ACLU files FOIA demanding evidence of Trump’s voter fraud claims (1 Viewer)

OpportunityCost said:

Good. I am for transparency. If Trump has evidence he should release it, if he doesn't he should quit spouting about voter fraud.

Click to expand...

No he shouldn't. If President Trump has evidence he should turn it over to the investigators either voluntarily or by subpoena. After of course he reviews it and destroys all that which involves his daughters wedding, yoga lessons, emails to his wife.

ACLU doesn't get info on ongoing investigations.

Donald Trump Tweet of 27 November 2016

The National Association of Secretaries of State, which is majority Republican and represents 40 of the nation’s chief state election officials, said in a statement on Jan. 24, 2017:

NASS said:

"We are not aware of any evidence that supports the voter fraud claims made by President Trump, but we are open to learning more about the Administration’s concerns."

Click to expand...

Trump has never presented any evidence to support his tweet assertions of massive voter fraud

ludin said:

The ACLU only selects what rights they want to defend.

In this case they have no suit because no investigation has been done and there is no evidence yet if any.

Click to expand...

The ACLU has every right request every bit of information on which the investigation will or is resting, yes.

Here's an interesting companion piece to the OP;

"LIBERAL PROFESSORS TRADE SECRET EMAILS IN EFFORT TO UNDERMINE TRUMP COMMISSION"

"PROFESSOR CALLS FOR COMMISSION OF SCHOLARS AND VOTING RIGHTS ACTIVISTS TO PUSH BACK PUBLICLY AGAINST THE VOTER FRAUD COMMISSION"

Liberal Professors Trade Secret Emails in Effort to Undermine Trump Commission - Washington Free Beacon

If, as they claim, there's no there there then why push back ?? From the email sent out, "I'm calling on scholars of election administration to resist participation of any kind in such an effort,". This makes no sense, their participation would ensure, in their minds, the commission was on the up-n-up.

Angelus said:

And I'm thankful that the Freedom of Information Act is federal. Trump has talked about massive voter fraud across the country, not just NH. Since he has repeated this as President, and is taking steps to prevent it, then it behooves him to show that it really exists.

Click to expand...

Did the Russians tamper with the election?

chromium said:

His commission can start with someone can lose an election by 3 million votes and still end up "elected" Talk about fraud

Click to expand...

It's called The Electoral College. It's how our system works.

chromium said:

His commission can start with someone can lose an election by 3 million votes and still end up "elected" Talk about fraud

Click to expand...

You want the commission to investigate how the electoral college works?

That sounds like a waste of money when you can ask any civics teacher to explain it to you.

Because the ACLU filed the same day the commission was formed, the administration can comply tomorrow with the filing and provide a copy of the executive order which is all the paperwork that has of yet been created.

Then the ACLU will have to file another FOIA to find out what the investigation really found, when they find something.

Filing on the same day as the EO was signed seems like they just want their name out there connected with this order.

reinoe said:

I'll deal with it just fine. It's another temper tantrum on display.

Click to expand...

Nope it exposes the trumpbots and trump for being the lying scum bags they are. Trump made a charge that there was voter fraud so it it up to trump to provide the evidence. The ****tard trumpbots can go **** themselves.

jimbo said:

'Scuse me, isn't that what investigations are all about? Finding evidence? It seems like the ACLU is jumping the gun a wee bit.

Makes one wonder what they are afraid will turn up.

Click to expand...

The last dozen investigations didn't turn up something I'm afraid of. If this one turns out the same, will you finally accept the results?

No. You wont. You'll still believe that dumb orange **** when he says literally half of California's Democrat votes were illegal.

JamesBY said:

The ACLU has every right request every bit of information on which the investigation will or is resting, yes.

Click to expand...

Then they can give them nothing since th investigation hasn't started.
So their request is fulfilled.

ludin said:

Then they can give them nothing since the investigation hasn't started. So their request is fulfilled.

Click to expand...

You clearly don't understand, but that's OK. The requests will require the production of all documents undergirding Trump's reason for investigation, the cause raison.

JamesBY said:

You clearly don't understand, but that's OK. The requests will require the production of all documents undergirding Trump's reason for investigation, the cause raison.

Click to expand...

No I understand just fine.
They can get the executive order that is about it. That is all the information there is.

Also they can get no information regarding the investigation because non-exist.
They can request data after the investigation is over.

Praxas said:

Nope it exposes the trumpbots and trump for being the lying scum bags they are. Trump made a charge that there was voter fraud so it it up to trump to provide the evidence. The ****tard trumpbots can go **** themselves.

Click to expand...

We know voter fraud was attempted. In fact at least 40 people in CA Were caught illegally trying to vote.

ludin said:

No I understand just fine.
They can get the executive order that is about it. That is all the information there is.

Also they can get no information regarding the investigation because non-exist.
They can request data after the investigation is over.

Click to expand...

There had to be information that prompted The administration to issue that executive order.

The ACLU wants to know what prompted the administration to issue the executive order.

ludin said:

No I understand just fine.
They can get the executive order that is about it. That is all the information there is.

Also they can get no information regarding the investigation because non-exist.
They can request data after the investigation is over.

Click to expand...

Thank you for showing you don't understand. You truly don't, ludin. To avoid releasing the documents requested, the Trumpbots would request their filing, search, and evidence documents be sealed. A federal judge can do that, but may very well not.

ludin said:

We know voter fraud was attempted. In fact at least 40 people in CA Were caught illegally trying to vote.

Click to expand...

Yes, and we also know there were not 4 million illegal votes for a Democrat.

Deuce said:

Yes

Click to expand...

If you acknowledge that there were at least 40 people who were caught illegally attempting to vote then it's fair to investigate if any did successfully illegally vote.

However I'm of the opinion that it's not just illegal voting that should be looked at...the methods of how the votes get counted should also be monitered and investigated.

Deuce said:

The last dozen investigations didn't turn up something I'm afraid of. If this one turns out the same, will you finally accept the results?

No. You wont. You'll still believe that dumb orange **** when he says literally half of California's Democrat votes were illegal.

Click to expand...

Are you asking me a question or just babbling?

ttwtt78640 said:

I want the ACLU to explain why the use of a strict ID requirement is good for keeping guns out of the wrong hands yet not good for keeping the wrong hands from casting a vote. If something is a "discriminatory burden" for one constitutional right is it not also a "discriminatory burden" for other constitutional rights?

Click to expand...

Their interpretation of the 2nd amendment hinges on the "well regulated militia" clause. That is, gun ownership not an individual right but a collective right. I understand that you may not agree with that interpretation, but there is a rationale there.

Personally, I find it interesting that they did see fit to include an explicit purpose for gun ownership. The first amendment, for example, didn't need anything of the sort.

ttwtt78640 said:

The one major beef that I have with the ACLU is that it completely ignores the 2A yet squeals like a stuck pig if any other right is the least bit infringed (abridged or denied?).

Click to expand...

I could apply the inverse to libertarians.

ttwtt78640 said:

I simply want a system in place to allow only US citizens to vote, only in their proper state/district and only once in any given election. The use of a unique and exclusive (valid for only one name/address combination nationwide) state issued, photo ID is a step in that direction yet is fairly useless if they are granted to non-citizens. Perhaps it is time to couple eVerify with voter registration and a strict ID requirement to associate the person casting a ballot to a known registered voter.

Click to expand...

All of that sounds nice. Unfortunately, we live in a society that has used seemingly innocuous voting requirements to deny the right to vote. This is not some abstract slippery slope argument based only hand wringing, this is our history. The fact that many of the states now trying to pass voter id type laws were once perpetrators of this discrimination is worrisome.

Angelus said:

And I'm thankful that the Freedom of Information Act is federal. Trump has talked about massive voter fraud across the country, not just NH. Since he has repeated this as President, and is taking steps to prevent it, then it behooves him to show that it really exists.

Click to expand...

He's called for an investigation. How else would you show the fraud or non fraud? Ask Huffpo reporters?

exoplanet said:

Their interpretation of the 2nd amendment hinges on the "well regulated militia" clause. That is, gun ownership not an individual right but a collective right. I understand that you may not agree with that interpretation, but there is a rationale there.

Personally, I find it interesting that they did see fit to include an explicit purpose for gun ownership. The first amendment, for example, didn't need anything of the sort.
I could apply the inverse to libertarians.

All of that sounds nice. Unfortunately, we live in a society that has used seemingly innocuous voting requirements to deny the right to vote. This is not some abstract slippery slope argument based only hand wringing, this is our history. The fact that many of the states now trying to pass voter id type laws were once perpetrators of this discrimination is worrisome.

Click to expand...

The 2A purpose is quite clear; a free state is less apt to become a totalitarian state with an armed populous. Step one of establishing a totalitarian state is to disarm the people. Our founders knew quite well what made it possible for them to escape the colonial rule of the British crown.

To ensure that only eligible citizens vote requires knowing who is (or is not) one of them. The easier that it is to establish that then the greater the chance of one doing that multiple times. It takes but a single "extra" vote to cancel (or double) mine.

ttwtt78640 said:

The 2A purpose is quite clear; a free state is less apt to become a totalitarian state with an armed populous. Step one of establishing a totalitarian state is to disarm the people. Our founders knew quite well what made it possible for them to escape the colonial rule of the British crown.

To ensure that only eligible citizens vote requires knowing who is (or is not) one of them. The easier that it is to establish that then the greater the chance of one doing that multiple times. It takes but a single "extra" vote to cancel (or double) mine.

Click to expand...

If this investigation had any value it should also look into the other major problem with our system: people being denied the right to vote or having the vote suppressed

Unitedwestand13 said:

If this investigation had any value it should also look into the other major problem with our system: people being denied the right to vote or having the vote suppressed

Click to expand...

Maybe an independent prosecutor or special counsel can look into it.

I guess this is tangential to the thread, but I couldn't resist.

ttwtt78640 said:

The 2A purpose is quite clear; a free state is less apt to become a totalitarian state with an armed populous. Step one of establishing a totalitarian state is to disarm the people. Our founders knew quite well what made it possible for them to escape the colonial rule of the British crown.

Click to expand...

Totalitarianism, in particular, hadn't been invented at the time that the constitution had been written (FWIW, the fascists had armed militias that they were quite fond of. So militias can also be a source of totalitarianism as much as liberty).

If anything, the Whiskey Rebellion and the War of 1812 showed that expectations for the militia were rather overblown. The government adapted and moved on all without having to repeal the second amendment. I would argue that people that try to put that same trust in a militia today, could learn from history.

That Patriots were a well regulated militia, capable of resisting oppression on the governmental level. I don't see any such thing today. The militia, as intended by the framers, does not exist anymore. If you want an originalists interpretation, then it seems like gun ownership should be limited to white males between the ages of 18-45ish (as defined a few years later in 1792). I think that's probably how they saw the militia. I doubt they wanted to arm the slaves (or apparently even the free black men who fought in the revolution), the old, the handicapped or white women for that matter.

One the one hand, I think that the writers of the constitution got a lot of things right, but I reject any attempt to canonize them as somehow unusually prescient about the issues of our day. They acknowledged and abetted slavery with the three fifths compromise. They thought our state legislatures should elect our senators for us. Made no effort to protect the right to vote: allowing states to discriminate based on race, sex, ect...

ttwtt78640 said:

To ensure that only eligible citizens vote requires knowing who is (or is not) one of them. The easier that it is to establish that then the greater the chance of one doing that multiple times. It takes but a single "extra" vote to cancel (or double) mine.

Click to expand...

Once again, I sympathize, but at this point, it looks more like solution looking for a problem. Think of it this way, how many citizens will lose the ability to vote versus how many acts of fraud were prevented? Not everyone lacking a photo id is a non-citizen. In fact, of the people actually trying to vote, I would argue that the vast majority of them are not non-citizens.