But calling and saying "please count me in as someone who wants an audit", as has been pushed here is going to do nothing other than clog up the DOJ phone lines.

to see here? There is something wrong with reading a newspaper report of it and request that it be investigated?

At this point, their evidence is basically the same as Trump's surefire plan to beat ISIS that he won't tell anybody. Until they actually present some evidence, it's not believable.

corruption and malfeasance do that. Why are people fighting so hard against having the DOJ look at the analysis they have done?

more seriously, and will make them think twice before saying, "Nothing to see here, move along."

They're human. They fear hordes just like everyone else.

or Twitter, or maybe both...

It's true...

states.

The DOJ needs to be heavily encouraged to look into those reports to see if they are true. If they are true, there needs to be an investigation and possible recount.

How did we become aware of the evidence for Watergate, for example? We read it in a newspaper, and the story caught and was eventually investigated.

Even he said he didn't have any proof, just what he believed to be anomalies.

And something I don't understand is this - if this computer scientist is saying that his whole hypothesis is based on the fact that Hillary got fewer votes in computer-only counters, then why is he calling for an audit in Michigan, where they use paper ballots?

What a great idea!

it's for the computer guy to answer.

The DOJ wants evidence, and this ain't it.

the decrees of some random guy on the internet and ignore your decrees.

Have a lovely evening.

I believe you are converting "innocent until proven guilty" into "no investigation without conclusive proof of a crime". People are held innocent until proven guilty for moral reasons, not logical ones. Events are not "innocent".

The idea that the Democrats will _always_ back down in the face of election fraud is quite a demoralizing one for many people. Audits of elections should be routine, and random.

It has to do with needing actual evidence of fraud.

And being upset about the unexpected outcome of an election isn't evidence of anything other than being unable to accept the reality of the situation.

It's the exact same mindset that had anyone who said Hillary could lose this being labeled as "concern trolls", and it's the same live-in-the-bubble mentality that, unless changed, will lead to devastating losses in the Senate in 2018.

That's the misapplied criteria right there, collapsed into the word "actual". There is enough evidence to investigate, this should be routine.

This conspiracy nonsense is silly. If all it takes is an unsupported claim on the internet, then obviously the DOJ should be investigating the claims that Clinton's lead in the popular vote is due to undocumented immigrants voting.

This is advanced by people with proper credentials to qualify them for the initial, preliminary investigation. They are concluding that a formal investigation is called for. This is hardly a vague claim. Calling for the case to be proved before it can be investigated is incoherent - how could that work?

"Conspiracy nonsense"
"Random person"
"unsupported"

These are dismissive assertions you've made about these good-faith investigators, without much but your opinion to back them up.