Trump wants Ann Selzer punished for her Iowa poll Predicition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not forget that Selzer planned to look at the data when her fraud was first discovered.

She retired rather than face scrutiny. That's something a guilty person would do.

It's not Fraud. Please.
You people would stone your own mother if Trump told you to.

Listen, we live in a world where a person can be found guilty of falsifying business records because in Feb of 2017 he labeled reimbursement to his lawyer of a cash settlement for an NDA as a “legal expense”. He labeled it as such using a drop down menu in accounting software. The conviction required the jury to believe that the Feb 2017 act was done in furtherance of defrauding NY voters in the Nov 2016 election.

So, don’t be mad that the convicted felon now has expansive views of the concept of “fraud” after his interactions with the legal system.

It wasn’t a drop down menu error. It was the CFO’s hand written note on Cohen’s bank statement for how they’d “gross up” the money being paid as a retainer to cover the taxes, when it was really reimbursement for an NDA. It was to hide it.

If you’re going to try to post a gotcha, at least get your facts straight.

The “falsified” was the labeling of it as a “legal expense”. The bank note was evidence….

But you’re proving the point. You all were all too happy to stretch legal theories into novel areas. And all that really matters is if you can get 12 Americans to vote guilty (and it helps if you have a heavy handed judge and a state AG who has no shame).

So, don’t worry about how ridiculous the theory against Selzer is. This will all play out in court.

Just like Durham, huh babe?

[Anonymous]

Of course one could make the counter-argument that her poll scared the bejeesus out of Trump voters who might otherwise have stayed home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not forget that Selzer planned to look at the data when her fraud was first discovered.

She retired rather than face scrutiny. That's something a guilty person would do.

It's not Fraud. Please.
You people would stone your own mother if Trump told you to.

Listen, we live in a world where a person can be found guilty of falsifying business records because in Feb of 2017 he labeled reimbursement to his lawyer of a cash settlement for an NDA as a “legal expense”. He labeled it as such using a drop down menu in accounting software. The conviction required the jury to believe that the Feb 2017 act was done in furtherance of defrauding NY voters in the Nov 2016 election.

So, don’t be mad that the convicted felon now has expansive views of the concept of “fraud” after his interactions with the legal system.

It wasn’t a drop down menu error. It was the CFO’s hand written note on Cohen’s bank statement for how they’d “gross up” the money being paid as a retainer to cover the taxes, when it was really reimbursement for an NDA. It was to hide it.

If you’re going to try to post a gotcha, at least get your facts straight.

The “falsified” was the labeling of it as a “legal expense”. The bank note was evidence….

But you’re proving the point. You all were all too happy to stretch legal theories into novel areas. And all that really matters is if you can get 12 Americans to vote guilty (and it helps if you have a heavy handed judge and a state AG who has no shame).

So, don’t worry about how ridiculous the theory against Selzer is. This will all play out in court.

What you’re saying isn’t legally sound, or in line with reality. Gotta feed that victim complex!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Selzer allowed her political bias to affect the results of her poll. There is no way an unbiased political observer would think Harris was beating Trump in Iowa. There was nothing that indicated that a state that voted for Trump by 8 points in 2020 and has only become more Republican by registration since would vote for a Democrat candidate. Indeed, the state shifted further red, voting for Trump by 13 points in the election. Another sign that the poll was wildly off is that neither campaign spent time or money campaigning in the state. Neither candidate thought the state was competitive.

Jon Ralston was another one who allowed his political bias to infect his prediction that Harris would beat Trump in Nevada by something like 0.2%. He had commented for weeks that Republican turnout in early voting would likely be too much for Harris to overcome. Yet, he predicted, based on no evidence, that independent voters would break wildly in favor of Harris.

Even if true that doesn't amount to election fraud nor does it warrant an investigation

I dunno, sounds like part of a conspiracy with her, at best, willfully ignorant employer to disseminate fraudulent information to discourage Trump voters from showing up at the poll. DOJ has convicted on a similar theory before.

This is true and a good point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Selzer allowed her political bias to affect the results of her poll. There is no way an unbiased political observer would think Harris was beating Trump in Iowa. There was nothing that indicated that a state that voted for Trump by 8 points in 2020 and has only become more Republican by registration since would vote for a Democrat candidate. Indeed, the state shifted further red, voting for Trump by 13 points in the election. Another sign that the poll was wildly off is that neither campaign spent time or money campaigning in the state. Neither candidate thought the state was competitive.

Jon Ralston was another one who allowed his political bias to infect his prediction that Harris would beat Trump in Nevada by something like 0.2%. He had commented for weeks that Republican turnout in early voting would likely be too much for Harris to overcome. Yet, he predicted, based on no evidence, that independent voters would break wildly in favor of Harris.

Even if true that doesn't amount to election fraud nor does it warrant an investigation

I dunno, sounds like part of a conspiracy with her, at best, willfully ignorant employer to disseminate fraudulent information to discourage Trump voters from showing up at the poll. DOJ has convicted on a similar theory before.

This is true and a good point.

It's not true and not a good point, because DOJ has not convicted on a similar theory before. And, it could just have easily been used as a scare poll to motivate Trump voters, while convincing Democrats to stay at home thinking they've got it in the bag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Suppose it's found that Ann Seltzer did intentionally present false polling and that she did intend to influence the election...

WHY should she be prosecuted for it?

For the last 4 years plus I have repeatedly heard the right wing right here on DCUM and everywhere else say "So what if there is election disinfo. So what if there is foreign interference in our elections. So what if FOX News posts disinfo as "news" and falls back to its attorneys saying "we aren't news, we're entertainment." People have a right to say whatever they like. It's protected free speech."

Explain to me why Seltzer's case should be any different?

And if Seltzer needs to be prosecuted why wouldn't we prosecute every other person to published election disinfo with the same fervor?

So nobody can explain this?

And are they not thinking about the fact that if they go after Seltzer for releasing a bad poll and the courts go along with it, the Democrats will be able to use that future "US v. Seltzer" as legal precedent for years to come in going after every conservative outlet that puts out misleading info relating to an election?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seltzer (or another insider) allegedly released the poll info early to the KH campaign. This is highly atypical for non campaign polls. Indeed, the Des Moines Register holds itself out as a non partisan actor. So there is probably some fraudulent business records case to be made here, too.

Throw in election interference, fake news, misinformation, release of business secrets, voter suppression through the “shock poll” and, yeah, she should be investigated and she should probably just go ahead and plead guilty. And that’s before the fraud on prediction markets.

Protecting our democracy is the most important thing. We can never forget Nov 2 and how she clearly harmed our democracy. Has anybody checked her for ties to Russia yet?

This is a good point. If she was engaged in partisan political activity and her employer misclassified her polling expenses as a non-campaign expense, then that’s business fraud and tax fraud, because partisan political expenses are obviously not tax deductible.

[Anonymous]

This is what the next four years is going to be like: Trump seeking vengeance on those he feels have wronged him, however slightly.

You voted for this circus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is what the next four years is going to be like: Trump seeking vengeance on those he feels have wronged him, however slightly.

You voted for this circus.

Trump doesn't want to govern. He wants a circus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is what the next four years is going to be like: Trump seeking vengeance on those he feels have wronged him, however slightly.

You voted for this circus.

If the Des Moines Register misclassified partisan political expenses as legitimate business expenses why shouldn’t they be prosecuted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what the next four years is going to be like: Trump seeking vengeance on those he feels have wronged him, however slightly.

You voted for this circus.

Trump doesn't want to govern. He wants a circus.

And, clearly a lot of people want it, embrace his lawlessness, unless this thread is full of trolls. He'll eventually come for them, since these trolls aren't billionaires.

[Anonymous]

Anyone concerned that Selzer *might* ( there is no evidence presented) have shared her polling data with the Harris campaign…
You posters must have been absolutely apoplectic when it became known that the Trump camping shared internal polling with Russian operatives.
Can you guys link back to all of your posts concerning that? TIA.

[Anonymous]

lol—tbh it should be mostly Dems arguing for her to face some kind of political “consequence” for this since she falsely got our hopes up in the 11th hour! I’m not sure why Trump thinks this actually harmed him in any way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:lol—tbh it should be mostly Dems arguing for her to face some kind of political “consequence” for this since she falsely got our hopes up in the 11th hour! I’m not sure why Trump thinks this actually harmed him in any way.

Exactly. Which is why it’s concerning. This about attacking expertise, attacking the media, and attacking free speech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:lol—tbh it should be mostly Dems arguing for her to face some kind of political “consequence” for this since she falsely got our hopes up in the 11th hour! I’m not sure why Trump thinks this actually harmed him in any way.

Everybody with an ounce of common sense knew it was a long shot for Harris to win Iowa, regardless of what one outlier poll said.