Here is the Wikipedia entry for Judicial Watch’s false claims on voter fraud...
False voter fraud claims[edit]
In August 2017, Judicial Watch falsely alleged that 11 California counties had more registered voters than their estimated populations of citizens eligible to vote; the claims were picked up by outlets such as Breitbart News and Russian propaganda network RT (Russia Today).[35] Judicial Watch counted "inactive voters" in its tally, which is a list of people that California maintains of people who have been removed from active rolls after a mail ballot, voter guide or other official document was returned as undeliverable; California keeps such a list as a fail-safe in case eligible voters have been erroneously categorized as "inactive".[35] California Secretary of State Alex Padilla said Judicial Watch's claims were "baseless", and "bad math and dubious methodology".[35][36] When the Los Angeles Times asked Judicial Watch to share its analysis of voter registration in California, Judicial Watch declined.[36] Judicial Watch's voter fraud claims came in the wake of President Donald Trump's false claims of extensive voter fraud in California during the 2016 presidential election.[36]
On 3 February 2020, the day of the Iowa caucuses in the Democratic presidential primary, JW president Tom Fitton suggested that voter fraud was afoot in Iowa by falsely claiming that "eight Iowa counties have more voter registrations than citizens old enough to register." The false assertion went viral on social media.[37][38] Iowa's Secretary of State, Paul Pate, a member of the Republican Party, debunked Fitton's claim by linking to official voter registration data.[39][40]
Fitton has made alarmist claims about voter fraud, saying "We have all heard about voter fraud and the attempts by liberal media organs like the New York Times and Ivory Tower academics to dismiss it as a nonexistent problem. But is it real, widespread, and substantial to the point that it can decide elections."[41]
These look like good guys to you WB?
Judicial watch is another vigilant conservative group that the Democrat/Left and complicit liberal media would like to slander and destroy. Probably half or more of what we know about the Russia Hoax and abuses of the DOJ/FBI/CIA/FISA court we know only because of FOIA requests of Judicial Watch.
That's like using Southern Poverty Law Center as the "reliable source" to black-list conservative groups from Facebook and Twitter as "hate groups", when it is in fact SPLC that is the maalicious hate group.
Malicious propaganda smears is not the same thing as facts.
These attempts should make you nervous too, because if the Left manages to successfully silence Fox News, and Judicial Watch, and me and other conservatives, they will target you and other liberals and further revise what you can say and think and do as well. The attempts of the Left to do this throughout the Obama years, and even during the Trump years with lawless mob intimidation, truly terrifies me. If it were any leader but Trump, republican or democrat, I think the Left's authoritarian takeover would have successfully occurred by now. Only Trump has shown the leadership to oppose it. Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, Antifa, the open borders movement, impeachment, coronavirus, any other leader would have acqiesced by now.
Guys like Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio, joint chiefs chair Milley, Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell (the most powerful Republican in the GOP!) have shown their complete willingness to sell out the conservatives who trusted and voted for them.
And of course, Democrats are the piece of shit party of treason and surrender, from Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer on down. There is no separation now from the most extreme fanatics of the Democrat party and the so-called DNC "centrists" at this point. The DNC is in meltdown. If anyone is going to save us from this chaos, it will be led by Trump, as no one else in the GOP, and certainly not the DNC, has the spine and leadership to do so.
Not even an attempt to address Judicial Watches lies. It’s just more accusations and name calling by you. Is the dishonesty acceptable because it’s for the cause?
is an absolute lie on your part.
I answered that the California secretary of state is a political operative (i.e., a partisan hack, not an objective "source") and since it serves his Bolshevik party to slander and discredit Judicial Watch (as it also serves liberal-partisan Wikipedia as well) he alleged Judicial Watch was wrong, when it is an absolute fact that California's voter rolls are filled with outdated fraudulent voters listed, dead voters, voters who have moved away, that Democrat-controlled California keeps on the books for nefarious purposes, specifically
voter fraud.
And I cited that California alone has more fraudulent votes than the 2.8 million popular votes that Hillary Clinton "won" in 2016.
The "lie" is that Judicial Watch lied.
There
were, in fact outdated voter lists in California, they just tried to rationalize it that Democrat-controlled California keeps them on the list "as a fail-safe". But they are, in fact, people who are dead or have moved away, and have been left on the voting rolls for more than 5 or 10 years. Republicans are pushing to verify or remove them after 3 years, keeping them verified and current.
What you front as factual and sourced is a lie, fronted by Democrat partisan hacks, who like the ambiguity in California and elsewhere, because it enables their voter-fraud.
Regarding the Iowa Caucus (which on the Democrat side was the most disaastrous election in Iowa history, by the way, and resulted in resignations and a corrupt vote that should have gone to Bernie Sanders but was delayed to benefit Joe Biden), your source is again a lie that is eager to discredit Judicial Watch, but the facts are not what you present:
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/2020-election-democratic-iowa-caucuses/card/rTARHpxhXxC4tVEPtS69Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch *DID** back up their data and analysis methods in a logical and methodical way. And while one could disagree with their methodology, they still "highlight a common issue with accuracy of voter rolls that has prompted concern", and make an effort to present hard numbers, that they were't shy about explaining, as your "source" lyingly misrepresented.
At best, Iowa's election commissioner can only say that of the 8 districts that Judicial Watch cited as suspiciously having more voters than actual people, that it is absolutely true of only 5 of the 8! But Judicial Watch says they stand by their numbers, and left no mystery to how they calculated those numbers. Which your source lyingly said Judicial Watch wasn't willing to disclose.
A proven lie, and not by Judicial Watch.
