3 ms·

Here you go: > During his guilty plea hearing, Demuro admitted that while serving as an elected municipal Judge of Elections, he accepted bribes in the form of

Here you go: > During his guilty plea hearing, Demuro admitted that while serving as an elected municipal Judge of Elections, he accepted bribes in the form of money and other things of value in exchange for adding ballots to increase the vote totals for certain candidates on the voting machines in his jurisdiction and for certifying tallies of all the ballots, including the fraudulent ballots. [1] This was 6 months ago. That's election fraud. Investigations don't start with proof, they start with claims. These areas have in large part said that even trying to discover evidence is moot, and that no investigation has standing. Worse, YouTube is saying that even claims for investigation are invalid. Or that claims of voter fraud past a deadline are somehow off limits, when essentially the _entire_ left wing of the Democratic party has been making claims like these for 4 years. [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-philadelphia-judge-elections-convicted-conspiring-violate-civil-rights-and-bribery https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-philadelphia-judge-ele...

UncleMeat 6y ago
> when essentially the _entire_ left wing of the Democratic party has been making claims like these for 4 years. Clinton conceded the day after the 2016 election. The democrats have been saying that it is bad to solicit aid from a foreign power to help you win an election through social media campaigns and hacking email accounts. That's wildly different than "actually I got the most votes in relevant states and really should be president".
abernard1 6y ago
> Clinton conceded the day after the 2016 election. That's immaterial. YouTube's censorship restrictions have nothing to do with a formal concession, merely claims of fraud impacting the election. And identical claims of election tampering resulting in a "fraudulent electioin" have been ongoing by Democrats on MSNBC, Twitter, Facebook, CNN etc. for 4 years. So we're now in a boat where Google/YouTube is essentially arguing they're qualified to make judgements on defending election integrity in the U.S. It has nothing to do with policy consistency, and everything to do with who the people are who work there.
- tptacek 6y ago
  Every private entity is qualified to make judgements on defending election integrity in the US. They are not required to come up with plans you like.

UncleMeat 6y ago

> when essentially the _entire_ left wing of the Democratic party has been making claims like these for 4 years. Clinton conceded the day after the 2016 election. The democrats have been saying that it is bad to solicit aid from a foreign power to help you win an election through social media campaigns and hacking email accounts. That's wildly different than "actually I got the most votes in relevant states and really should be president".

abernard1 6y ago

> Clinton conceded the day after the 2016 election. That's immaterial. YouTube's censorship restrictions have nothing to do with a formal concession, merely claims of fraud impacting the election. And identical claims of election tampering resulting in a "fraudulent electioin" have been ongoing by Democrats on MSNBC, Twitter, Facebook, CNN etc. for 4 years. So we're now in a boat where Google/YouTube is essentially arguing they're qualified to make judgements on defending election integrity in the U.S. It has nothing to do with policy consistency, and everything to do with who the people are who work there.

tptacek 6y ago
Every private entity is qualified to make judgements on defending election integrity in the US. They are not required to come up with plans you like.