FILE – In this Tuesday, Nov. 24, 2020 photo, Cobb County Election officials prepare for a recount, in Marietta, Ga. A conservative group that claimed to uncover a ballot trafficking scheme in Georgia has told a judge it has no evidence to back up its allegations. Texas-based group True the Vote in complaint filed with Georgia’s secretary of state said it had spoken to several people with knowledge of coordinated efforts to collect and deposit ballots in drop boxes during 2020 and 2021 elections. (AP Photo/Mike Stewart)
ShareSAVANNAH, Ga. (AP) — A conservative group has told a Georgia judge that it doesn’t have evidence to support its claims of illegal ballot stuffing during the the 2020 general election and a runoff two months later.
Texas-based True the Vote filed complaints with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in 2021, including one in which it said it had obtained “a detailed account of coordinated efforts to collect and deposit ballots in drop boxes across metro Atlanta” during the November 2020 election and a January 2021 runoff.
A Fulton County Superior Court judge in Atlanta signed an order last year requiring True the Vote to provide evidence it had collected, including the names of people who were sources of information, to state elections officials who were frustrated by the group’s refusal to share evidence with investigators.
In their written response, attorneys for True the Vote said the group had no names or other documentary evidence to share.
“Once again, True the Vote has proven itself untrustworthy and unable to provide a shred of evidence for a single one of their fairy-tale allegations,” Raffensperger spokesman Mike Hassinger said Wednesday. “Like all the lies about Georgia’s 2020 election, their fabricated claims of ballot harvesting have been repeatedly debunked.”
True the Vote’s assertions were relied upon heavily for “2000 Mules,” a widely debunked film by conservative pundit and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza. A State Election Board investigation found that surveillance camera footage that the film claimed showed ballot stuffing actually showed people submitting ballots for themselves and family members who lived with them, which is allowed under Georgia law.
The election board subpoenaed True the Vote to provide evidence that would assist it in investigating the group’s ballot trafficking allegations.
True the Vote’s complaint said its investigators “spoke with several individuals regarding personal knowledge, methods, and organizations involved in ballot trafficking in Georgia.” It said one person, referred to in the complaint only as John Doe, “admitted to personally participating and provided specific information about the ballot trafficking process.”
Frustrated by the group’s refusal to share evidence, Georgia officials took it to court last year. A judge ordered True the Vote to turn over names and contact information for anyone who had provided information, as well as any recordings, transcripts, witness statements or other documents supporting its allegations.
The group came up empty-handed despite having “made every additional reasonable effort to locate responsive items,” its attorneys David Oles and Michael Wynne wrote in a Dec. 11 legal filing first reported Wednesday by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
True the Vote’s founder and president, Catherine Engelbrecht, didn’t immediately respond to an Associated Press email seeking comment Wednesday. She and another member of the group were briefly jailed in 2022 for contempt for not complying with a court order to provide information in a defamation lawsuit. The suit accused True the Vote of falsely claiming that an election software provider stored the personal information of U.S. election workers on an unsecured server in China.
Prior to the State Election Board’s investigation, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation looked into True the Vote’s assertion that it was able to use surveillance video and geospatial mobile device information to support its allegations. In a September 2021 letter, Vic Reynolds, who was then the GBI’s director, said the evidence produced did not amount to proof of ballot harvesting.
State elections officials opened their own investigation after receiving True the Vote’s complaint two months later. When pressed to provide names of sources and other documentation, the group last year tried to withdraw its complaint. One of its attorneys wrote that a complete response would require True the Vote to identify people to whom it had promised confidentiality.
The State Election Board refused to shelve the complaint and went to court to force True the Vote to turn over information.
In addition to names, the judge ordered True the Vote to provide copies of any confidentiality agreements it had with sources.
The group’s attorneys replied: “TTV has no such documents in its possession, custody, or control.”
Conservative group tells judge it has no evidence to back its claims of Georgia ballot stuffing
Scottie's Playtime 
What a surprise.
Allegations made which cannot be backed up with evidence.
Reminds me of a FaceBook run in I had with a UK guy who claimed Ukrainian troops were using Ukrainian civilians as human shields. I asked him for his evidence, he kept side-stepping and wriggling accusing me for twisting his words and all sorts. I kept asking.
In the end he gave up.
I’m glad this one also collapse under the cold light of day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Roger. I agree. I have the same issues arguing with covid deniers, anti-vaxxers, QAnon believers, and anti-LGBTQIA people. It is really hard to find something that will get under the seal they use against reality, to put a crack in their denials. Hugs, Scottie
LikeLiked by 1 person
We have the same over here.
Also both Hard Left and Far Right claim that the traditional media is against them and the police always arrest them and not the other side.
In fact there is not much between them.
Try as I much to hold to Democracy often I drift back to thinking to my ideal of ‘Don’t argue with Us. Don’t make a public Fuss. And as long as you don’t harm anyone we’ll let you have a private life. OK. Deal?’ sort of government.
It’s a European sort of outlook.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Roger. You keep mentioning something that intrigues me. The hard left. See, I don’t have that on my blog, I don’t get comments from anyone claiming to be hard right. I struggle to understand what that might be? Hugs. Scottie
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is an involved one Scottie.
Let me start by warning that Left wing politics in Europe is complex concept. If you enter ‘Socialism’ on Wikipedia the printable document is 37 A4 pages with an additional 47 pages of Notes, Additional Reading etc. And then there are the numerous links to other Wikipedia entries.
This is before you get around to trying to wrestle with comprehending the differences between Socialism and Communism (or Communisms).
To narrow it down, the principal UK ‘Socialist’ Party is Labour. Now this is a coalition of folk who might be seen as Democrats in the USA along with a variety of more left leaning groupings, some of which are neo-communist. It is therefore a very fractious combine. It could be summarised by observing that if there is one group a Labour Party member or supporter disagrees with more than a Conservative it is a member of another grouping within the Labour Party who disagrees with them- Hate being a not infrequent emotions.
I will give you my own joke on the subject. If an American came to the UK and asked for five members of the Labour Party to explain socialism to them, the American would:
Have to break up a fist fight between two
Replace the chairs when another storms out declaring the other four are fools and traitors to the cause.
Having listened to the other two explain at once and interrupting each other that they, the American has heard at least six different versions
The American is then advised to return to their hotel, take pain killers for their severe headache and lie down in a darkened room.
‘Hard Left’ is a term recognisable in UK politics and is interchangeable with ‘Far Left’, or ‘Extreme Left’. That said whereas I consider myself Hard Left the only part I would agree with some others would be state control and ownership of all public services and a tighter rein on commercial concerns operating in the UK When it comes to overseas politics I consider the others either to hopelessly and dangerously naïve or part of a tradition going back to Communist days which unconditionally supports Russia and are thus dupes. Thus, like others I end up supporting the more moderate wing (with all its flaws) as a safer bet for the UK and its allies. To complicate the matter even more I consider many of the Far / Hard Left to be betrayers of the British people, as it is the duty of the Left to ensure a Conservative Right-Wing party does not govern the UK. Getting into government is therefore paramount and principals should be flexible (This is also known as Realpolitik – some despise it, I belong to a school of thought across the many divides who reckon ‘It’s The Only Safe Game In Town’).
At Sheila’s pleading and sometimes stern lecturing I now stay out of the political fight clubs on FaceBook.
To avoid WP pulling a mean trick and losing all this I am typing this on Word first….I note this has extended to 500+ words. And this is only the barest of summaries.
When Americans on The Right blather about socialism in your country and scoff loudly and say’ You haven’t a clue what you are talking about,’
Sorry about the length of this Scottie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Roger. No worries about length, that never bothers me as long as it is informative and not repetitive. Your comments are both very informative and share much needed context along with an understanding of how limited the US public understanding of other countries is.
Question for you. I have often thought the US would be better with a multiparty system like yours and other countries have, instead of being locked into a two party only system. At one time the US system allowed for other parties, but the two major parties managed to change the rules to lock themselves forever in power.
Second question. In the US the democrats claim to be the party of the people, but often they run on campaigns of government doing for the people only to never deliver on that idea and govern more like a slightly right leaning centrist, like Obama. Biden is the first democrat in my lifetime since Jimmy Carter that has actually tried to make government work for the public, for the average person and not just work for the wealthy. Hugs. Scottie
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Scottie.
It would seem the US system grew out of two fundamental ideas of governance. One being a strong central government with a hand on the banking system, and oversight of those systems required to hold a nation together. The other being a lighter central touch and more authority given to the states. Thus the two party system grew.
Until recent decades rather than two parties with strong doctrinal lines, both appeared to be ‘big tents’. Thus both had ‘conservatives’ – Democrats in the South and ‘liberals’ – Republicans in the North.
Thus both parties seemed to resemble at times large coalitions, with Republicans tending to be more supportive of Business and Democrats on Social Issues; that said there would be changes in tack.
Historians of recent history postulate that the big change came when LBJ signed the Civil Rights bill (he is recorded as saying ‘There goes the South’). It was at this stage the Republicans began to make inroads in the White sections of the Southern States voter blocs. To this was added another factor and this was the return of ‘religious’ devotion steered by big business and media strategies. On top came the Cultural Wars. Sensing on this came a younger breed of Republicans who discerned a more right wing stance would play well.
For my money the big shift came with the successful election of an African American President twice, and the arrival of another Clinton on the scene. Both these events really drew battle lines, and as far as the Republican was concerned Right was right and might.
And now we have the nightmare of all democracies – polarisation which means consensus withers and a democratic nation cannot prosper without consensus.
The European systems evolved out of a combination of the fall of kings and of course wars which did give rise to a high number of parties, some purely nationalistic, others focused on issues such as farming (a big issue in Europe), while some on pure political theory
That said the parties with the bigger share of the vote in post WWII eras tended to be focusing on stability and prosperity and so were coalitions of like minded folk although doctrine and the desire to keep the others out often meant the closing of ranks.
In nations where there are elements of Proportional Representation and there are a proliferation of parties (common on mainland Europe) the situation does become a bit more complex with a great amount of deals being made (and a high turnover of governments ).
Currently the European systems are all going through changes of emphasis, mostly revolving around drifts to the Right, though there is an inherent volatility with very vocal oppositions which can cause than to change.
There is much ‘history’ in European politics behind which the spectres of old wars still remain.
Now attention is turning eastwards to concerns about Russia, and how that will go is open to many types of speculation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Roger. Sometimes I feel guilty using you like a personal tutor who is not getting paid. And I often admit I have to read what you reply, think hard on that part, read more, think hard on the next part again. The reason is your replies are multilayered if I look at them honestly, deeply. If I was just to read them and form an opinion to reply without really trying to see what you are saying, I feel I am not learning the information you are sending. I thank you for that. You really have enriched my understanding of history and of things outside my own country. For example, the good Friday accords and the situation in Ireland. I had no concept of that until you started talking to me about it. Now I worry that it may unravel if the UK government can’t be more accommodating to the needs of both groups on the Island. I feel the UK is basically forcing them to unite into one country. As I now understand the situation.
But I feel guilt to keep pestering you for more. Like Oliver asking for more with his bowl held out. ….
That said if I may hold my bowl out again and ask quietly for more. You did explain well how our different systems developed, but could you expand on how our system would be different, better or worse with your multiparty government or how yours might fare under our two party system.
The reason I ask is I feel that the current US system of two parties really don’t represent most of the people in the country. I don’t feel represented by the democrats, even though I have to vote for them because they are clearly closer to my interests than republicans. But many people feeling they are not represented just drop out and don’t vote, feeling that the entire thing is beyond any say they might have. I often wonder if more of my fellow country people would vote if they felt they had a party that listened to them.
Again sorry to be a pest. I wouldn’t ask you so much if I did not value your input and if I do, I bet a lot of people reading along do. Thanks. Hugs. Scottie
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Scottie.
This is something of an interim reply.
Chores are calling, but more importantly you have given me much to think on and I do tend to rehearse post in my head before writing them.
Firstly I want to thank you for the great compliment you have made me. It is very humbling and something of a responsibility (one I take as a precious gift bestowed).
I will reply in detail concerning the two-party / multiparty system in the USA probably in UK time, today around 5 – 6pm (mid day in your ‘neck of the woods’?).
The Northern Ireland issue will be put aside for another day. Politics there is very different from mainland UK, and the foolishness of Brexit it made it worse (Long, long, involved story that!).
Anyway, I will return, sometime in the next few hours with an answer. Sorry if these do get a bit involved. One thing I have learnt when looking at the Long View and Big Pictures of politics- nothing is simple, straight forward or fits easily.
Be back soon(ish)
Roger
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Roger. As you see, you already responded before I could reply. Please take your time always and understand I am in your debt for your response. I love your thoughts and well thought out response, so I am willing to wait, even if I do so hopping between feet hoping for it sooner.
I see you answered and I look forward to reading and replying to that response. Your comments / replies of give me such interesting things to think on or I have to look up to understand. Or simply, I need to simply sit back and think on it. That is not some kind of blowing smoke or buttering you up, it is how I see what you respond with. Your understanding of both history and human behavior which are two things that go together too well is something I greatly admire. Please don’t worry about the length of your reply, write any length you want, because it is the information you have to share that I want to hear. Hugs. Scottie
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you so much Scottie for your kind words and encouragement.
The various strands of History in all its forms come together in my head a lot these days. It’s an odd feeling and difficult to explain just why I am experiencing this.
I can and always have got very upset and angry at Random violence, Intolerance, Prejudice and Political Stupidity of any sort (that’s a complex one to explain). In the heat of the moment my ‘solutions’ to a problem can be a bit….too much.
Some folk have suggested to me I have ‘wisdom’ I doubt that. Instead it seems to be a kind of rationalisation process.
To look at a situation and think ‘This kind of thing has happened before somewhere else’, then work through the possible outcomes.
The emotions are still there, but there is also the rationalisation that ‘this’ is nothing new.
In short it helps me cope with a world rife with folly and political / social myopia.
Thank you again for your support.
Ask questions whenever you feel like. To quote Mr. Bennett in Jane Austen’s ‘Pride and Prejudice’:
‘I am at my leisure’
PS: I would strongly recommend Keith at ‘musingsofanoldfart’ for a sober, balanced and succinct take on things (Jill and I tend to be firebrands who wish we could be as mature as Keith)
Take care you guys
Roger & Sheila
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Scottie.
Back again. Multi-party in the USA. Sorry this is going to be long. (Sorry for the delay – had to take a break for supper and our nightly DVD)
Democracy is always messy. Apart from the right to speak their mind, a person also gets the right to be perpetual dissatisfied. And having to put up with it. Let’s look at that.
There are broadly two types of Democracy.
The First Part The Post System.(FPPS) The one who gets the most votes get the prize.
Proportional Representation.(PR) Depending on how many votes a party gets, they might get a share of representation.
We have to bear these in mind when looking at the issue.
Before full Multi-Party is considered in the USA it is wise to consider the European and also The Israeli experiences.
In the UK we use the FPPS. For many years this devolved into a two-way contest between Conservatives (Right) and Labour (Left), mostly for the centre ground. Over the past 50 years with the rise of the nationalist parties Scottish (SNP) and Welsh (Plaid Cymru), The Greens (Environment) and the variable fortunes of the Liberal Democrats (Lib-Dems) other factors thus came into play. To this must be added the enigma which is Northern Ireland.
Thus it can be said we have a multi-party system, although it normally comes down to Conservatives vs Labour who get to form the government and opposition, but now have to accept the smaller parties have their say. (There is a nascent federal system with limited power parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland).
This system of FPPS coupled with multi-parties causes some odd results. For instance, in 2019 the Conservatives won an 86 seat overall majority of seats in parliament. Their total vote was 13,966,454; Labour was 10,269,051; however when the votes for the nationalist parties, The Lib-Dems and Greens are added to the latter, the total voting against the Conservatives in the UK was 15,361,115. Leaving out Northern Ireland you can see how FPPS brought about an unrepresentative vote for the UK. (Most of the Conservative vote was England based)
PR tends to not result in overall majorities. The parties which have the largest number of seats enter into negotiations with smaller parties in forming governments. Thus, these parties can bring a disproportionate influence to the table, and deals can be volatile affairs influencing policy. That said the nations infrastructures tend to adapt, unless there arises a frequency number of elections or rise and fall of governments. Where the system fails democracy is when very minor extremist parties’ supports are necessary for governments to function. In Israel this has resulted in a disproportionate extremist religious influence which has been instrumental in the state of affairs over the past thirty years.
France has its own system and is based on candidates with less votes falling out and another round of elections takes place. French politics is a whole different game, I am leaving this out for the sake of brevity. And experiences in other nations where they adapt this for presidential elections. We might return to this however, later.
Canada has gone through several reforms some national, some state based. PR in differing forms are used or have been considered. There is something of a state of ongoing discourse drawn out over the years, which is interesting when considering the USA.
Now onto the possible in the USA.
Firstly it is necessary to take into account, not so much the size of the nation, but its voting population, its federal system, the Electoral College and the recent history of parties.
Roughly there are 260,000,000 adults.
According to last stats I read there are 161,000,000 registered voters.
There are 50 separate states and Washington DC
And the Electoral College.
At my last look there are 30 multi state parties. Most of these are somewhat esoteric or single issues and do not figure on the political radar much, except maybe at state level on occasions. It’s only when you get a high-profile single candidates such as George Wallace, Ralph Nader or Ross Perot that there is any nation-wide notice.
The current situation in the USA is that funding is locked into supporting the two established parties, there is The Electoral College. Thus, for any third party to make inroads would need a probable merging of many fringe parties into one cohesive grouping, then be sure of sufficient funding, and to have a large number of tough, seasoned campaigners and operators to take on the machines of the Democrats and Republicans, If toe-holds were gained, and some public interest drummed up then the parties would have to settle in for long haul likely into decades to make inroads.
Just as an aside when we look at the figures of adults in comparison to registered voters there is a rich seam to be mined for potential increase in registered voters and independents to break from the Democrat / Republican ranks. It is feasible that there could be a sudden outbreak of ‘new blood’ parties. It should be borne in mind though that these would cover the spectrum of Right, Centre and Left, along with Religious and Single-Issue Parties with a broad appeal.
Another factor with the rise of smaller parties is problem they all face of the ‘wasted vote’ syndrome. This arises when a voter may be attracted to them in principal but is so intent on getting get of the current governing party or stopping the opposition getting in that they will opt for the larger party close to their wishes. Something quite common in the UK at General Elections. And in the USA there is the memory of Nader causing that narrow margin between Bush and Gore, which resulted in Bush. A real hill for a minor party to climb.
Of course, if there was a rise in smaller parties some would be those who are single state based. Texas as we know is constantly flirting with this concept. And such locally based parties do throw a spanner in the working of a federal state system as they are bound to bring an ‘independence’ movement to the table.
If there were a rise in a multi-party system such as is in the UK, France or Canada, and if we leave PR out of the equation for the present the first thing the US system would have to deal with is a complete change from a Two-Party system. This could possibly result in defection from both parties for genuine or opportunist reasons. As intimated earlier at state level with the introduction of ‘local parties’ the results could be quite tectonic. Something Washington as an institution would have to address.
This would then have repercussion at several levels within the federal system both at senatorial and congressional level. Whether this would lead to a return of ‘back room deals’ or a factionalising into constantly shifting alliances is another matter.
Since the USA had been used to the current Two Party set up for 180-200 years at all levels of society. this would take some getting used to.
The next aspect to consider is the effect this would have at Mid-Terms in both houses and of course the Presidential Election, as having more than two party alternatives would change the landscape. The grim issue would be the influence of extreme parties of any stripe (Yes there are some very ugly left-wing groupings too! UK- Ask any moderate Labour Party member, or Conservative MP, or Jew ).
THEN there is the question of funding. It maybe that overseas influences might decide there is political or commercial capital from backing an ‘outside runner’. The USA would be virgin territory in that respect. Other nations are used to this sort of thing.
When you get to the question of PR we’re into unchartered territory, particularly in a nation of the USA’s size, complexity and federal system. Canada has a whole recent history of various voting reforms within the states. Also PR does lend a hand to extreme ‘wrecking’ crews. Imagine what havoc MAGA could wreak in the USA, especially as it has ‘branches’ everywhere. Then there would be all sorts of inter-state and congressional arguments if some states went PR and others stayed with FPPS as to who is more truly ‘representational’.
Next we have the system which let the US people down so badly in 2016- The Electoral College. What that would do with a multi-party set up does not bear thinking about. Ideally it might be of use, but since there is the possibility of the ‘Faithless Voter’ within the system it would be open to abuse,
Thus Scottie. It is doable. It is achievable. However it will take some time, a lot of hard work and many people keeping a watch on abuses of the system as it grows.
Heck, sorry this was so long (nearly 1500 words). As you will see what we have and what we could have with Multi-Party systems has no easy answers.
All the best
Roger
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Roger. Sadly just as I was writing to you WordPress shut down my preferred way to respond, reloading / resetting it to include newer stuff. I am going to take my time going through your answer, so if I don’t reply for a while, please know it is because I am thinking on what you wrote. I often discuss your comments and our conversations with my spouse, he has a college degree and far more education that I ever had a chance for. We both admire your insight and memory of history. So I printed your reply out for him. We will talk over what you wrote. Again than you for such a wonderful and thoughtful reply. I can not imagine how long it would have taken me to write something like that even if I understood the subject. So thank you for the effort, we appreciate it and if we do those reading along must also. Hugs. Scottie
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah WP and its quirks! (Well that’s me being very polite)
Just to repeat Scottie, I am honoured and also humbled that you look upon my writings in this way.
By all means take your time for you and Ron to read this. Again sorry about the length. Once a Welsh person gets the bit between their teeth, they are liable to go on (An old joke being that was why there was a clock that installed in Welsh churches. To remind the preacher if they were going on too long with their sermons!).
Wishing you all the very best…
Say Hi to Ron from us
Roger & Sheila.
LikeLiked by 1 person