*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9099
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8840 on: May 19, 2021, 02:44:55 AM »
Did you bother reading Rama's post? No where did he say, or imply, there wasnt a discrepancy...

It says that the latest Windham, NH audit found discrepancies against Republican candidates, like the previous investigation. Maybe your excuse is "that doesn't prove that there's fraud," but nor does it prove that there are errors that only affect Republican candidates.

Rama Set is referring to someone's speculation in the article that it 'could be this'; but this is more excuse spinning. Those aren't good initial results for your position that there is no fraud.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2021, 02:57:31 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Trump
« Reply #8841 on: May 19, 2021, 02:49:11 AM »

I don't believe that anyone claimed that the SURE system determines winners and losers. There is an anomaly there between two different reporting systems.

...except, that claiming the discrepancy is an anomaly is a category error. 

That's the substantive point of the entire article I linked.

You clearly didn't even read the article (or perhaps just didn't understand it). 






*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9099
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8842 on: May 19, 2021, 03:01:49 AM »

I don't believe that anyone claimed that the SURE system determines winners and losers. There is an anomaly there between two different reporting systems.

...except, that claiming the discrepancy is an anomaly is a category error. 

That's the substantive point of the entire article I linked.

You clearly didn't even read the article (or perhaps just didn't understand it).

You and the article are basically just claiming that there is a possible explanation. That's nice. But there are possible explanations for nearly anything you can imagine, so that doesn't mean much.

Re: Trump
« Reply #8843 on: May 19, 2021, 03:17:49 AM »

I don't believe that anyone claimed that the SURE system determines winners and losers. There is an anomaly there between two different reporting systems.

...except, that claiming the discrepancy is an anomaly is a category error. 

That's the substantive point of the entire article I linked.

You clearly didn't even read the article (or perhaps just didn't understand it).

You and the article are basically just claiming that there is a possible explanation. That's nice. But there are possible explanations for nearly anything you can imagine, so that doesn't mean much.

No, that’s not at all what the article or I am saying. 

Calling the discrepancy an anomaly is an example of a category error. There cannot be an anomaly between two things which are measuring different types of data - one is county votes, the other registrations of past elections. Not the same.

Still waiting for the rebuttal to the official PA DoS statement refuting the initial tweet....


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9099
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8844 on: May 19, 2021, 03:19:36 AM »
No, that’s not at all what the article or I am saying. 

Calling the discrepancy an anomaly is an example of a category error. There cannot be an anomaly between two things which are measuring different types of data - one is county votes, the other registrations of past elections. Not the same.

Still waiting for the rebuttal to the official PA DoS statement refuting the initial tweet....

Point it out for us. Where do you see a label with anything related to "registrations of past elections"


Re: Trump
« Reply #8845 on: May 19, 2021, 03:24:10 AM »

I don't believe that anyone claimed that the SURE system determines winners and losers. There is an anomaly there between two different reporting systems.

...except, that claiming the discrepancy is an anomaly is a category error. 

That's the substantive point of the entire article I linked.

You clearly didn't even read the article (or perhaps just didn't understand it).

You and the article are basically just claiming that there is a possible explanation. That's nice. But there are possible explanations for nearly anything you can imagine, so that doesn't mean much.

No, that’s not at all what the article or I am saying. 

Calling the discrepancy an anomaly is an example of a category error. There cannot be an anomaly between two things which are measuring different types of data - one is county votes, the other registrations of past elections. Not the same.

Still waiting for the rebuttal to the official PA DoS statement refuting the initial tweet....

Point it out for us. Where do you see a label with anything related to "registrations of past elections"



Tom,

Again, you either didn't read the link or understand it.

The article clearly explains what SURE is and does, and explains that Rep. Ryan and Rep. Diamond, who wrote this document didn’t understand that SURE doesnt count votes, but is merely a database for past elections, and only needs to be updated before the next one.

They didnt know that.

You didnt know that.

I didnt know that until I read the PA DoS website and this article, but now I do. Maybe you should actually read them instead of hanging on to the initial info you had. There’s now more info which you are literally ignoring.


Re: Trump
« Reply #8846 on: May 19, 2021, 03:27:46 AM »
Again, here’s all the info anyone’s provided in this thread on the topic. 

1. An image from a tweet by Rep. Ryan which shows a supposed discrepancy b/w county numbers and SURE numbers.
2. The official PA DoS website which shows the final county votes.
3. A statement from the PA DoS claiming that Rep. Ryan is wrong.


There has been No reply from Rep. Ryan to dispute the PA DoS statement.

You keep reposting the INITIAL statement that informed the tweet, but are not providing anything that responds to the official PA DoS response to that tweet...
« Last Edit: May 19, 2021, 03:31:10 AM by existoid »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9099
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8847 on: May 19, 2021, 03:30:51 AM »
Tom,

Again, you either didn't read the link or understand it.

The article clearly explains what SURE is and does, and explains that Rep. Ryan and Rep. Diamond, who wrote this document didn’t understand that SURE doesnt count votes, but is merely a database for past elections, and only needs to be updated before the next one.

They didnt know that.

You didnt know that.

I didnt know that until I read the PA DoS website and this article, but now I do. Maybe you should actually read them instead of hanging on to the initial info you had. There’s now more info which you are literally ignoring.

The quote you are talking about says that it contains the number of people who voted in the election:

"In a telephone interview with LebTown on Jan. 4, Anderson pointed out that SURE is not designed to determine election winners, and never has been. Instead, it is simply a database of registered voters, and a historical record of who has voted in past elections."

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The quote says that it has the numbers of the people who voted in an election, not only the number of registered voters. Obviously the 2020 election was a past election by the time the PA Lawmakers made that press release.

Are you arguing that the PA Lawmakers mistook 2016 voting number data for 2020 voting number data?
« Last Edit: May 19, 2021, 03:40:25 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Trump
« Reply #8848 on: May 19, 2021, 03:39:31 AM »
Tom,

Again, you either didn't read the link or understand it.

The article clearly explains what SURE is and does, and explains that Rep. Ryan and Rep. Diamond, who wrote this document didn’t understand that SURE doesnt count votes, but is merely a database for past elections, and only needs to be updated before the next one.

They didnt know that.

You didnt know that.

I didnt know that until I read the PA DoS website and this article, but now I do. Maybe you should actually read them instead of hanging on to the initial info you had. There’s now more info which you are literally ignoring.

The quote you are talking about says that it contains the numbers of people who voted in the election:

"In a telephone interview with LebTown on Jan. 4, Anderson pointed out that SURE is not designed to determine election winners, and never has been. Instead, it is simply a database of registered voters, and a historical record of who has voted in past elections."

I'm not sure what you're talking about. It has the numbers of the people who voted in an election, not only the number of registered voters.

Are you arguing that they mistook 2016 voting data for 2020 data?


No, I’m not arguing that and not sure how you arrived at that idea.

Maybe just read the entire article more carefully?

More importantly, the PA DoS officially responded to the claim by Reps Diamond and Ryan.  They never responded to that, bc instead they met with Mr. Anderson who apparently resolved Rep. Diamond’s concerns...by explaining that SURE data has a different purpose entirely, is derived at a different time, and wouldnt show identical numbers anyway. Mystery solved...

If Rep. Ryan, who didnt attend the meeting with Mr. Anderson isnt satisfied by the official PA DoS statement, please show where he continues to make these claims....

EDIT:
Cuz it seems you’re fighting a battle that not even Rep. Ryan (and certainly not rep. Diamond) are still fighting.  Cuz, well, they were mistaken. (I do believe they were mistaken in good faith).
« Last Edit: May 19, 2021, 03:43:39 AM by existoid »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9099
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8849 on: May 19, 2021, 03:55:49 AM »
Quote
Maybe just read the entire article more carefully?

I did. You claimed:

"Calling the discrepancy an anomaly is an example of a category error. There cannot be an anomaly between two things which are measuring different types of data - one is county votes, the other registrations of past elections. Not the same."

You are claiming that one of the systems has only registrations of past elections.

From the article:

Quote
In a telephone interview with LebTown on Jan. 4, Anderson pointed out that SURE is not designed to determine election winners, and never has been. Instead, it is simply a database of registered voters, and a historical record of who has voted in past elections.

It says that the SURE system has a record of the number of people who voted, not only a number of registered voters.

The PA Legislature made their press release almost two months after the November 2020 election. In that release they are talking about the data for the number of votes that came into the SURE system.

Another quote from that article says:

Quote
After each election, but as a separate task from the actual counting of votes to certify a winner, Anderson said that he and his staff compile data about who has voted (but not how they voted) in that election.

This is done by manually, one at a time, scanning the bar codes next to voters’ signatures in the poll book they signed at the polling place, and by manually, one at a time, scanning the bar codes on the outside of every envelope that was used to return mail-in ballots. “It takes, usually, about two weeks,” Anderson said.

Again, we have a quote which says that it contains the number of people who voted.

And did you notice that the guy is just giving out excuses? One of the excuses is that the data is indeed in error like the PA Reps suspected:

Quote
Anderson added that often a voter will fill out a provisional ballot, but also mistakenly sign the poll book. So until the error is caught, there will be one less ballot than shown in the poll book totals.

He also said that, during the tedious two week process of manually scanning polls books and envelopes for SURE statistics, some ballots don’t scan, and a few manual errors are inadvertently made by overworked election workers.

Anderson assured Diamond that those errors will be caught and fixed in the SURE system in time for the next election.

Diamond ended by expressing his satisfaction. “You’ve answered a lot of my questions, and I really do appreciate it.”

So they basically admit that vote count data is erroneous, validating the concerns of the PA Legislature.

Diamond saying "sure, that makes sense" is hardly satisfying if he is saying that in response to their admission of not knowing how to count votes. Why should we believe that this system is unreliable but other government systems are reliable? We have one excuse after another, including a claim that we can't rely on government vote counting systems. Good one! That makes me feel super confident about government elections. ::)
« Last Edit: May 19, 2021, 04:23:14 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Trump
« Reply #8850 on: May 19, 2021, 04:06:55 AM »
your sophistry is unpersuasive.

Do you have evidence that Rep. Ryan or Diamond contended with accurate and final SURE data? Or are you merely relying on their claims (making all your arguments, which have focused on the credibility of other sources, both ironic and specious).

Do you have any response from Rep. Ryan or Diamond to the official PA DoS statement made in response to their statement?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9099
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8851 on: May 19, 2021, 04:45:40 AM »
I'm not really sure what more there is to discuss on this. The PA Lawmakers were concerned about errors in government vote counting systems and in the later discussion with the election people they admitted to errors in government vote counting systems. The lawmakers probably didn't publicly bring that particular SURE discrepancy up again because the errors were already admitted to.

See these two quotes:

Quote
PA Lawmakers: Numbers Don't Add Up
Certification of Presidential Results Premature and in Error

Quote
Anderson added that often a voter will fill out a provisional ballot, but also mistakenly sign the poll book. So until the error is caught, there will be one less ballot than shown in the poll book totals.

He also said that, during the tedious two week process of manually scanning polls books and envelopes for SURE statistics, some ballots don’t scan, and a few manual errors are inadvertently made by overworked election workers.

Anderson assured Diamond that those errors will be caught and fixed in the SURE system in time for the next election.

Diamond ended by expressing his satisfaction. 'You’ve answered a lot of my questions, and I really do appreciate it.

It sure sounds like they mumbled some stuff about poll books and overworked election workers and basically finished with "you were right, there are errors, but we promise to do better next time" to me.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2021, 06:43:30 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Trump
« Reply #8852 on: May 19, 2021, 08:50:22 AM »
Considering the inherent slowness of the justice system and the process the fraud investigation is all coming together pretty smoothly, as far as I'm concerned.
Yes, but as far as you were concerned there was evidence of fraud immediately after the election.
Remember all the little videos and articles you posted in the aftermath of the election from right wing sources like NewsMax or Sky News Australia. Like:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg224854#msg224854
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg225069#msg225069
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg225116#msg225116

Remember you getting all excited about the Supreme Court and how they would sort it out for you? Bless.
In that last one you say that the "WH Press Secretary has been claiming that they have been collecting lots of evidence of fraud."
That was on the 13th, about a week and a half after the election. So back then you were claiming there was lots of evidence and it was immediately apparent. Remember the "it's coming in through a firehose" nonsense?
Now because all that fell flat you're reframing it as "well, of course all this takes time". The word "claim" is key there. Sure, they were "claiming" there was lots of evidence. But they had literally dozens of chances in court and had nothing which stood up to any scrutiny.

I read a good book which you might want to look at, Black Box Thinking by Matthew Syed. It talks a lot about why people make mistakes and it deals with Cognitive Dissonance in some detail. There's a story in there about some cult who claimed that there were aliens hiding behind the moon and on some date they were going to swoop down and destroy the earth - sparing the "believers". People had given up careers and houses to join the cult so they were very invested. The date came and went and to the surprise of pretty much no-one the earth survived and nothing happened. So what was the reaction of the cult members? The rational thing would be to abandon their beliefs, clearly they'd got it wrong. But instead some of the members just doubled down and became further entrenched in their beliefs - clearly it was their faith that had spared them and the earth.

I mention all that because this is what you're doing here. In the immediate aftermath of the election you were confident that there was so much evidence of fraud. The election would be flipped any day now. As the inauguration day loomed you leapt desperately from conspiracy theory to conspiracy theory. Even in the days leading up to the inauguration you thought that things could change on the day.
Now here we are. It's May. Biden is the president. The rational thing to do would be to admit you were wrong. But, like the cult members, you double down and reframe things - now it's just the process takes a long time, you were right all along. Unless you're just trolling of course, I'm never sure with you.

But the fact remains that Biden is the President. So...yeah, I'm not really sure what more there is to discuss on this.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9099
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8853 on: May 19, 2021, 09:03:07 AM »
Quote
As the inauguration day loomed you leapt desperately from conspiracy theory to conspiracy theory.

Actually it's mostly you guys here propagating government conspiracy theories in which the evil republican government officials are producing fake audits to make it seem like there is fraud when Dominion and Joe "Fire the prosecutor or you aren't getting the money" Biden are truly as innocent as a newborn baby.  ::)

Evidence for fraud has, and is, being presented. It's your position that it's all fake which has the lack of evidence.

Quote
Now here we are. It's May. Biden is the president. The rational thing to do would be to admit you were wrong. But, like the cult members, you double down and reframe things - now it's just the process takes a long time, you were right all along. Unless you're just trolling of course, I'm never sure with you.

It's May and there is much more evidence of fraud than there was in January. I would suggest looking at the audits that are occurring in multiple states, the upcoming audits that are being proposed, and Mike Lindell's documentaries. Your ranting seems to be mostly about yourself and your denial.

It took two years for the Justice System to kick out the Democrat who was elected via heinous voter fraud. They didn't just start that process on month 22 and zip through it in a couple of months like you thought should have happened in November. They didn't get through it before he was sworn in. You have an unrealistic and naïve outlook. Maybe you should show an example on how fast things like this should take rather than making baseless assumptions.

Quote
That was on the 13th, about a week and a half after the election. So back then you were claiming there was lots of evidence and it was immediately apparent. Remember the "it's coming in through a firehose" nonsense?
Now because all that fell flat you're reframing it as "well, of course all this takes time". The word "claim" is key there. Sure, they were "claiming" there was lots of evidence. But they had literally dozens of chances in court and had nothing which stood up to any scrutiny.

We already looked at the details of those court cases and they were not about fraud. Did you forget that? Or are you plugging your ears and lying to yourself again?

I'm fairly sure that we had the conversation that the cases were not about fraud multiple times. And nor were most of the cases dismissed on merit, but on procedural grounds. You failed utterly on that point, and admitted that you didn't actually know what the cases were about. A link was shown, describing all the cases, and they were not about fraud. They weren't about fraud because that obviously takes more time to prosecute compared to a rule violation.

Also, Trump did win a number of those cases, but the elections weren't overturned based on a rule violation.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2021, 02:24:21 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 8665
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8854 on: May 19, 2021, 10:05:54 AM »
You had zero problem with election systems in 2016. Strange that.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 1121
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8855 on: May 19, 2021, 10:23:52 AM »
Hey Trump lied about the Maricopa audit. Surprised?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2021/05/15/trump-says-arizona-audit-found-unbelievable-election-crime-nonsense/5115549001/

....
What bothers me is that you can clearly see when the file were made (a year before the deletion date or more) and what they were called (things relating to 2019 elections or something).

Point is, this is very clearly not related to the 2020 election so how the hell did anyone fall for it?
^ This is all bs.

There are no federal or state offices voted on in 2019.

Re: Trump
« Reply #8856 on: May 19, 2021, 10:49:44 AM »
Evidence for fraud has, and is, being presented. It's your position that it's all fake.
Isn't that your stance about all the evidence for a globe earth? :)
As I have repeatedly explained to you - not all evidence is created equal. Sure, you can scour the internet for biased sources which you think back up your stance. But none of the evidence you present stands up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. Another thing the book I mentioned deals with is Confirmation Bias where people tend to read and agree with things which back up a position they already hold. That's another thing you should look into. The credibility you give to evidence is proportional to whether it backs up what you want to believe. I don't know if you are being dishonest with yourself or us or just trolling but multiple people have picked you up on this.

Quote
Maybe you should show an example on how fast things like this should take rather than making baseless assumptions.

The example is in the 3rd post of yours I quoted:
"WH Press Secretary has been claiming that they have been collecting lots of evidence of fraud."
In the same post you posted a Tweet:
"We have 234 pages of sworn affidavits under penalty of perjury alleging election regulations from just ONE country in Michigan"

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg225116#msg225116

This is nothing to do with what I think "should have happened in November", this is about what you claimed WAS happening in November. That's less than 2 weeks after the election and you're already claiming there's a huge amount of evidence of fraud.

Quote
We already looked at the details of those court cases and they were not about fraud. Did you forget that?

How strange that the cases wouldn't be about fraud when there's all that super-reliable evidence.
But no, I didn't forget your lies about that. In those discussions you were shown court documents from cases alleging fraud. You were shown video of judges talking about the poor standard of evidence.
Then there was the Kraken. That was alleging fraud, wasn't it? Recently NewsMax had to make some embarrassing apologies admitting they found no merit in the claims which people they gave a platform to made
https://www.npr.org/2021/04/30/992534968/newsmax-issues-retraction-and-apology-to-dominion-employee-over-election-stories?t=1621421043302

So...yeah. You spent all the time between the election and the inauguration saying that things were going to flip the election any day now, it's all going great.
Now that demonstrably hasn't happened you've simply moved the goalposts to "it takes ages to sort these things out".
I guess that means you can keep posting these lies indefinitely.
Tom's gotta Tom, I guess.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 8665
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8857 on: May 19, 2021, 11:29:27 AM »
Meanwhile, another suit was dismissed because they were seeking a second extra-legal recount of Antrim County:

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/michigan-judge-flatly-rejects-last-of-the-lawsuits-attempting-to-undermine-democracy-in-big-loss-for-trump-fans-who-believed-an-audit-would-show-fraud/

Trump trumpeted this bigly! Turns out the judge thinks one hand recount that affirmed the certified results was sufficient. If only there was new evidence, or any reason to have another recount. Toss it on the trash heap.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6539
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8858 on: May 19, 2021, 03:07:21 PM »
Hey Trump lied about the Maricopa audit. Surprised?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2021/05/15/trump-says-arizona-audit-found-unbelievable-election-crime-nonsense/5115549001/

....
What bothers me is that you can clearly see when the file were made (a year before the deletion date or more) and what they were called (things relating to 2019 elections or something).

Point is, this is very clearly not related to the 2020 election so how the hell did anyone fall for it?
^ This is all bs.

There are no federal or state offices voted on in 2019.
https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_elections,_2019
I'm sorry.  Care to retype that?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: Trump
« Reply #8859 on: May 19, 2021, 05:22:19 PM »
I'm not really sure what more there is to discuss on this. The PA Lawmakers were concerned about errors in government vote counting systems and in the later discussion with the election people they admitted to errors in government vote counting systems. The lawmakers probably didn't publicly bring that particular SURE discrepancy up again because the errors were already admitted to.

See these two quotes:

Quote
PA Lawmakers: Numbers Don't Add Up
Certification of Presidential Results Premature and in Error

Quote
Anderson added that often a voter will fill out a provisional ballot, but also mistakenly sign the poll book. So until the error is caught, there will be one less ballot than shown in the poll book totals.

He also said that, during the tedious two week process of manually scanning polls books and envelopes for SURE statistics, some ballots don’t scan, and a few manual errors are inadvertently made by overworked election workers.

Anderson assured Diamond that those errors will be caught and fixed in the SURE system in time for the next election.

Diamond ended by expressing his satisfaction. 'You’ve answered a lot of my questions, and I really do appreciate it.

It sure sounds like they mumbled some stuff about poll books and overworked election workers and basically finished with "you were right, there are errors, but we promise to do better next time" to me.


Let me try from a different angle, because we're clearly talking past each other.

Here's the order of events, and why it doesn't add up the way you are describing things:

1. On Dec. 28th, 2021 Rep. Ryan and Diamond released a statement (that you've posted several times) claiming that a discrepancy between SURE numbers and final county numbers implies voter fraud.

2. Immediately - on the same day - Dec. 28th, 2021 the Pennsylvania Department of State released a statement in response (which I excerpted many comments ago, and you never replied to after I kept bringing it up). This response said in relevant part, "To put it simply, this so-called analysis [of Rep. Ryan and Diamond] was based on incomplete data."

3. A little over a week later - on Jan. 7, 2021 - the Lebanon County Director of Elections and Voter Registration, Michael Anderson, spoken with Rep. Diamond via Zoom and explained why Rep. Diamond and Ryan are wrong.

4. Since that time - Jan. 7th - there has been silence from both Rep. Ryan and Diamond. If they were right all along, contrary to the PA Department of State's rebuttal and the Director of Elections and Voter Registration's explanation on Jan. 7th, why have they not responded to those rebuttals and pursued legal options in the courts? After all, if there really were voter fraud, and they weren't simply mistaken (as now appears to be the case), they should dutifully get to the "real" bottom of things, right? 

The fact that there has been no word on this topic from Rep. Ryan and Diamond since Jan. 7th strongly implies they have accepted they were mistaken in their initial analysis and statement, and are moving on with other things. 

All you have done is try to argue with the rebuttals to Ryan and Diamond, and to do so quite unsuccessfully.

Where's your evidence, Tom?