Electoral fraud in NC?

[CharonY]

Instead of voter fraud, which is pretty much an allegation without evidence, there is now growing suspicion that in North Carolina, district 9 there may have been incidences of electoral fraud. That is an allegation that has to be taken more seriously as the damage to the voting process is much higher than individual cases of fraud. 

Quote

The unusual claims center around groups of people who went around collecting absentee ballots from voters in violation of North Carolina law, which says only voters themselves can mail in ballots.

Republican pastor Mark Harris narrowly leads Democratic veteran and businessman Dan McCready by 905 votes. McCready, a top recruit for Democrats, didn’t call for a recount and conceded shortly after the Nov. 6 election. 

[...]

Bladen County has been a focal point of the investigation. The rural county recorded one of the highest numbers of mail-in absentee ballot requests but also saw an unusually high numbers of unreturned ballots.

Unofficial results from the Nov. 6 election show that Harris holds the edge over McCready in absentee ballots in Bladen. According to The Washington Post, the rate of returned ballots was much higher among white voters than those of African-American and Native American voters, who are typically Democratic-leaning voters.  

Voter affidavits from Bladen County submitted to the state elections board allege instances of people coming to their house and asking voters to hand in their absentee ballots and encouraging residents to leave some races blank.

Leslie McCrae Dowless Jr., who has ties to the Harris campaign, is at the center of the state’s fraud investigation, according to the affidavits.

 

[Ten oz]

41 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Instead of voter fraud, which is pretty much an allegation without evidence, there is now growing suspicion that in North Carolina, district 9 there may have been incidences of electoral fraud. That is an allegation that has to be taken more seriously as the damage to the voting process is much higher than individual cases of fraud. 

 

To my knowledge a re-vote following such reports has never happened for national office. When we look at what happen in GA, FL, and now NC it would be great if we could just hold another vote. I think it is very important elections are gotten right  and people have faith in the process. To many elections are being decide in court or by local officials who either do or do not want to hand count votes. There should be a national standard election for national office. Also any candidate who's campaign breaks the law should either be disqualified from services or depending on the nature of the law broken and amount of votes received a new special election should be held asap. It is insane to me that we allow officials to serve out their time in office even after it because known their campaign broke the law to get them in office. 

[Raider5678]

18 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It is insane to me that we allow officials to serve out their time in office even after it because known their campaign broke the law to get them in office.

After it is known or after it is proven?

Additionally, what about conspiracy as well? Not the idea of a conspiracy theory, but that the person in question knew and took part in it.

As far as I'm aware, if you're convicted of breaking the laws, you're jailed and removed from office. The problem though is that we have a hard time proving they knew it was going on, that they supported it, etc.

[Ten oz]

25 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

As far as I'm aware, if you're convicted of breaking the laws, you're jailed and removed from office. The problem though is that we have a hard time proving they knew it was going on, that they supported it, etc.

No, if members of ones campaign breaks the law they are not removed from office. Take the most current high level example. Members of Trump's campaign have been convicted of felonies. Trump's own former personal attorney was convicted of multiple felonies including campaign finance crimes in which he cited Trump as a co-conspirator. Trump's campaign broke the law. That is a fact. Trump hasn't been removed from office and we'll all just have to wait till the next election per the normal cycle to remove him. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

44 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

As far as I'm aware, if you're convicted of breaking the laws, you're jailed and removed from office. The problem though is that we have a hard time proving they knew it was going on, that they supported it, etc.

 

17 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

No, if members of ones campaign breaks the law they are not removed from office. Take the most current high level example. Members of Trump's campaign have been convicted of felonies. Trump's own former personal attorney was convicted of multiple felonies including campaign finance crimes in which he cited Trump as a co-conspirator. Trump's campaign broke the law. That is a fact. Trump hasn't been removed from office and we'll all just have to wait till the next election per the normal cycle to remove him. 

This is not an example of someone convicted. If convicted, he could be impeached and removed from office. I think the better bet would be voting him out, but impeachment is entirely possible if what you claim is true and the facts become clear.

[Raider5678]

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

No, if members of ones campaign breaks the law they are not removed from office.

Yes. If you're convicted, you're removed from office. If members of your campaign are convicted, you are not. Unless they can prove that you knew it was going on, you supported it, you ordered it, etc.

Trump, despite you and I believe it's true, has not been proven guilty in a court of law.

You're wrong.

[iNow]

https://nyti.ms/2G3uHTq

Quote

The state’s Board of Elections has refused to certify the narrow 905-vote lead that the Republican, Mark Harris, holds over the Democrat, Dan McCready, and is investigating allegations of absentee ballot fraud. 

A variety of evidence is consistent with an absentee ballot-harvesting scheme in Bladen and Robeson Counties; that is, a coordinated effort to persuade voters to return their absentee ballots, possibly unsealed, to paid operatives who may have then changed or discarded them.

 

On 12/5/2018 at 8:03 PM, Raider5678 said:

Trump, despite you and I believe it's true, has not been proven guilty in a court of law.

You're wrong.

You basically said the exact same thing as Ten Oz, just using a different tone. So, are you wrong, too?

[Ten oz]

On 12/5/2018 at 5:06 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

This is not an example of someone convicted. If convicted, he could be impeached and removed from office. I think the better bet would be voting him out, but impeachment is entirely possible if what you claim is true and the facts become clear.

 

On 12/5/2018 at 9:03 PM, Raider5678 said:

Yes. If you're convicted, you're removed from office. If members of your campaign are convicted, you are not. Unless they can prove that you knew it was going on, you supported it, you ordered it, etc.

Trump, despite you and I believe it's true, has not been proven guilty in a court of law.

You're wrong.

If you 2 read my post accurately you'll see I clearly said "any candidate whose campaign breaks the law". I did not say the individual candidate must directly break the law. A campaign is an extension of a candidate and function on the candidates behalf. If a campaign violates the law I believe that candidate should be disqualified. 

Quote

Federal prosecutors said for the first time Friday that Michael Cohen acted at the direction of Donald Trump when Cohen committed two election-related crimes in 2016, as special counsel Robert Mueller outlined new contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian nationals.Here

Cohen committed election related crime for Candidate Trump. That means Trump's campaign broke the law. Such behavior by a campaign should be disqualifying. Likewise in the NC case. It doesn't matter whether the candidate collected ballots or a campaign staffer did it for them. It is the same difference. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 hours ago, Ten oz said:

 

If you 2 read my post accurately you'll see I clearly said "any candidate whose campaign breaks the law". I did not say the individual candidate must directly break the law. A campaign is an extension of a candidate and function on the candidates behalf. If a campaign violates the law I believe that candidate should be disqualified. 

Cohen committed election related crime for Candidate Trump. That means Trump's campaign broke the law. Such behavior by a campaign should be disqualifying. Likewise in the NC case. It doesn't matter whether the candidate collected ballots or a campaign staffer did it for them. It is the same difference. 

You did. In reply to "As far as I'm aware, if you're convicted of breaking the laws, you're jailed and removed from office."

Which you quoted.

Then you gave Trump as an example. Clearly not someone who has been convicted.

Try to keep tract of how you twist things. Try to be accurate.

Edited December 8, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

16 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You did. In reply to "As far as I'm aware, if you're convicted of breaking the laws, you're jailed and removed from office."

Which you quoted.

Then you gave Trump as an example. Clearly not someone who has been convicted.

Try to keep tract of how you twist things. Try to be accurate.

Below are my 2 posts on the matter. Both clearly state I am referencing campaigns. I clearly posted "Candidates who's campaign's break the law" and "Trump's campaign broke the law". It is type out in black and white. More over I already clarified the matter for you. It is sort of ridiculous you are attempting to insist otherwise. 

There will always be plausible deniability for an individual candidate. Whether its laundering money, breaking into facilities, throwing out ballots, or etc the individual candidate almost will never by the one getting their hands dirty.  It will almost always be members of their campaign directly committing the criminal acts. In the NC case no one is claiming Mark Harris personally went door to door taking ballots. Rather it is believed other Republicans working to win the election for him did. To me its the same difference. The outcome is illegitimate. NC shouldn't just have to wait out a term to get this resolved. There should just be another election held asap to ensure the person voters actually want in office gets put in office. 

On 12/5/2018 at 3:54 PM, Ten oz said:

To my knowledge a re-vote following such reports has never happened for national office. When we look at what happen in GA, FL, and now NC it would be great if we could just hold another vote. I think it is very important elections are gotten right  and people have faith in the process. To many elections are being decide in court or by local officials who either do or do not want to hand count votes. There should be a national standard election for national office. Also any candidate who's campaign breaks the law should either be disqualified from services or depending on the nature of the law broken and amount of votes received a new special election should be held asap. It is insane to me that we allow officials to serve out their time in office even after it because known their campaign broke the law to get them in office. 

 

On 12/5/2018 at 4:40 PM, Ten oz said:

No, if members of ones campaign breaks the law they are not removed from office. Take the most current high level example. Members of Trump's campaign have been convicted of felonies. Trump's own former personal attorney was convicted of multiple felonies including campaign finance crimes in which he cited Trump as a co-conspirator. Trump's campaign broke the law. That is a fact. Trump hasn't been removed from office and we'll all just have to wait till the next election per the normal cycle to remove him. 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

41 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Below are my 2 posts on the matter. Both clearly state I am referencing campaigns. I clearly posted "Candidates who's campaign's break the law" and "Trump's campaign broke the law". It is type out in black and white. More over I already clarified the matter for you. It is sort of ridiculous you are attempting to insist otherwise. 

There will always be plausible deniability for an individual candidate. Whether its laundering money, breaking into facilities, throwing out ballots, or etc the individual candidate almost will never by the one getting their hands dirty.  It will almost always be members of their campaign directly committing the criminal acts. In the NC case no one is claiming Mark Harris personally went door to door taking ballots. Rather it is believed other Republicans working to win the election for him did. To me its the same difference. The outcome is illegitimate. NC shouldn't just have to wait out a term to get this resolved. There should just be another election held asap to ensure the person voters actually want in office gets put in office. 

 

 

Very much agreed. Give yourself a cookie. You did say all that.

Not the point.

What in that in any way refutes my post you just quoted?

Let me repeat:

 In reply to "As far as I'm aware, if you're convicted of breaking the laws, you're jailed and removed from office." (which you were quoting from Raider)

You repied: "No, if members of ones campaign breaks the law they are not removed from office."

Then you gave Trump as an example. 

Go back and read it all. It should be pretty clear. You need to keep better track of when you twist things...or better yet...stop doing it.

 

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Very much agreed. Give yourself a cookie. You did say all that.

Not the point.

What in that in any way refutes my post you just quoted?

Let me repeat:

 In reply to "As far as I'm aware, if you're convicted of breaking the laws, you're jailed and removed from office." (which you were quoting from Raider)

You repied: "No, if members of ones campaign breaks the law they are not removed from office."

Then you gave Trump as an example. 

Go back and read it all. It should be pretty clear. You need to keep better track of when you twist things...or better yet...stop doing it.

 

I have no idea what your point here is. One is not removed but I feel they should be. What about that is confusing you? 

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I have no idea what your point here is. 

Raider was making a statement about someone convicted  in office.

You quoted him and replied "No." Then made a statement about an illegal campaign, and gave an example of a campaign you considered illegal.

But you won't understand the difference if you don't make the effort.

Try this:

Someone makes a statement about apples.

Someone else quotes it and replies"No." Then makes a statement about oranges...and backs it up with a story about oranges.

Regardless of whether the statement and story about oranges are correct or not, they say nothing about apples. Pointing out that is an off base reply to the statement about apples is not disputing the statement about oranges.

If you can follow that, and detach yourself from your argument...you are capable of getting the point

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

13 hours ago, iNow said:

https://nyti.ms/2G3uHTq

 

You basically said the exact same thing as Ten Oz, just using a different tone. So, are you wrong, too?

No, 3+3 = 6.

[Ten oz]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Raider was making a statement about someone convicted  in office.

You quoted him and replied "No." Then made a statement about an illegal campaign, and gave an example of a campaign you considered illegal.

But you won't understand the difference if you don't make the effort.

Try this:

Someone makes a statement about apples.

Someone else quotes it and replies"No." Then makes a statement about oranges...and backs it up with a story about oranges.

Regardless of whether the statement and story about oranges are correct or not, they say nothing about apples. Pointing out that is an off base reply to the statement about apples is not disputing the statement about oranges.

If you can follow that, and detach yourself from your argument...you are capable of getting the point

 

How about you take up what Raider posted with Raider.

As it all applies to this topic I a woman has already come forward and admit she was paid to collect and complete ballots in favor of Mark Harris during the election. I feel there should be another election ASAP. The election result is compromised. In my opinion if it turns out a member of Mark Harris's campaign was involved Harris should be disqualified from office for this cycle and seat. You either agree with my thoughts on the matter or disagree. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

24 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

How about you take up what Raider posted with Raider.

 

Thank you. I will do that.

 

On 12/5/2018 at 10:03 PM, Raider5678 said:

Yes. If you're convicted, you're removed from office. If members of your campaign are convicted, you are not. Unless they can prove that you knew it was going on, you supported it, you ordered it, etc.

Trump, despite you and I believe it's true, has not been proven guilty in a court of law.

You're wrong.

Raider. Ten oz used some facts we all agree with, as INow has noted, but those facts don't support the argument that your statement was incorrect...because they simply have no bearing on it.

...but I'm sure you knew that...

... as will INow if he pays attention to context before picking sides. Ten oz has demonstrated he can't see it, or refuses to, so don't worry about it.

Edited December 8, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

The side I picked was, FFS... can we please focus on where we agree and let the clarifications people offer after the initial comments stand on their own merit?

But I know you’ll disagree with this, too, and spend the next three pages more off-topic working to convince everyone I have picked a side. 

“You said A.”

”Here’s what I meant stated more clearly...”

”You said A!”

Lather. Rinse. Repeat. 

[Raider5678]

15 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Cohen committed election related crime for Candidate Trump. That means Trump's campaign broke the law. Such behavior by a campaign should be disqualifying. Likewise in the NC case. It doesn't matter whether the candidate collected ballots or a campaign staffer did it for them. It is the same difference. 

I wouldn't agree with your sentiment that just because someone in the campaign breaks the law the person running should be disqualified.

Presidential campaigns are huge. Tens of thousands of people, including volunteers, can participate. If you based it off of what those people did then you're going to have a hard time.

Hillary Clinton's campaign was convicted of illegally using the funding she was donated to fund research into the Trump Dossier. As far as we know, Hillary didn't order it specifically. Should she have been immediately eliminated from the campaign as well as Trump?

 

If you agree with that, then you're being consistent and I don't mind. The part I'd disagree with is if you don't think it should apply to Hillary Clinton as well, because that indicates to me that it'll be biased if we did this.

16 hours ago, Ten oz said:

If you 2 read my post accurately you'll see I clearly said "any candidate whose campaign breaks the law". I did not say the individual candidate must directly break the law. A campaign is an extension of a candidate and function on the candidates behalf. If a campaign violates the law I believe that candidate should be disqualified. 

There is a difference between stating what you think it should be and how it should be.

I'll take your word that you meant that that's just how you think it should be.

That being said, when I said "As far as I know, if you're convicted of doing a crime...." I was referring directly to the current law. 

Then you say "No, if members of a campaign break the law..." I read that as you saying no, which is how it'd grammatically be translated.

 

We had a misunderstanding, moving on.

[Ten oz]

15 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Hillary Clinton's campaign was convicted of illegally using the funding she was donated to fund research into the Trump Dossier. As far as we know, Hillary didn't order it specifically. Should she have been immediately eliminated from the campaign as well as Trump?

Do you have a citation for this? That I am aware of there was no one in Clinton campaign has been "convicted" of anything relating to the Dossier.

[J.C.MacSwell]

39 minutes ago, iNow said:

The side I picked was, FFS... can we please focus on where we agree and let the clarifications people offer after the initial comments stand on their own merit?

But I know you’ll disagree with this, too, and spend the next three pages more off-topic working to convince everyone I have picked a side. 

“You said A.”

”Here’s what I meant stated more clearly...”

”You said A!”

Lather. Rinse. Repeat. 

Ten oz had plenty of opportunity to state that "no", meant something other than no to the statement of Raider's that he quoted, if that was in fact the case. He did not.

That was the context of the "you're wrong" of Raider's you quoted, not the "wrong" you were assuming.

I doubt it would take you 3 pages to admit that or, if you didn't agree, make yourself clear.