Election Investigations

[Josh]

This lawsuit in Georgia is not actually about the 2020 election.

It is a lawsuit by a good government group going back 2017 that challenged Georgia's touchscreen voting systems which, at that time, were 100% electronic and did not leave any paper trail. They have been challenging the Republican Secretary of State's office since 2017 for using these types of touchscreen machines. It has just taken this long for the legal process to play out.

And they are right. The state SHOULD be using a balloting system that generates an auditable paper trail.

According to the article Robert posted, Mike Lindell is celebrating this ruling as vindication...which it really isn't (yet).

It’s a vindication for good, honest elections… as far as Lindell’s opinions, I would trust him about how to employ people with criminal backgrounds and rehabilitate them, how to make pillows, and how to get off drugs and turn your life around.

Legal advice for contesting an election? Not sure he’d be my first choice.

[Robert]

According to the article Robert posted, Mike Lindell is celebrating this ruling as vindication...which it really isn't (yet).

I didn't post anything about Mr. Lindell. I just posted a ruling by a judge that there is legitimate issues to be looked at.

[Josh]

According to the article Robert posted, Mike Lindell is celebrating this ruling as vindication...which it really isn't (yet).

I didn't post anything about Mr. Lindell. I just posted a ruling by a judge that there is legitimate issues to be looked at.

Yes, there are, and your post didn’t have a partisan focus. Yet the conversation immediately went there in response to your post.

[Ken]

According to the article Robert posted, Mike Lindell is celebrating this ruling as vindication...which it really isn't (yet).

I didn't post anything about Mr. Lindell. I just posted a ruling by a judge that there is legitimate issues to be looked at.

You posted a screenshot of a Newsweek Article that reads as follows. (the part you posted is highlighted in blue): https://www.newsweek.com/mike-lindell-c ... cy-1844815

Mike Lindell Cheers Judge's 'Historic' Ruling as Vindication

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell is celebrating last week's ruling on Georgia's voting machines as vindication, countering critics who say he is a conspiracy theorist for promoting claims about election fraud.

"Historical ruling by Judge!" Lindell wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Thursday. "Anyone questioning elections or election machines are not conspiracy theorist!"

Newsweek reached out to Lindell via email for comment.

U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg issued a 135-page ruling last Friday in the long-running lawsuit seeking to rid Georgia of its electronic voting machines in favor of hand-marked paper ballots. The lawsuit, filed by individual voters and election security advocacy group the Coalition for Good Governance, argues that the machine's cybersecurity flaws violate the constitutional rights of voters to cast their votes and have those votes accurately counted.

In a footnote of the ruling, Totenberg said that the evidence in the case "does not suggest that the Plaintiffs are conspiracy theorists of any variety."

"Indeed, some of the nation's leading cybersecurity experts and computer scientists have provided testimony and affidavits on behalf of Plaintiffs' case in the long course of this litigation," she wrote.

Asked about Lindell's response to her order, Totenberg declined Newsweek's request for comment.

Georgia's electronic voting system, which was purchased from Dominion Voting Systems in 2019 and implemented statewide in 2020, has been the subject of various conspiracy theories, including some that claim the machines helped President Joe Biden steal the presidential election from former President Donald Trump. Lindell is among one of the most vocal proponents of those claims.

The MyPillow CEO is facing a number of defamation lawsuits from Dominion and Smartmatic for his comments claiming that their machines led to voter fraud. Dominion sued Lindell and his company in 2021 for $1.3 billion. Lindell has refused to settle even though the challenges have financially drained him and forced his attorneys to quit because of millions in unpaid legal fees.

And despite Mike Lindell jumping on board. This lawsuit isn't about the 2020 election. It dates back to 2017.

[Szdfan]

According to the article Robert posted, Mike Lindell is celebrating this ruling as vindication...which it really isn't (yet).

I didn't post anything about Mr. Lindell. I just posted a ruling by a judge that there is legitimate issues to be looked at.

The issue for me isn't that you didn't mention anything about Lindell, but rather that you posted an excerpt of an article without mentioning that the ruling from the judge was to hold a trial. Before I found the article, my first impression was that the judge had found for the plaintiffs, which isn't the full story.

For me, this is one of the major issues I have with many of your posts. I think you post a lot of rather inflammatory accusations without context. Of course, you can post how and what you want, but it's one of the reasons why I remain skeptical of your claims.

[Robert]

For me, this is one of the major issues I have with many of your posts. I think you post a lot of rather inflammatory accusations without context.

I think inflammatory is a stretch and is quite an inflammatory statement on its own.

I post things that support my opinion that elections re not fair. I believe that to be true, not just in 2020, but in many elections before that. You keep going to 2020, I do not. I still think there are real questions in the 2020 elections, but have stated multiple times I think many other elections have a lot of questions too.

I suspect my posts only seem inflammatory because you have a different opinion and do not like it when I post something that shows reason to question elections.

Some complained that I posted a X post that had the poster's opinion. I cut that out and just posted the NEWSWEEK article and there is still complaining. Life is about often being uncomfortable and not agreeing with someone else's opinion.

I just do not try to shut down other's opinions when they are different then mine. (That is an I statement and not a you statement. I would like it read as such.)

[Bootstrap]

Robert, what do you think Amy Totenberg's ruling was about? What do you think the tweet claimed? Do they match?

Even the Newsweek article seemed to miss the basic substance of the ruling. It's here, FWIW:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... y-judgment

What kind of ruling is it? What would the Plaintiffs have to prove at trial? What kind of remedies does she mention as possibilities if the Plaintiffs can prove their case?

On Page 2, what breach is Totenberg talking about in Coffee County, Georgia? Why is that relevant to this case?

[Bootstrap]

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution article looks like a decent summary of the ruling.

https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-el ... SFRRNV2MM/

It was a "denial of summary judgement" - in other words, Totenberg said that she would allow the lawsuit to go to trial. She would not dismiss it out of hand. I really wish ALL of the coverage had been clear about that.

And the main election breach that this lawsuit raises for the 2020 election is this one:

Through the lawsuit, the plaintiffs revealed evidence of an election breach in Coffee County in January 2021, when a nonprofit organization led by Sidney Powell, a lawyer who supported then-President Donald Trump’s claims that the 2020 election had been stolen, paid computer analysts to copy voting software, ballot images and other election data.

Powell, who was charged alongside Trump and 17 others in Fulton County with interfering in the 2020 election, pleaded guilty last month to six misdemeanor counts of conspiracy to commit intentional interference with performance of election duties.

“The facts marshaled by the court highlight a long story of incompetence, conflicting claims, and misinformation from the secretary about the Coffee County breach and its disturbing implications for easy access to virtually every component of the voting system,” said David Cross, an attorney for several Georgia voters who are plaintiffs in the case.

Do we all agree that kind of election breach should be taken seriously, and that the people involved should be prosecuted?

[Robert]

Robert, what do you think Amy Totenberg's ruling was about? What do you think the tweet claimed? Do they match?

That the case had merit.

[Bootstrap]

Robert, what do you think Amy Totenberg's ruling was about? What do you think the tweet claimed? Do they match?

That the case had merit.

Can you explain what that phrase means to you? Certainly Totenberg did not say that the Plaintiffs had proved their case ... in fact, she says they have a heavy burden to prove it in the trial. She says they have not yet proven that there are actual serious security voting risks - but she does think there is plausible evidence to be considered.

And Coffee County seems to be a particularly important example of how far things can go wrong.

From the ruling:

Still, Plaintiffs carry a heavy burden to establish a constitutional violation
connected to Georgia’s BMD electronic voting system, whether in the manner in
which the State Defendants have implemented the voting system — i.e., that it
imposes serious security voting risks and burdens impacting Plaintiffs’ voting
rights — or otherwise.

And she raises the possibility of measures like these if the plaintiffs prevail:

If Plaintiffs prevail at trial on one or more of their claims,
there are pragmatic, sound remedial policy measures that could be ordered or
agreed upon by the parties, such as (1) providing for the use of printed ballots for
vote counting without the use of QR codes, (2) administering a broader scope and
number of election audits to address vote count accuracy and other related issues,
and (3) implementing other essential cybersecurity measures and policies
recommended by the nation’s leading cybersecurity experts and firms, including
the Department of Homeland Security’s CISA.

FWIW, as I read the ruling, she also seems to express a little frustration at both parties. Reading between the lines, it feels like she sees these as common sense measures that people could just implement if they weren't busy fighting. Or maybe I'm reading my own opinion into what she wrote ...