21% of All Mail-In Voter Admit To Violating the Law in Filling Out Forms For Other People or Voting in a State They Don't Live In, Also Known as "Fraud"

There was no fraud in the 2020 election despite the Democrats taking every step imaginable -- flooding the country with mail-in ballots to every address on record, turning off even signature verification for ballots, permitting mass ballot "harvesting" by paid political actors (fraudsters).

Despite the Democrats deliberately creating the perfect petri dish culture for mass bloom of thriving voter fraud, not a single bacteria of fraud grew.

That's the fascist Regime's claim.

But people, when simply asked, tell a different story.

One in five voters who cast mail-in ballots during the November 2020 election admit to committing voter fraud, according to a new poll by The Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports.

The poll of 1,085 likely voters released on Tuesday, which was conducted from November 30 to December 6, asked, "During the 2020 election, did you fill out a ballot, in part or in full, on behalf of a friend or family member, such as a spouse or child?" A total of 21% of respondents who said they had cast mail-in ballots answered 'yes.'

All states prohibit filling out a ballot for another person, but many states allow people to provide assistance with voting, The Heartland Institute noted.

Furthermore, 17% of mail-in voters admitted they voted in a state where they "were no longer a permanent resident." Seventeen percent also said they signed a "ballot or ballot envelope on behalf of a friend or family member."

Ballots that are cast by non-permanent residents or fraudulently signed are to be invalidated by election officials when they notice them, according to the institute.

More than 43% of voters in 2020 cast their ballots by mail, a historical record.

Also, 10% of all respondents (not only mail-in voters) said they know "a friend, family member, co-worker, or other acquaintance who has admitted ... that he or she cast a mail-in ballot in 2020 in a state other than his or her state of permanent residence."

A total of 8% of all respondents said they were offered "pay" or a "reward" for agreeing to vote in 2020 by "a friend, family member, or organization, such as a political party."

Meanwhile, Dick Durbin demands that Clarence Thomas recuse himself in Supreme Court hearing over Trump's claim of 52% of Republicans say they won't vote for Trump if he "goes to prison," and I think the figure is that 40% won't vote for him if he's convicted.

So it's obviously important to Trump to get primary votes in before jury votes.

Whether that's good for the GOP, I'll leave it to you to decide.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and other Democrats on the panel argue that Thomas faces a conflict of interest because his wife Ginni was outspoken in support of Trump's false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

"There are so many unanswered questions about the relationship of the justice and his family with the Trump administration that I think in the interests of justice, he should recuse himself," Durbin said.

Rolling my eyes at the idea that any of the liberal justices husbands or lesbian galpals' aren't rabid leftwing partisans.

For God's sake, Kagan was herself the legal architect of Obamacare and refused to recuse herself from then deciding on the legality of Obamacare. And Thomas is supposed to recuse himself because his wife, like most other wives in DC, is politically invested?

Anyway, I don't see why they're even working themselves up about Clarence Thomas for the 5,376th time, because I have never heard of some doctrine of permanent presidential immunity.

Don't get me wrong, Fani Willis' RICO case is a trumped-up crime in itself. But I've just never heard of even a theory that a president is just immune to all criminal action. I've heard that criminal procedings can be delayed until after his term so that the public's right to his attention is not interfered with, but not that he's just generally personally immune.

Update: Big E says

52 Trump is saying that like all government employees he has qualified immunity because he was just doing his job making sure the election was fair.

Garrett says he makes a more expansive argument.

I looked for a media outlet to explain what his legal argument was. Guess what? None of them were willing to tell me.

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 02:30 PM

| Access Comments