue?
Absolutely. It is solely a state issue. The federal government has no role in maintaining the integrity of voter rolls. That there is so much controversy over voter ID laws, which vary from state to state. There have been several Supreme Court decisions, of course, that deal with the matter. The Court, however, must only rule on the constitutionality of the states' laws. Probably the most important case was Bush vs. Gore in 2000 regarding the Florida recount. Here is a summary of the issues:
Loathe to make broad precedents, the per curiam opinion limited its holding to the present case. Rehnquist (in a concurring opinion joined by Scalia and Thomas) argued that the recount scheme was also unconstitutional because the Florida Supreme Court's decision made new election law, which only the state legislature may do. Breyer and Souter (writing separately) agreed with the per curiam holding that the Florida Court's recount scheme violated the Equal Protection Clause, but they dissented with respect to the remedy, believing that a constitutional recount could be fashioned. Time is insubstantial when constitutional rights are at stake. Ginsburg and Stevens (writing separately) argued that for reasons of federalism, the Florida Supreme Court's decision ought to be respected. Moreover, the Florida decision was fundamentally right; the Constitution requires that every vote be counted.
-
And you can add to the roll-call of states recognizing, and refusing, this absurd Trumpian vanity project: Maryland, Delaware, and ruby-red (in presidential elections) Louisiana.
Louisiana Secretary of State Tom Schedler (R) said the presidential commission could purchase the limited information legally available to candidates running for office.
"You're not going to play politics with Louisiana’s voter data," he said in a statement.
States' rights advocates are a powerful force, even in these "United" States – another eighth-grade civics lesson for our woefully unprepared "leader."
-
Just because they are red, doesn't mean they don't have a problem with fraud. Trump has shown that he doesn't care if you are red or blue, the law is the law. Draining the swamp doesn't mean just going against democrats. That's the narrow frame of reference you are drawing conclusions from.
-
Just because they are red, doesn't mean they don't have a problem with fraud. Trump has shown that he doesn't care if you are red or blue, the law is the law. Draining the swamp doesn't mean just going against democrats. That's the narrow frame of reference you are drawing conclusions from.
So now our President is some uber-policeman who is going to tell sates how to enforce their own laws? There is no federal jurisdiction here. If anything, his commission can make recommendations to the states. Even congress is probably limited by the constitution on how much it can change voting laws. Certainly, he cannot do anything by Executive Order. The entire exercise if just to give his ridiculous claim about illegals making up Hillary's popular vote margin a shred of validity.
