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.

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.

Np- their misrepresentation of the facts doesn’t even make it better .

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.

“I didn’t complete the necessary paperwork related to the fraudulent act I committed months earlier” isn’t doing for you, what you hoped it would. Lol.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Selzer made a last-resort decision to publish this bad data to influence the election outcome. If it had worked, Harris would have won and Selzer could continue being a pollster. It did not work, and now she is done. But she gave it a shot.

how would this influence the outcome? it was one poll for iowa

how exactly do you think polling works?!

Douglas Mackey got prosecuted for publishing one meme. Mackey had a much smaller audience than Selzer. In any case, the law doesn't hinge on the number of people who see it.

i think you might not be a lawyer?

Again with the personal attack due to an inability to present facts and evidence to the contrary. The US Code at issue here has been warped to be applicable to Selzer.

Np- by you. Not by the DOJ. The things are are comparing aren’t comparable.

What's the difference between Mackey and Selzer's behavior then with regard to 18 USC 241?

Mackey told voters to vote via text.

And 4,900 of them did.

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.

How would this poll keep Republican voters home? If anything, it suppress the Democratic vote thinking their vote no longer mattered and they didn't have to show up. Is Trump wanting Harris to win Iowa?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Selzer made a last-resort decision to publish this bad data to influence the election outcome. If it had worked, Harris would have won and Selzer could continue being a pollster. It did not work, and now she is done. But she gave it a shot.

how would this influence the outcome? it was one poll for iowa

how exactly do you think polling works?!

Douglas Mackey got prosecuted for publishing one meme. Mackey had a much smaller audience than Selzer. In any case, the law doesn't hinge on the number of people who see it.

i think you might not be a lawyer?

Again with the personal attack due to an inability to present facts and evidence to the contrary. The US Code at issue here has been warped to be applicable to Selzer.

Np- by you. Not by the DOJ. The things are are comparing aren’t comparable.

What's the difference between Mackey and Selzer's behavior then with regard to 18 USC 241?

Did ann tell people to vote using an app on their phone when she polled them?
Did she tell them that the election was Thursday November 7 when she polled them?
Did ann tell them their polling places had moved when she polled them?
No?
Ok. Please stop you are embarrassing yourself.

That person doesn't care. Like all MAGA they like to throw sh&t at the wall and see what sticks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Selzer made a last-resort decision to publish this bad data to influence the election outcome. If it had worked, Harris would have won and Selzer could continue being a pollster. It did not work, and now she is done. But she gave it a shot.

how would this influence the outcome? it was one poll for iowa

how exactly do you think polling works?!

Douglas Mackey got prosecuted for publishing one meme. Mackey had a much smaller audience than Selzer. In any case, the law doesn't hinge on the number of people who see it.

i think you might not be a lawyer?

Again with the personal attack due to an inability to present facts and evidence to the contrary. The US Code at issue here has been warped to be applicable to Selzer.

Np- by you. Not by the DOJ. The things are are comparing aren’t comparable.

What's the difference between Mackey and Selzer's behavior then with regard to 18 USC 241?

Mackey told voters to vote via text.

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.

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?

Does Trump understand that she doesn't work for the federal government?

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.

Anonymous wrote:Releasing a bad poll is not a crime, just bad polling. Is every other inaccurate poll going to come under this much scutiny?

This case, such as it is, is DOA.

Just a woman.

Just Iowa.

Ask yourselves why Iowa?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a legitimate case for election interference.

So is every single other poll, then.

Maybe or
maybe not,, depending on how they did it.

Oh, of course. Double standards rule the day in MAGA world.

If that's how you view things, sure please go ahead. But you can't stop others from doing things the right way, which is to investigate and (potentially) prosecute in this case.

She cold called 800 Iowans and reported her results.

so that alone made it okay? what an idiot, lol!

Please explain for the group how that would “not be ok”
Be specific.

Yes please. Share with the class.

Releasing a bad poll is not a crime, just bad polling. Is every other inaccurate poll going to come under this much scutiny?

This case, such as it is, is DOA.