Trump personally pressured Justice Department officials to declare that the election was corrupt

[notimp]

The exchange unfolded during a phone call on Dec. 27 in which Mr. Trump pressed the acting attorney general at the time, Jeffrey A. Rosen, and his deputy, Richard P. Donoghue, on voter fraud claims that the department had disproved. Mr. Donoghue warned that the department had no power to change the outcome of the election. Mr. Trump replied that he did not expect that, according to notes Mr. Donoghue took memorializing the conversation.

“Just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me” and to congressional allies, Mr. Donoghue wrote in summarizing Mr. Trump’s response.

Mr. Trump’s conversation with Mr. Rosen and Mr. Donoghue reflected his single-minded focus on overturning the election results. At one point, Mr. Trump claimed voter fraud in Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and Arizona, which he called “corrupted elections.” Mr. Donoghue pushed back.

“Much of the info you’re getting is false,” Mr. Donoghue said, adding that the department had conducted “dozens of investigations, hundreds of interviews” and not found evidence to support his claims. “We look at allegations but they don’t pan out,” the officials told Mr. Trump, according to the notes.

The department found that the error rate of ballot counting in Michigan was 0.0063 percent, not the 68 percent that the president asserted; it did not find evidence of a conspiracy theory that an employee in Pennsylvania had tampered with ballots; and after examining video and interviewing witnesses, it did not find evidence of ballot fraud in Fulton County, Ga., according to the notes.

Mr. Trump, undeterred, brushed off the department’s findings. “Ok fine — but what about the others?” Mr. Donoghue wrote in his notes describing the president’s remarks. Mr. Trump asked Mr. Donoghue to travel to Fulton County to verify signatures on ballots.

The people “saying that the election isn’t corrupt are corrupt,” Mr. Trump told the officials, adding that they needed to act. “Not much time left.”

At another point, Mr. Donoghue said that the department could quickly verify or disprove the assertion that more ballots were cast in Pennsylvania than there are voters.

“Should be able to check on that quickly, but understand that the DOJ can’t and won’t snap it’s fingers and change the outcome of the election, doesn’t work that way,” Mr. Donoghue wrote in his notes.

The officials also told Mr. Trump that the Justice Department had no evidence to support a lawsuit regarding the election results. “We are not in a position based on the evidence. We can only act on the actual evidence developed,” they said.

Mr. Trump castigated the officials, saying that “thousands of people called” their local U.S. attorney’s offices to complain about the election and that “nobody trusts the F.B.I.” He said that “people are angry — blaming D.O.J. for inaction.”

“You guys may not be following the internet the way I do,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document.

In a moment of foreshadowing, Mr. Trump said, “people tell me Jeff Clark is great, I should put him in,” referring to the acting head of the Justice Department’s civil division, who had also encouraged department officials to intervene in the election. “People want me to replace D.O.J. leadership.”
“You should have the leadership you want,” Mr. Donoghue replied. But it “won’t change the dept’s position.”

src: https://archive.is/1NIYA#selection-697.0-716.0

 

[jimbo13]

It was corrupt.

No ID, no integrity.

 

[Xzi]

It was corrupt.

No ID, no integrity.

What a different world we might live in if people had the same fervor about the election that GWB actually stole from Gore. Turns out he won Florida by roughly a hundred and fifty votes. Whoops.

 

[jimbo13]

What a different world we might live in if people had the same fervor about the election that GWB actually stole from Gore. Turns out he won Florida by roughly a hundred and fifty votes. Whoops.

Yep he did, but Gore was too much of a Beta pansy to fight for an election he won.

 

[notimp]

Yep he did, but Gore was too much of a Beta pansy to fight for an election he won.

Using what meassures? Threats? Pressuring justice department officials? Or arguments like "The people telling me the election wasnt corrupt are corrupt."

No, sorry SIr, we can't do that.
No, sorry Sir, we can't do that.
No, sorry SIr, that won't change the departments position.
No, sorry Sir - Pence also cant do that.
No, sorry Sir, storming the capital with a mob also wont do that.
...

(#fighter)

 

[The Catboy]

The “you lost, get over it,” and “fuck your feelings,” crowd sure as fuck aren’t getting over their loss.

 

[Jayro]

The “you lost, get over it,” and “fuck your feelings,” crowd sure as fuck aren’t getting over their loss.

They don't understand basic concepts like "Accountability", or "Integrity".

 

[notimp]

They don't understand basic concepts like "Accountability", or "Integrity".

And neither would anyone with a sense of how societies work - but this is different.

Dont mask it with emotionally charged concepts on your end. Just let them read what the president pushed for, using what means, and what arguments, under what pressures (time), and while exchanging heads of agencies, that didn't succumb to his demands.

That should be enough.

No need to learn accountability or integrity... just look at intent and measures employed.

 

[jimbo13]

They don't understand basic concepts like "Accountability", or "Integrity".

We made our feelings known about unaccountable ID'less mail in balloting rolled out essentially nation wide well before the first ballot was cast, if you expected people to accept the result you should paid attention.

 

[notimp]

We made our feelings known about unaccountable ID'less mail in balloting rolled out essentially nation wide well before the first ballot was cast, if you expected people to accept the result you should paid attention.

And there I was - thinking, that you (the mob) chanted "hang mike pence".

see also: h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuCysTdbn94

We made our feelings known about unaccountable ID'less mail in balloting rolled out essentially nation wide well before the first ballot was cast,[...]

Issue with this is, that _nationwide_ ballets were only sent out to addresses with US citizens, on some sort of district record. As in:

You go to the district government to get ID - they look into their records, then give you your ID card.
and
They look into their records, to see if you are an eligible voter, then send out mail voting ballots, without needing your ID, to your home address. Same difference in terms of voting security.
(Effectively. I'm sure you can come up with scenarios, where the person wasnt living at that address any more or 'ballots could have been stolen from the mailbox' -- but the question in those cases is also "do they scale". So do you have organized crime mobs, going from house to house, stealing mail ballots. Or - are there many people intentioned to "vote twice" if they got the ballot from the previous tenant, which btw. is a crime you go to prison for.)


Now - if you send out mail ballots, on mass, to ANY address in the US, that would be an issue - but thats not what you are criticizing. If mail ballots in significant numbers would have been stolen, and then subverted - that would be an issue, but thats not what you are criticizing. And if ballots ended up in large numbers (large number is important for it to have any statistical impact) in the ditch, that would be an issue, but thats not what you are criticizing.

So what are you criticizing? More people getting access to vote, than in previous elections, by making mail voting the default - which statistically does favor democrats. Why? Because access to "quick" voting was reduced by gerrymandering, and then reducing polling stations in voting districts you dont like the outcome of. Because its usually harder for black people to get a free afternoon on a workday (and republicans always insist, that elections need to be held on workdays -). Because "identification" with the political cause, is usually higher with republicans, which is why mobilization historically is more easy for them. (See: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...r-in-voter-turnout-rate-party-identification/ (take the numbers and filter out the gender difference, but look at the "voter groups").

So anything that makes "voting more easy" historically favors democrats. That might change, btw - if reps become the primary party for hispanic voters in certain districts.

 

[Xzi]

Yep he did, but Gore was too much of a Beta pansy to fight for an election he won.

SCOTUS wrongfully shut down the final recount, demonstrating that conservatives have always had a habit of not respecting democracy/outcomes of elections.

 

[Jayro]

We made our feelings known about unaccountable ID'less mail in balloting rolled out essentially nation wide well before the first ballot was cast, if you expected people to accept the result you should paid attention.

You already have to prove who you are with ID when you register to vote. Not sure why they'd need to check it twice. I'm still me, the last time I checked. I've never needed to show ID to vote when I mail in my ballot every 4 years, that's just absurd.

 

[jimbo13]

You already have to prove who you are with ID when you register to vote. Not sure why they'd need to check it twice. I'm still me, the last time I checked. I've never needed to show ID to vote when I mail in my ballot every 4 years, that's just absurd.

Because of ballot harvesting. I don't see why I have to register my car every year but I do, it's already registered.

No ID? No problem. Every state that has implemented voter ID will let you cast provisionally and waive the fees on IDs if you need one to vote.

 

[Jayro]

Because of ballot harvesting. I don't see why I have to register my car every year but I do, it's already registered.

No ID? No problem. Every state that has implemented voter ID will let you cast provisionally and waive the fees on IDs if you need one to vote.

No thanks, I'll just keep voting the same honest way by mail that I always have.

 

[jimbo13]

No thanks, I'll just keep voting the same honest way by mail that I always have.

Not if your state changes the law because they don't want to have perpetual fraud allegations.

 

[Valwinz]

Fake news from a failing administractions

 

[Jayro]

Not if your state changes the law because they don't want to have perpetual fraud allegations.

They won't, I'm thankful enough to live in a blue state. Red states are the ones being butthurt little assholes.

 

[The Catboy]

Because of ballot harvesting. I don't see why I have to register my car every year but I do, it's already registered.

No ID? No problem. Every state that has implemented voter ID will let you cast provisionally and waive the fees on IDs if you need one to vote.

You got any sources to prove this happened on a large enough scale to sway an election?

 

[Lacius]

@jimbo13 There is no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election, and mail ballots are a safe and secure method of voting with strategies already in place to mitigate against voter fraud.

I find it interesting that something like 25% of ballots cast in the 2016 election were mail ballots, and the conservatives didn't have anything to say about alleged voter fraud during the 2016 election. I wonder why.

 

[jimbo13]

@jimbo13 There is no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election, and mail ballots are a safe and secure method of voting with strategies already in place to mitigate against voter fraud.

I find it interesting that something like 25% of ballots cast in the 2016 election were mail ballots, and the conservatives didn't have anything to say about alleged voter fraud during the 2016 election. I wonder why.

There is no evidence everyone shares your opinion on subjective terms like "widespread" or mail in ballots are safe.

If mail in ballots are safe and secure so is mail order ammo.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

You got any sources to prove this happened on a large enough scale to sway an election?

Do you ever have any metrics that aren't entirely subjective? Perception is reality, if people don't trust election integrity elections carry no meaning.

Crimes don't need to be widespread to pass laws to prevent them.