Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Barr authorizes nationwide election fraud investigations

Page 3 of 4 [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

10 Nov 2020, 10:40 am

magz wrote:
Sorry, Bric, I really don't like videos. Sensory and language processing problems, I don't process text linearily.
Can you just write a few sentences summarizing the discussion?
Also, care to say who the disputants are? Youtube is full of everything, from professional lectures to craziest conspiracies.

I, too, am sceptical about watching a 2 hour, 21 minute and 4 second video clip with no summary - especially when the video is made by some completely random Youtuber I have never heard of before...

... but this appears to be a lost cause, and has been so for years...



Tempus Fugit
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Oct 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,545

10 Nov 2020, 11:40 am

GGPViper wrote:
... but this appears to be a lost cause, and has been so for years...


What? Youtube? :jester:



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

10 Nov 2020, 11:58 am

Tempus Fugit wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
... but this appears to be a lost cause, and has been so for years...
What? Youtube? :jester:
Youtubers.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

10 Nov 2020, 3:32 pm

magz wrote:
Sorry, Bric, I really don't like videos. Sensory and language processing problems, I don't process text linearily.
Can you just write a few sentences summarizing these parts of the discussion?
Also, care to say who the disputants are? Youtube is full of everything, from professional lectures to craziest conspiracies.


strange that some posters here permit themselves the luxury of making bold projections/inferences but when others report the news they are deemed to be not permitted to make inferences/projections?



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

10 Nov 2020, 3:38 pm

cyberdad wrote:
strange that some posters here permit themselves the luxury of making bold projections/inferences but when others report the news they are deemed to be not permitted to make inferences/projections?
Can you please clarify? I really have difficulty with videos, for me, understanding them requires much more effort than reading even very complex texts.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

10 Nov 2020, 3:41 pm

magz wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
strange that some posters here permit themselves the luxury of making bold projections/inferences but when others report the news they are deemed to be not permitted to make inferences/projections?
Can you please clarify? I really have difficulty with videos, for me, understanding them requires much more effort than reading even very complex texts.


Sorry this is not directed at you, it;'s directed to another poster who has asked that I not directly interact with them. (I think you know whom).



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

10 Nov 2020, 6:28 pm

magz wrote:
Sorry, Bric, I really don't like videos. Sensory and language processing problems, I don't process text linearily.
Can you just write a few sentences summarizing these parts of the discussion?
Also, care to say who the disputants are? Youtube is full of everything, from professional lectures to craziest conspiracies.


I can try and get a transcription of a couple of bits later today - I was hoping there might be a podcast up for this so an audio-only version was possible (I often put these types of videos on in a background tab so I can listen to them while doing other things).

Regarding who the people having the discussion are:
Channel owner\presenter - Viva Frei (David Freiheit) - Canadian lawyer who produces videos explaining prominant lawsuits to allow those unfamiliar with the law to understand them:
Quote:
Although many see his content as right-leaning, Freiheit himself classifies the political stance he takes on his channel as non-partisan,[23] claiming that the internet, through the use of the terms right or left-wing, only succeeds in "pigeonholing, categorizing, dichotomizing, just reducing a complex individual to either right or left in all of their... beliefs."[24]. In an interview, he described his channel's content as including a "pretty decent balance of left and right".[6]

In 2019 attorney Robert Barnes began making weekly Sunday evening appearances on the Viva Frei law vlog YouTube channel to educate and opine on American justice.[25]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Freiheit

The second person\weekly guest - Robert Barnes - US Attorney (among other cases, represented Ralph Nader in a 4-5 year case (Nader V. Brewer) regarding Arizona election law and where it conflicted with the constitution, specifically the first ammendment):
Quote:
Today, Barnes continues to stand up to systems, to bullies, to Big Banks, to the IRS, and to those who would take away those guaranteed freedoms his grandfathers helped establish: free speech and civil rights.

Source: https://www.barneslawllp.com/about

The video mainly consists of David asking questions, with Robert explaining the constitutional and legislation process behind the election iteself, including challenges, the history of the process, and opining on likely avenues that may be taken on certain cases.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

10 Nov 2020, 9:20 pm

The republicans just lost their only hope for an enquiry
https://www.news.com.au/world/north-ame ... fc9f855c2d

Trump's only major piece of “evidence” was a claim of ballot tampering which were made by US postal worker Richard Hopkins.
In a signed affidavit, Mr Hopkins alleged postmaster Rob Weisenbach from Erie, Pennsylvania told staff to backdate votes which had actually been sent in after election day – which would be a breach of rules.
His claims were publicised by Project Veritas, a far-right activist group, with founder James O’Keefe desribing him as “an American hero”.
However, an official investigation was launched in response to Mr Hopkins’ explosive claims – but according to the Washington Post, the 32-year-old admitted on Monday that his claims were false.
The latest revelations have sparked an outpouring of fury among Americans who are growing increasingly frustrated by the Trump team’s efforts to derail the election.

Obviously they didn't bribe him (or threaten his family) enough.



Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

10 Nov 2020, 9:30 pm

More on the story from the Guardian: DoJ officials condemn Barr's approval of voter fraud inquiries without evidence



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 37,971
Location: Long Island, New York

10 Nov 2020, 9:40 pm

As expected, as I said in the OP

Quote:
While probably nothing will be found that is not the point. The idea is to radicalize the base and provide justification for not leaving office if he so chooses.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

10 Nov 2020, 9:44 pm

cyberdad wrote:
The republicans just lost their only hope for an enquiry
https://www.news.com.au/world/north-ame ... fc9f855c2d

Trump's only major piece of “evidence” was a claim of ballot tampering which were made by US postal worker Richard Hopkins.
In a signed affidavit, Mr Hopkins alleged postmaster Rob Weisenbach from Erie, Pennsylvania told staff to backdate votes which had actually been sent in after election day – which would be a breach of rules.
His claims were publicised by Project Veritas, a far-right activist group, with founder James O’Keefe desribing him as “an American hero”.
However, an official investigation was launched in response to Mr Hopkins’ explosive claims – but according to the Washington Post, the 32-year-old admitted on Monday that his claims were false.
The latest revelations have sparked an outpouring of fury among Americans who are growing increasingly frustrated by the Trump team’s efforts to derail the election.

Obviously they didn't bribe him (or threaten his family) enough.


Research (for example, reading the "Washington Post" article claimed as the source in your linked article) isn't that hard...You may even learn important details which counter the narrative you are pushing, such as:
Quote:
Hopkins did not respond to messages from The Washington Post seeking comment through his social media accounts, family members and phone messages earlier this week. But in a YouTube video he posted Tuesday night, he denied recanting. “I’m here to say I did not recant my statements. That did not happen,” he said.


So, to clarify, people other than the witness are claiming the witness recanted their statement, whilst the witness themself has denied this has occurred. Which of these is likely to have a more accurate\credible understanding of the situation?



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

10 Nov 2020, 10:36 pm

Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
The republicans just lost their only hope for an enquiry
https://www.news.com.au/world/north-ame ... fc9f855c2d

Trump's only major piece of “evidence” was a claim of ballot tampering which were made by US postal worker Richard Hopkins.
In a signed affidavit, Mr Hopkins alleged postmaster Rob Weisenbach from Erie, Pennsylvania told staff to backdate votes which had actually been sent in after election day – which would be a breach of rules.
His claims were publicised by Project Veritas, a far-right activist group, with founder James O’Keefe desribing him as “an American hero”.
However, an official investigation was launched in response to Mr Hopkins’ explosive claims – but according to the Washington Post, the 32-year-old admitted on Monday that his claims were false.
The latest revelations have sparked an outpouring of fury among Americans who are growing increasingly frustrated by the Trump team’s efforts to derail the election.

Obviously they didn't bribe him (or threaten his family) enough.


Research (for example, reading the "Washington Post" article claimed as the source in your linked article) isn't that hard...You may even learn important details which counter the narrative you are pushing, such as:
Quote:
Hopkins did not respond to messages from The Washington Post seeking comment through his social media accounts, family members and phone messages earlier this week. But in a YouTube video he posted Tuesday night, he denied recanting. “I’m here to say I did not recant my statements. That did not happen,” he said.


So, to clarify, people other than the witness are claiming the witness recanted their statement, whilst the witness themself has denied this has occurred. Which of these is likely to have a more accurate\credible understanding of the situation?


Interestingly, it seems there was a significant fictional component (and minimal\no factual basis) in the original article gleefully presented as "evidence of no fraud occurring":
Quote:
Hopkins hinted that he would have more information for the public on Wednesday in the video he posted demanding the retraction from The Post.

“My name is Richard Hopkins, I am the postal employee who came out and whistle blew on the Erie PA postal service,” he said in the video. “I am right at this very moment looking at a article written by Washington Post, says that I fabricated the allegations of ballot tampering – I’m here to say that I did not ‘recant’ my statement, that did not happen, that is not what happened and you will find out tomorrow.”

Hopkins then went onto say that he would like the Post to ‘recant’ the story they wrote about him.

Source:https://saraacarter.com/usps-whistleblower-demands-washington-post-retract-story-saying-he-recanted-allegations-of-voter-fraud/
Taken from:


So, from this, it appears that it was the Washington post, and those falsely claiming he had recanted, who were being referred to with the following inflamatory claim:
cyberdad wrote:
Obviously they didn't bribe him (or threaten his family) enough.



Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

10 Nov 2020, 11:50 pm

Brictoria wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
The republicans just lost their only hope for an enquiry
https://www.news.com.au/world/north-ame ... fc9f855c2d

Trump's only major piece of “evidence” was a claim of ballot tampering which were made by US postal worker Richard Hopkins.
In a signed affidavit, Mr Hopkins alleged postmaster Rob Weisenbach from Erie, Pennsylvania told staff to backdate votes which had actually been sent in after election day – which would be a breach of rules.
His claims were publicised by Project Veritas, a far-right activist group, with founder James O’Keefe desribing him as “an American hero”.
However, an official investigation was launched in response to Mr Hopkins’ explosive claims – but according to the Washington Post, the 32-year-old admitted on Monday that his claims were false.
The latest revelations have sparked an outpouring of fury among Americans who are growing increasingly frustrated by the Trump team’s efforts to derail the election.

Obviously they didn't bribe him (or threaten his family) enough.


Research (for example, reading the "Washington Post" article claimed as the source in your linked article) isn't that hard...You may even learn important details which counter the narrative you are pushing, such as:
Quote:
Hopkins did not respond to messages from The Washington Post seeking comment through his social media accounts, family members and phone messages earlier this week. But in a YouTube video he posted Tuesday night, he denied recanting. “I’m here to say I did not recant my statements. That did not happen,” he said.


So, to clarify, people other than the witness are claiming the witness recanted their statement, whilst the witness themself has denied this has occurred. Which of these is likely to have a more accurate\credible understanding of the situation?


Interestingly, it seems there was a significant fictional component (and minimal\no factual basis) in the original article gleefully presented as "evidence of no fraud occurring":
Quote:
Hopkins hinted that he would have more information for the public on Wednesday in the video he posted demanding the retraction from The Post.

“My name is Richard Hopkins, I am the postal employee who came out and whistle blew on the Erie PA postal service,” he said in the video. “I am right at this very moment looking at a article written by Washington Post, says that I fabricated the allegations of ballot tampering – I’m here to say that I did not ‘recant’ my statement, that did not happen, that is not what happened and you will find out tomorrow.”

Hopkins then went onto say that he would like the Post to ‘recant’ the story they wrote about him.

Source:https://saraacarter.com/usps-whistleblower-demands-washington-post-retract-story-saying-he-recanted-allegations-of-voter-fraud/
Taken from:


So, from this, it appears that it was the Washington post, and those falsely claiming he had recanted, who were being referred to with the following inflamatory claim:
cyberdad wrote:
Obviously they didn't bribe him (or threaten his family) enough.


The USPS Office of Inspector General stated that Hopkins did in fact recant his signed affidavit. It is a serious offence to submit a false statement to an IG. For some strange reason, he seems to be changing his story again to say he has not withdrawn his complaint.

Source: Erie Postal Worker Admits Making Up Pennsylvania Ballot Tampering Claims, Officials Say



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

10 Nov 2020, 11:59 pm

Jiheisho wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
The republicans just lost their only hope for an enquiry
https://www.news.com.au/world/north-ame ... fc9f855c2d

Trump's only major piece of “evidence” was a claim of ballot tampering which were made by US postal worker Richard Hopkins.
In a signed affidavit, Mr Hopkins alleged postmaster Rob Weisenbach from Erie, Pennsylvania told staff to backdate votes which had actually been sent in after election day – which would be a breach of rules.
His claims were publicised by Project Veritas, a far-right activist group, with founder James O’Keefe desribing him as “an American hero”.
However, an official investigation was launched in response to Mr Hopkins’ explosive claims – but according to the Washington Post, the 32-year-old admitted on Monday that his claims were false.
The latest revelations have sparked an outpouring of fury among Americans who are growing increasingly frustrated by the Trump team’s efforts to derail the election.

Obviously they didn't bribe him (or threaten his family) enough.


Research (for example, reading the "Washington Post" article claimed as the source in your linked article) isn't that hard...You may even learn important details which counter the narrative you are pushing, such as:
Quote:
Hopkins did not respond to messages from The Washington Post seeking comment through his social media accounts, family members and phone messages earlier this week. But in a YouTube video he posted Tuesday night, he denied recanting. “I’m here to say I did not recant my statements. That did not happen,” he said.


So, to clarify, people other than the witness are claiming the witness recanted their statement, whilst the witness themself has denied this has occurred. Which of these is likely to have a more accurate\credible understanding of the situation?


Interestingly, it seems there was a significant fictional component (and minimal\no factual basis) in the original article gleefully presented as "evidence of no fraud occurring":
Quote:
Hopkins hinted that he would have more information for the public on Wednesday in the video he posted demanding the retraction from The Post.

“My name is Richard Hopkins, I am the postal employee who came out and whistle blew on the Erie PA postal service,” he said in the video. “I am right at this very moment looking at a article written by Washington Post, says that I fabricated the allegations of ballot tampering – I’m here to say that I did not ‘recant’ my statement, that did not happen, that is not what happened and you will find out tomorrow.”

Hopkins then went onto say that he would like the Post to ‘recant’ the story they wrote about him.

Source:https://saraacarter.com/usps-whistleblower-demands-washington-post-retract-story-saying-he-recanted-allegations-of-voter-fraud/
Taken from:


So, from this, it appears that it was the Washington post, and those falsely claiming he had recanted, who were being referred to with the following inflamatory claim:
cyberdad wrote:
Obviously they didn't bribe him (or threaten his family) enough.


The USPS Office of Inspector General stated that Hopkins did in fact recant his signed affidavit. It is a serious offence to submit a false statement to an IG. For some strange reason, he seems to be changing his story again to say he has not withdrawn his complaint.

Source: Erie Postal Worker Admits Making Up Pennsylvania Ballot Tampering Claims, Officials Say


You do realize that link is only repeating the same claims\relying on the same source as the original, hastily linked article above, provides no link\evidence demonstrating the claims being recanted, and which the subject has stated was false?



Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

11 Nov 2020, 12:10 am

Brictoria wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
The republicans just lost their only hope for an enquiry
https://www.news.com.au/world/north-ame ... fc9f855c2d

Trump's only major piece of “evidence” was a claim of ballot tampering which were made by US postal worker Richard Hopkins.
In a signed affidavit, Mr Hopkins alleged postmaster Rob Weisenbach from Erie, Pennsylvania told staff to backdate votes which had actually been sent in after election day – which would be a breach of rules.
His claims were publicised by Project Veritas, a far-right activist group, with founder James O’Keefe desribing him as “an American hero”.
However, an official investigation was launched in response to Mr Hopkins’ explosive claims – but according to the Washington Post, the 32-year-old admitted on Monday that his claims were false.
The latest revelations have sparked an outpouring of fury among Americans who are growing increasingly frustrated by the Trump team’s efforts to derail the election.

Obviously they didn't bribe him (or threaten his family) enough.


Research (for example, reading the "Washington Post" article claimed as the source in your linked article) isn't that hard...You may even learn important details which counter the narrative you are pushing, such as:
Quote:
Hopkins did not respond to messages from The Washington Post seeking comment through his social media accounts, family members and phone messages earlier this week. But in a YouTube video he posted Tuesday night, he denied recanting. “I’m here to say I did not recant my statements. That did not happen,” he said.


So, to clarify, people other than the witness are claiming the witness recanted their statement, whilst the witness themself has denied this has occurred. Which of these is likely to have a more accurate\credible understanding of the situation?


Interestingly, it seems there was a significant fictional component (and minimal\no factual basis) in the original article gleefully presented as "evidence of no fraud occurring":
Quote:
Hopkins hinted that he would have more information for the public on Wednesday in the video he posted demanding the retraction from The Post.

“My name is Richard Hopkins, I am the postal employee who came out and whistle blew on the Erie PA postal service,” he said in the video. “I am right at this very moment looking at a article written by Washington Post, says that I fabricated the allegations of ballot tampering – I’m here to say that I did not ‘recant’ my statement, that did not happen, that is not what happened and you will find out tomorrow.”

Hopkins then went onto say that he would like the Post to ‘recant’ the story they wrote about him.

Source:https://saraacarter.com/usps-whistleblower-demands-washington-post-retract-story-saying-he-recanted-allegations-of-voter-fraud/
Taken from:


So, from this, it appears that it was the Washington post, and those falsely claiming he had recanted, who were being referred to with the following inflamatory claim:
cyberdad wrote:
Obviously they didn't bribe him (or threaten his family) enough.


The USPS Office of Inspector General stated that Hopkins did in fact recant his signed affidavit. It is a serious offence to submit a false statement to an IG. For some strange reason, he seems to be changing his story again to say he has not withdrawn his complaint.

Source: Erie Postal Worker Admits Making Up Pennsylvania Ballot Tampering Claims, Officials Say


You do realize that link is only repeating the same claims\relying on the same source as the original, hastily linked article above, provides no link\evidence demonstrating the claims being recanted, and which the subject has stated was false?


Hopkins filed a complaint with the USPS Office of the Inspector General. The IG reported that to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform that the complaint was withdrawn by Hopkins during their investigation. Two things are going to happen, either Hopkins is right and the IG will continue the investigation, but is going to have to account for their statement to Congress, or the IG is correct and Hopkins is in a whole lot of trouble. IGs take these things very seriously. False statements to IGs carry consequences.



Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

11 Nov 2020, 12:27 am

The story on Hopkins: Pennsylvania postal worker recants ballot tampering allegations: officials