Image 01 Image 03

Florida Democrat Lawyers Wanted Non-Citizen Votes Counted

Florida Democrat Lawyers Wanted Non-Citizen Votes Counted

“Just one example of the shenanigans and corruption we’ve seen from the Democrats in Florida for so many years”

Attorneys for Democrat candidate for Florida governor Andrew Gillum and Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) objected Saturday to the exclusion of a vote by a non-citizen.

Despite their objections, the vote was not counted, and the Nelson campaign has disavowed their own attorney, claiming that the attorney “was not authorized” to make such a decision and iterating that “non-citizens cannot vote in U.S. elections.”

The Daily Caller reports:

Lawyers for Florida Democratic candidates Andrew Gillum and Bill Nelson both fought to prevent a non-citizen’s vote from being excluded Friday night, according to a transcript of a Palm Beach County Canvassing Board proceeding obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Michael Barnett, chairman of the Palm Beach Republican Party, told TheDCNF that the county’s canvassing board was going through provisional ballots and quickly deciding whether to allow or disallow each. This exchange is of the first non-citizen’s vote they encountered. “We had a court reporter that we hired to sit in the proceedings, which are public,” he said.

The vote was disallowed despite the objections of the lawyers because two of the three members of the canvassing board ruled that it was an impermissible vote, he said.

Marc Elias, a lawyer for Nelson, told TheDCNF: “The lawyer who was present was not someone we had authorized to make such an objection. Non-citizens cannot vote in U.S. elections.”

He did not explain how the lawyer, Mr. Scarola, came to be representing Nelson’s interests in Palm Beach.

. . . . Elias is a powerhouse election lawyer who worked for the Democratic National Committee and hired Fusion GPS, which fed the FBI a “dossier” about Trump and Russia. He also litigated the recount that led to Al Franken defeating Norm Coleman for a Minnesota Senate seat.

Fox News has more on the exchange.

The incident occurred during a canvassing meeting Friday in Palm Beach County, where provisional ballots were being examined. According to the draft transcript of the meeting, taken by a court reporter hired by the Florida Republican Party, a provisional ballot was ordered excluded from the count, as it came from a non-U.S. citizen.

“First one of these we’ve seen,” said Judge August Bonativa.

“Not a U.S. citizen, not counted.” said Supervisor of Elections Susan Bucher, according to the transcript.

Here’s the partial transcript [via DC Caller]

Republicans regard the objection as “a sign of desperation” and “just one example of the shenanigans and corruption we’ve seen from the Democrats in Florida for so many years.”

Fox News continues:

Republicans saw Friday’s objection in Palm Beach County as an indication of the tactics Democrats were prepared to use.

“We think it is a sign of desperation and goes to demonstrate the tactics that the Democrats, especially the Florida Democratic Party, Andrew Gillum’s campaign and Bill Nelson’s campaign, will resort to to steal this election from the rightful winners — Rick Scott and Ron DeSantis,” Michael Barnett, chairman of the Palm Beach County Republican Party, told Fox News.

“It’s shameful, there’s no excuse for objecting to the rejection of a non-U.S. citizen vote, but this is just one example of the shenanigans and corruption we’ve seen from the Democrats in Florida for so many years. We will not let them steal this election from us,” he said.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


they need to count the votes but also look at the logs for the voters and count the voters

    Rick the Curmudgeon in reply to ronk. | November 11, 2018 at 11:03 pm

    Destroying ballots and making new ones in order to not do the oh-so-very embarrassing “more ballots than registered voters” faux pas.

This is yet another example where being a layman is a punishing position in life. How is this even possible? I can understand not having “instructed” this lawyer to make that specific objection should a non-citizen vote arise, but not “authorized”? How does that work? An attorney of law with a license to practice is authorized to act in his client’s stead by the very nature of the attorney-client relationship, isn’t he…? Isn’t that the reason why lawyers need to be highly trained and well certified by the bar?

    Ragspierre in reply to JBourque. | November 10, 2018 at 7:30 pm

    I can understand not having “instructed” this lawyer to make that specific objection should a non-citizen vote arise, but not “authorized”?
    There are any number of things that an attorney is not authorized to do by the simple existence of an attorney-client relationship. In fact, it could be said those commonly outnumber the things they ARE authorized do without the express say of their clients.

    I’m very commonly expressly authorized to negotiate on behalf of my clients. But canons of legal ethics forbid me from either extending an offer or accepting one unless I have specific permission to do so AFTER consulting carefully with my client.

      My problem with this is, then why was he standing there? If you’re standing there representing the campaign, it is expected you are doing the whole job, not half of it, or you shouldn’t be there. It’s an extremely narrow and specific role. His mere presence makes “not authorized” hard to swallow. It seems like deliberately confusing spin.

        Ragspierre in reply to JBourque. | November 10, 2018 at 9:14 pm

        OK. I can assume you’ve never been in a hearing or trial as counsel. That’s nothing but an observation.

        It’s fair to say you are having to think on several plains at once…while trying to listen intently to everything being said and reading anything being introduced, AND fitting it all to the rules of evidence, etc.

        In light of that, an attorney in the moment might well lodge an objection…because if you don’t it’s simply gone in many cases…that they will later withdraw (even if they got a favorable ruling from the court). Sometimes ethics demands that you do that in light of further information or the colder light of “not the court”.

          Who coulda guessed you would be in here defending this crap. Gee.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 11, 2018 at 9:44 am

          You mean the “crap” of being a trial attorney in a hearing or trial?

          I always think in terms of expanding understanding. I know that just eats at some here.

          Immolate in reply to Ragspierre. | November 12, 2018 at 10:43 am

          Seriously? C’mon people, there’s a difference between explaining how things work in reality, and endorsing them. How many times, in studying our system of government, have you run across a seeming contradiction between what you assumed and what actually happens?

          I know everyone’s still down on Rags for his nevertrumpishness, but I find no ideological bent in his attempted education, and he wasn’t even as rough on the student as he usually is.

          If you came into my house and started schooling me on how I should keep my IT infrastructure running and my clients happy, I’d be less gentle. I assume that, because he’s a lawyer, he’s just used to it.

    For all we know it “was not authorized”“to make that objection in front of witnesses” or “on the record”. 😉

    Or they have a list of things they can object to, and that attorney went off-list. You’re right … that does sound weird.

    Elzorro in reply to JBourque. | November 11, 2018 at 6:39 am

    I have been checking the Floriduh election and recount rules. The democrats are criminal geniuses. It appears they have used them to legalize the fraud. They may win. The rules are a hodgepoge disaster ripe for the picking. Written by idiot republican fools. Scott and DeSantis ran awful campaigns and did not win by enough to nullify the fraud. It will be close. All they need now is 50 k votes. Do not be surprised if they come up with them. This is an own goal by the stupid GOP.

FWIW, I think a duly a practicing attorney should know that a non citizen cannot vote. File this under stuff you cannot make up.

two of the three members of the canvassing board ruled that it was an impermissible vote

Just two out of three? One would think that a straightforward case of non-eligibility should be an easy three out of three.

    malclave in reply to tom_swift. | November 11, 2018 at 12:18 am

    That’s what I thought… And I was more concerned about that than the lawyers objecting.

    But then, on further reflection, I wondered if the third just didn’t speak up because it was moot at that point? At least I hope so.

Of course they wanted illegals counted.

In Florida 2002 through the votes of Veterand stationed overseas due to hyper technicalities

The fuckers even high-fived each other. And we let them live another day

In the most shameful and painful act of the hand counts, the Democrats on the ground, and their operators from the Democratic National Committee and the state organization and the Gore campaign, deliberately and systematically scrutinized for challenge every military absentee ballot, and knocked out as many as they could on whatever technicality they could find or even invent.

Reports begin to filter out. The Democratic army of lawyers and operatives marches into the counting room armed with a five-page memo from a Democratic lawyer, instructing them on how to disfranchise military voters. The lawyers and operatives unspool reams of computer printouts bearing the names and party affiliation of military voters. Those who are Republicans are subject to particular and seemingly relentless scrutiny. Right down to signatures on ballots being compared with signatures on registration cards. A ballot bearing a domestic postmark because a soldier had voted, sent his ballot home to his parents and asked them to mail it in on time, is thrown out. A ballot that comes with a note from an officer explaining his ship was not able to postmark his ballot, but that he had voted on time–and indeed it had arrived in time–is thrown out, because it has no postmark.

The Democratic operatives are ruthless, focused. As one witness says, “They had a clear agenda.”

Received late Wednesday, an e-mail forwarded from a Republican who witnessed the counting of the Brevard County overseas absentee ballots.

It is 11:30 PM (Tuesday) and I have just returned from the count of absentee ballots, that started at 4PM. Gore had five attorneys there, the sole objective was to disenfranchise the military absentee voter. . . . They challenged each and every vote. Their sole intent was to disqualify each and every absentee voter. They constantly challenged military votes that were clearly legitimate, but they were able to disqualify them on a technicality. I have never been so frustrated in all my life as I was to see these people fight to prevent our active duty Military from voting. They succeeded in a number of cases denying the vote to these fine Men and Women.”

Florida 2000, stupid phone

Do we really want to keep doing this? We’re saying the same repeat from 2000, none of them showed any consequence, legal or extra legal. Broward County certainly wasn’t reformed. So I predict we will talk about this for several days do nothing and then have the election stolen from us again 10 to 15 years from now.

Because we don’t punish them for cheating.

I also predict that in about 3 months a disgruntled ostracized young man from Highland Park High School is going to send love-letters to a Hollywood Starlet, whereupon she laments “will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?:? Then BOOM BOOM BOOM Trump is down and Pence is dead.

And we’ll feel like we were played. Because we were.

Obama had encouraged illegal voting by non-citizens, so is it any wonder that Lawyers of the Leftist’s cause would not take that as the enabling of counting illegal votes. Nelson seems to be backpedaling, but this is his party, this is his party’s tactics.

“Non-citizens cannot vote in U.S. elections.”….if caught. Otherwise, another dem “vote” creating a disenfranchised legal voter.

Hang on, before we get all outraged at this, what was the objection? Perhaps the lawyer questioned the determination that the voter is an alien; in that case he’d be right to object.

    Q: How does a vote-counter determine it came from a non-Citizen except that they’re using some form of voter ID, which always seems to be a bone-of-contention with the D’s?

    My frame of reference is WA where we vote by mail and I’ve been registered since the 70’s. To vote, I just mark the ballot they send me through the mail and I sent it back via the mail. The only requirement to vote is that I sign the envelope after inserting my marked ballot. I’m not sure how a vote-counter would determine my citizenship from anything on the ballot or return envelope. Are they using some kind of program to look up IDs? It’s weird that the look-up / determination is coming after the fact … that the person had a ballot to vote in the first place is just wrong.

      Milhouse in reply to MrE. | November 10, 2018 at 11:33 pm

      It was a provisional ballot, so either he was’t in the book and claimed he should have been, or someone at the polling place objected to his voting, perhaps claiming to recognize him as an alien. The committee then determined that he was indeed an alien and rejected his vote, but perhaps this lawyer questioned that determination. If so he’d be 100% right to object to the vote being rejected.

        It was a given that you would be in here somehow trying to defend this, of course.

        Bucky Barkingham in reply to Milhouse. | November 11, 2018 at 7:40 am

        Possibly the lawyers objected to get on record for the court case to follow. At the hearing they could then argue that the non-citizen determination was invalid. I assume that Nelson’s lawyer disavowed the other lawyer’s action for PR purposes. If a court eventually allows the disputed vote Mr. Elias will not be unhappy.

Since we’re discussing objections, I object to the clunky term “non-citizen” when we have a perfectly good English word, “alien”. Not using it contributes to a false impression that the word is somehow pejorative, leading people to take offense when it is used of them. If more people used it when appropriate this stigma would disappear. There’s nothing wrong with being an alien; you just can’t vote in most places.

A question I haven’t seen come up yet-

WHERE’S the referral for prosecution???

There was enough evidence to declare the vote was from non-citizen, which makes it attempted voter fraud- which we’re told never happens. Well, it’s rarely prosecuted…

    Milhouse in reply to gospace. | November 10, 2018 at 11:35 pm

    An attempted vote from an alien is only attempted fraud if he knows he isn’t allowed to vote. Proving that is usually very difficult.

    Even proving that he is an alien is usually very difficult, because he can simply claim to be a citizen; he doesn’t have to prove he is, you have to prove he isn’t. But once you’ve proven that, he can then say he didn’t know he wasn’t allowed to vote.

      Your honor, I didn’t know the speed limit was 50 on that road.

      Works every time.

        Milhouse in reply to Barry. | November 11, 2018 at 2:14 am

        It is only a crime to knowingly vote illegally. Nowhere in the USA is it a crime to do so unknowingly.

          Shadow5 in reply to Milhouse. | November 11, 2018 at 6:21 am

          My good sir I must respectfully disagree. While intent and knowledge are good for mitigation of the punishment,” ignorance of the law is not an excuse.”

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | November 11, 2018 at 8:55 am

          You are wrong. This is not up for debate. Scienter is an element of the crime. It is simply not a crime for an ineligible person to vote without knowing of his ineligibility.

          Shadow5 in reply to Milhouse. | November 11, 2018 at 10:57 am

          Sir! It is always up for debate. That is why we have courts of law. Your falisie is in your primary assumption. That a person can vote illegally without knowing he is doing so. There are too many checks in the system (especially in Florida)for a person to be unaware they are ineligible to vote. I respect your greater expertise in the law, but there are laws on the books in Florida about voting illegally. It is upto the justice system to make the determanation of guilt or innocence.

          “It is only a crime to knowingly vote illegally. Nowhere in the USA is it a crime to do so unknowingly.”

          Not quite accurate. A crime is any act which violates a criminal statute. And a person can be prosecuted for violating the statute. In fact, all the prosecution has to prove, in court, is that the defendant committed the act. That the defendant did not have knowledge that his action was a violation of law is a defense. And, the prosecution does not have to prove that the defendant KNEW his actions violated a criminal statute. All the prosecution has to prove is that a reasonable man, in the defendant’s position, SHOULD have known that the act was illegal.

          So an alien, who is not eligible to vote in an election, is assumed to know that, unless he presents the defense that he did not know it. Then the prosecution only has to establish that he SHOULD have known that it was illegal.

          Ln the case of the alien voter, there are several other laws at play, besides his act of voting. It is not an attempt to vote, as he filled out a ballot. The other potential violations are whether the alien registered to vote and, in doing so, fraudulently answered any questions on his registration application.

          Shadow5 in reply to Milhouse. | November 11, 2018 at 12:05 pm

          Milhouse I would like to take this argument down a notch. You are correct in that this is a provisional ballot and that it was thrown out. So in this case there was no harm or crime. There for there is nothing prosicutable about it( unless it can be proven that a misrepresentation was made to obtain the ballot.)

          Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | November 11, 2018 at 12:43 pm

          “A crime is any act which violates a criminal statute. And a person can be prosecuted for violating the statute. In fact, all the prosecution has to prove, in court, is that the defendant committed the act.”

          More of your usual bullshit.

          Many, many criminal codes include “knowingly and intentionally” as part of the elements of a violation.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | November 11, 2018 at 2:12 pm

          Shadow5: First, I assume “falisie” is an attempt at “fallacy”?

          Second, no, it is not up for debate. It is black-letter law that voting illegally is only a crime if done knowingly. Scienter is an element of the crime, and therefore the jury must find it proven beyond reasonable doubt.

          Third, no, there are not “too many checks in the system (especially in Florida)for a person to be unaware they are ineligible to vote”. On the contrary, it is very easy for someone, especially an alien with poor English, not to know that he is ineligible. Tell me which “checks” you think ought to have brought this fact to this person’s attention.

          Fourth, the fact that it was a provisional ballot doesn’t change anything. If it can in fact be proven that he is an alien and knew it was illegal for him to vote, then he can be convicted for casting the provisional ballot even though it wasn’t counted. The problem lies only in proving these things.

          Mac45: What you wrote is completely wrong. Scienter is an element of the crime. Therefore, like all elements of any crime, it cannot be assumed; the prosecution must prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

          The same applies to his registration; if he was not aware that he is ineligible then he committed no crime by registering. And the burden of proof, beyond reasonable doubt, is on the prosecution.

          My question is how do you not know this? I don’t expect some immigrant to know this, but I should be able to expect you to. Until I remember that you’re the one who thought Barry Goldwater ran against Ronald Reagan.

          To Rags and Milhouse: Rags, you went so far as to copy and paste part of my post and still failed to comprehend what I said. I specifically said that if person violates a criminal statute he has committed the crime. And, as you note, there are many, many criminal statutes which do not specifically require that a person knowingly and willfully violate the statute. While a person can claim ignorance of the law, as a defense, until such a claim is made, the prosecution does not have to prove that the defendant KNEW that his actions were a violation of law, a reasonable man, in his situation, knew of should have known that it was a violation of law.

          As to violating the law by filling out and presenting a registration to vote, it depends upon what questions are asked and how the person responded. If the person was asked if he was a citizen of the United States and answered in the affirmative, then he falsified the application, which is a criminal offense. Scinnter is not absolute. Courts have held that a person may not KNOW that his action was illegal, if a reasonable man would or should have known that it was a crime. This is the original of the famous saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse. If a newcomer to the US drives without a driver’s license and then claims that he comes from a country where a driver’s license is not needed so he did not think he needed one, he can be, and in many cases is, found to be guilty of violating the statute. many people do not know that they can not legally shoot a person stealing their car, if such person has accomplished this without threatening another person. Yet, they still get charged and often convicted for shooting at the person or vehicle under those circumstances.

          I realize that this is hard for you to understand, Capt. Perfect, but I misspoke concerning Goldwater and Reagan being electoral opponents, and I admitted that and attempted to clarify what I meant, at the time. Reagan and Goldwater were Conservative allies prior to Reagan’s election and his subsequent betrayal of the Conservative principles of the time. Reagan has been cast as the greatest American Conservative of all time,since then. However, he performed as a liberal moderate with regard to social issues while being only a conservative moderate in foreign affairs. And for this, Goldwater, who was acknowledged as the leader of the Conservative Movement at the time, became his ideological opponent, for years.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | November 12, 2018 at 7:24 pm

          Mac45, how are you not getting it. You’ve been informed, over and over, that scienter is an element of the crime. It is not a crime for an ineligible person to vote without knowing that he is ineligible. Therefore this knowledge cannot be assumed, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Your examples all involved crimes that do not have scienter as one of their elements.

          And no, you did not acknowledge your error about Reagan and Goldwater. Instead you doubled down. And amazingly you’re still wrong; it was Goldwater who was a social liberal, and when he ended up publicly differing from Reagan it was from his left.

The Democrat Leading the Election Thieves in Broward County
Guest post by Ted Malloch author of The Plot to Destroy Trump

If you see this mug — have him arrested.
He is the ‘chief thief’ in the Democrat effort to steal the Florida election.
His name is Marc Elias.
He comes with lots of baggage.
In April 2016 the law firm Perkins Coie, on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, retained Fusion GPS to complete the notorious and fabricated opposition research on Donald Trump.
Headquartered in Seattle, Washington, and founded in 1912, Perkins Coie LLP is the oldest and largest law firm in the Pacific Northwest.
While it serves corporate clients, Perkins Coie is perhaps best known for representing — political clients. One kind of political clients, Democrats.
The chair of its prestigious Political Law Group is one, Marc Elias.
His focus is on representing public officials, candidates, parties, Political Action Committees (PACs), and tax-exempt organizations.
As a lawyer, Elias advertises himself as knowledgeable in campaign finance, government ethics, lobbying disclosure, and white-collar criminal defense.
Elias is an avowed expert on the Foreign Agents Registration Act and the Lobbying Disclosure Act. He focuses on government gift rules, pay-to-play rules, and advises on voting rights.
Yes, voting.
He has represented numerous clients in political corruption charges.
As general counsel to Hillary Clinton for America, he was responsible for the presidential campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
He did the same for John Kerry in 2004.
We would later learn from Michael Isikoff and David Corn’s book titled, Russian Roulette, released in March 2018, that Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign hired Fusion GPS to dig up “dirt” on his rival John Kerry.
According to Isikoff and Corn, the campaign’s payments to Fusion GPS, which were not disclosed to the public, were reported as legal bills to the campaign’s law firm, one Perkins Coie.
Elias’s major clients include the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Democratic Governors Association, and dozens and dozens of Democrat US senators, governors, and representatives and their campaigns.
He is in other words, Mr. Democrat.
Following the 2014 election, Elias was appointed by the DNC chair, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat from Florida, to review all key components of the role of the Democratic Party in elections.
In April 2016 Hillary made Marc Elias the attorney of record for the 2016 presidential campaign.
The Clinton campaign and the DNC paid Perkins Coie $5.6 million and $3.6 million, respectively, for their services.
Elias admits he helped to orchestrate funding from the Clinton campaign to the research firm Fusion GPS, which paid for the anti-Trump dossier.
All of the dossiers and other material were passed from Steele himself to Fusion GPS, who provided them to Marc Elias at Perkins Coie.
They were then given to both the Democratic National Committee and to the Clinton campaign.
Elias was what is called the “go-between.”
A bagman.
He has long been the Democrats go-to super lawyer and is known as a “fixer” who gets things done.
Notably, in late October 2016 Perkins Coie released its client, Fusion GPS, from its client confidentiality obligation.
And now after the 2018 election, Elias appears again in Florida to steal an election that was won fair and square by Senator-elect, Rick Scott.

Paul In Sweden | November 11, 2018 at 3:52 am

Next Question: When is an impermissible vote a Prosecutable Offense?

    When it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the voter knew it was illegal for him to vote.

      alaskabob in reply to Milhouse. | November 11, 2018 at 10:58 am

      I thought “ignorance of the law” was no excuse? With no education as to civic duty, no common lznguage, and the interests solely of the Party enablers..plausible deniability is assured.

      Vote fraud will soon be a thing of the past. One party rule is a just a few elections away for the whole country. Just as organized crime moved its money into legit businesses….once that critical point of one party forever, the Dems can close the door on fraud and brick up the history of their actions.

      There will be a small glimmer of satisfaction though. All the white democrats who sought one party rule will be shocked when they are dumped as the Democrat Party becomes the Party of, by and for minorities where white dems are pushed to the back of the bus. That plantation will be burned down. Demographics will alter Dem Party just as it has for Europe.

        Milhouse in reply to alaskabob. | November 11, 2018 at 2:15 pm

        You thought wrong. The crime is knowingly attempting to cast an invalid vote. Without the knowledge there is no crime.

        And yes, it’s almost impossible to prove scienter, which is why there are so few convictions, which Dems in turn think is evidence that it hardly ever happens. They’re wrong, of course. It happens all the time, precisely because there’s almost no risk.

      gospace in reply to Milhouse. | November 11, 2018 at 1:26 pm

      In short, what you’re saying, there can be no voter fraud in the United States. The Democrat vans in NYC can take you from polling place to polling place, and you can vote multiple times, get you bottle of hooch, and you’re OK as long as you thought it was all right. (The organizers might be prosecuted, but finding then….)

      You could be 17 or 16, but hey, it’s OK! You didn’t know you couldn’t really vote.

      You could same day register to vote where you’re attending college, but have already voted absentee back home! Hey, It’s OK! I was a resident there when I sent in the absentee, I was a resident here when I voted in person! I didn’t know it was illegal.

        Milhouse in reply to gospace. | November 11, 2018 at 2:18 pm

        No, there’s lots of fraud in the United States; there’s bound to be, precisely because it’s almost impossible to prosecute, so the fraudulent voter runs very little risk.

We’re tap-dancing while the Titanic is sinking. All you ‘magic-dirt’ cultists are killing America. We’re being replaced. America is being replaced literally.

You think because they just break a few laws in the process, that because a narrow slice of the elites doesn’t want our laws enforced that this is all good and fine. I predicted Trump a long time before anyone else here. I said it was because he addressed issues that all the rest pretended didn’t happen. I’m making another prediction, unless these issues get addressed someone will. Either Trump on his second term or somebody harder if they replace Trump legally, or illegally. Make no mistake it will either be addressed or we will become a Central American banana republic.

    Immolate in reply to forksdad. | November 12, 2018 at 1:10 pm

    Wrong: I found a problem. Somebody fix it!

    Right: I found a problem. I am taking responsibility for getting it fixed.

    Otherwise, you’re just declaring yourself as part of the problem.

I am still asking, seriously:

Does anyone have hard numbers on how many recounts for major races have shifted in the Democrat’s favor, versus how many have shifted in the Republican’s??? (Whether or not they finally changed the result.)
I haven’t seen anything remotely resembling a tabulation.
It’s important, because if one could calculate the probability that there is a very low chance that such a result was due to random variation, it would provide the basis for the argument that it is overwhelmingly one side doing the cheating. Which just might have an effect upon all the shoulder-shrugging and rationalization which goes on among those (judges, Republican officeholders, law enforcement people) who could conceivably make a difference. Right now, the almost universal response among those who could drive change is to mutter pieties about how one shouldn’t try to overturn elections, and that no one has actually demonstrated any fraud. If I am correct in my assumptions, such a radical bias would provide overwhelming evidence.

I’ll go out on a limb here and suggest that the basis for the objection was as to whether the person was actually a non-citizen… not because they wanted a non-citizen vote to count.