OH, THEY’VE BEEN WINNING BY FRAUD FOR AT LEAST 12 YEARS, PROBABLY MORE: Election Fraud is an Issue…

OH, THEY’VE BEEN WINNING BY FRAUD FOR AT LEAST 12 YEARS, PROBABLY MORE: Election Fraud is an Issue that Will Not Go Away . But this time? This time it was so blatant, they’re fools to think they can hide the stinking corpse under the rag rug.

Source: OH, THEY’VE BEEN WINNING BY FRAUD FOR AT LEAST 12 YEARS, PROBABLY MORE: Election Fraud is an Issue…

What if Proof of 2020 Presidential Election Fraud Develops?

If the last month has taught us anything, today’s conspiracy theory could easily be tomorrow’s commonsense truth.

….

Let’s further assume that the legislatures of Georgia and Pennsylvania determine that there was sufficient fraud in their states to flip the state’s vote to Donald Trump. With Arizona and Wisconsin, those states would bring the total to 57 electoral votes flipped from Biden to Trump, changing the totals to 249 to 289 and leaving Trump with a majority.

What then? Can a state reverse its electoral vote after certification and counting? Can states recall their electors post-inauguration? Can Congress meet and redo the vote count six months after an inauguration? None has ever been done and there is nothing in the Constitution about doing so. Can the House impeach the President for the fraud? Even if the GOP controlled the Senate a conviction would be unlikely because there’s probably little to connect Joe Biden with the actual fraud done on his behalf.

Can the Supreme Court order a new election? While the Constitution gives the Court no such power, in the Bizarro world of modern America that certainly seems to be no barrier. It is unlikely, however, as the Justices had two clear opportunities to resolve this problem and did nothing. When Pennsylvania Republicans sued seeking to throw out the clearly unconstitutional changes to voting law, the Court demurred. Unconstitutional changes such as these are of course the very basis for the Texas lawsuit that the Supreme Court refused to hear after the election. One state allowing their election to be stolen does indeed negatively impact the rights of citizens of another state if that activity results in a fraudulent president who runs the government of the United States under which all American citizens are governed.

Once the fraud has been demonstrated, America is going to find itself in a situation where it doesn’t appear that there is any Constitutional remedy in place. Are Americans simply supposed to acquiesce to the theft and allow the fraudulent president to be the actual president for the next three years?

No. That would be like a thief stealing your identity and looting your bank account and then once discovered, being allowed to keep it because, as we all remember from elementary school, “possession is 9/10ths of the law.” That was wrong in elementary school and it’s wrong in the Oval Office.

Source: What if Proof of 2020 Presidential Election Fraud Develops?

‘Pristine’ Ballots Put Georgia Vote Fraud on Judge’s Mind

If this proves true in enough places, it could mean Biden did not win in 2020. However there doesn’t seem to be any method of reversing the election.

When Fulton County, Ga., poll manager Suzi Voyles sorted through a large stack of mail-in ballots last November, she noticed an alarmingly odd pattern of uniformity in the markings for Joseph R. Biden. One after another, the absentee votes contained perfectly filled-in ovals for Biden — except that each of the darkened bubbles featured an identical white void inside them in the shape of a tiny crescent, indicating they’d been marked with toner ink instead of a pen or pencil.

Adding to suspicions, she noticed that all of the ballots were printed on different stock paper than the others she handled as part of a statewide hand recount of the razor-thin Nov. 3 presidential election. And none was folded or creased, as she typically observed in mail-in ballots that had been removed from envelopes.

In short, the Biden votes looked like they’d been duplicated by a copying machine.

“All of them were strangely pristine,” said Voyles, who said she’d never seen anything like it in her 20 years monitoring elections in Fulton County, which includes much of Atlanta.

She wasn’t alone. At least three other poll workers observed the same thing in stacks of absentee ballots for Biden processed by the county, and they have joined Voyles in swearing under penalty of perjury that they looked fake.

Now election watchdogs have used their affidavits to help convince a state judge to unseal all of the 147,000 mail-in ballots counted in Fulton and allow a closer inspection of the suspicious Biden ballots for evidence of counterfeiting. They argue that potentially tens of thousands may have been manufactured in a race that Biden won by just 12,000 votes thanks to a late surge of mail-in ballots counted after election monitors were shooed from State Farm Arena in Atlanta.

“We have what is almost surely major absentee-ballot fraud in Fulton County involving 10,000 to 20,000 probably false ballots,” said Garland Favorito, the lead petitioner in the case and a certified poll watcher who runs VoterGa.org, one of the leading advocates for election integrity in the state.

He said the suspect ballots remain in the custody of the election officials and inaccessible from public view.

“We have confirmed that there are five pallets of shrink-wrapped ballots in a county warehouse,” Favorito said in an interview with RealClearInvestigations.

He and other petitioners were ordered to meet at the warehouse May 28 to settle the terms of the inspection of the absentee ballots. But the day before the scheduled meeting, the county filed a flurry of motions to dismiss the case, delaying the inspection indefinitely.

“We will be in court on June 21 to resolve these motions,” said Favorito, calling them another “roadblock” the county has tried to throw in their way. He expects talks over the logistics of the inspection to resume after the Fourth of July holiday.

Source: ‘Pristine’ Ballots Put Georgia Vote Fraud on Judge’s Mind

[Stewart Baker] What I learned when Linkedin suppressed my post

[The lack of transparency is what makes suppression work.] I’ve been warning for years about how social media suppresses views that aren’t popular in Silicon Valley. Until recently, though, I hadn’t found myself on the receiving end of its power.

Let’s start with the Hunter Biden laptop story.

I know. You’re probably already scoffing. Certainly my mostly liberal (and even some conservative) friends are convinced the whole thing is bogus, of interest only to denizens of the Trump fever swamp.  They remember that the laptop was never verified, that it was widely suspected of being a product of Russian hacking and disinformation, and even if true, that it was simply a wallow in Hunter Biden’s many personal failings that told us nothing about his father’s fitness for office.

Most of those widespread views are wrong. They are contradicted by a long and detailed story in the UK’s Daily Mail. The “Russian disinformation” claim never stood up to much scrutiny, consisting as it did mainly of assertions that faking a laptop was the kind of thing the Russians would do. Now, however, the Daily Mail has validated the laptop and its contents, both obtaining a former FBI agent’s forensic judgment and conducting a detailed examination of the laptop’s contents. The sheer volume of material makes it highly unlikely that the laptop itself was a fabrication. There are 103,000 text messages, including many intimate (and heart-breaking) father-son exchanges, 154,000 emails, and over 2,000 photos, including numerous nude or sexual pictures of Biden and others. (That leaves open the possibility that someone, perhaps even Russian intelligence, might have added a few fake documents to the real ones – a possibility that would seem to call for detailed examination of the laptop’s contents, something no mainstream media outlet has deigned to conduct.)

As for its relevance to President Biden’s fitness, earlier reporting disclosed correspondence suggesting that Hunter’s unsavory businesses exploited or even benefited his father. And the Daily Mail claims that Hunter was getting some form of Secret Service protection long after the agency claimed to have ended its work for the Biden family. Maybe these stories will fall apart on examination, but there can be little doubt that they deserve investigation. And little doubt that such an investigation could have influenced the 2020 election campaign, when the laptop first surfaced.

What the laptop story got was the opposite of examination. Relying on the unsupported “Russian hacking” conspiracy theory, Twitter blocked the New York Post article. Indeed it blocked the New York Post’s Twitter account for weeks because the Post refused to retract its original tweet about the story. Facebook also limited distribution of the story. The threat was clear enough. Even an established media outlet could lose reach and ad revenue if it reported on the story.  And the threat worked; no mainstream publication followed up on the Post article, except for a New York Times article that put the knife in by reporting on controversy over the story’s publication in the Post newsroom. When the story came up during the Presidential debates, candidate Biden was able to dismiss it unchallenged as “a Russian plan [and] a bunch of garbage.”

To my mind, this treatment of the Biden laptop story tells us a lot about the role that Silicon Valley intends to play in future elections. Companies like Twitter were so fearful of a second Trump victory that they seized on a dubious hacking claim to suppress the story. That act of censorship may well have changed the outcome of the election. So when the Daily Mail showed that the hacking excuse for suppressing the story was specious, I posted a link to the Daily Mail story on Twitter and Linkedin, with this introduction:

“The social media giants that won’t let you say the 2020 election was rigged are the people who did their best to rig it: Hunter Biden laptop was genuine and scandalous—Daily Mail”

Linkedin (but not Twitter) decided that I couldn’t say that.

….

I hadn’t been bullied by such a clueless authoritarian since high school. So instead of moving on to some less fraught topic I doubled down, posting five variants of my original post. The idea was to see exactly what it was about my original post that triggered Linkedin’s antibodies. I began by simply posting “The straight news version: The Hunter Biden laptop was genuine and scandalous, according to the Daily Mail.” Then I added a link to the Daily Mail story. Then I added commentary: “Social media suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story in the middle of the 2020 election campaign. Now we know that the story they suppressed was true.” In the fifth post, I was more pointed: “Social media won’t let you talk about election interference in 2020. Maybe that’s because it was social media that interfered in the election by suppressing a true story that would have hurt Joe Biden.” And, finally, I reposted the original, which said the same thing as the fifth, but talked about “rigging” rather than “interfering with” the election.

I thought there was a real possibility that Linkedin would deplatform me for the same reason the vice principal used to discipline me in high school – my palpable lack of respect for authority. But it was a risk I was willing to take in the name of science – trying to figure out exactly what triggered Linkedin’s content suppression machinery. To cut to the chase, Linkedin left up all of my posts except the one that repeated the original post. That came down, and I again was warned about Linkedin’s professional standards.

….

Source: [Stewart Baker] What I learned when Linkedin suppressed my post

A Majority of Voters Think Cheating Affected the Results of the 2020 Election

The Supreme Court may have refused to hear any challenges to the 2020 presidential election, but that may prove to be a huge mistake as a majority of voters believe that cheating affected the outcome of the presidential election.

According to Rasmussen Reports, “Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans believe it is likely last year’s presidential election was affected by cheating, a view shared by 30% of Democrats and 51% of voters not affiliated with either major party.”

Think about that. Nearly a third of Democrats admitted that they believe cheating may have impacted the result—meaning that they think Trump may have been the legitimate winner of the election.

Overall, a majority of all voters, 51 percent, believe it is likely that cheating affected the outcome—35 percent say it’s very likely.

“Concerns about cheating have plagued President Joe Biden ever since Election Day,” explains Rasmussen. “In November, a Rasmussen Reports survey found 47% of voters believed it was likely that Democrats stole votes or destroyed pro-Trump ballots in several states to ensure that Biden would win. An overwhelming majority of GOP voters believe Democrats cheated in 2020. Republican officials have responded by launching an election integrity project to make it ‘easier to vote and harder to cheat.”

The poll also found that voters are far more concerned with election integrity than they are making it easier to vote. “Asked which is more important, making it easier for everybody to vote, or making sure there is no cheating in elections, 60% of Likely Voters say it’s more important to prevent cheating, while 37% said it’s more important to make it easier to vote,” explains Rasmussen. “Only 22% of voters say it is currently too hard to vote, while 34% said it’s too easy to vote, and 41% say the level of difficulty in voting is about right.”

Democrats have long claimed that efforts to ensure the integrity of elections are racist, but the desire to prevent cheating in elections transcends race, and all races overwhelmingly reject the notion that voter ID laws discriminate.

“Majorities of all racial groups – 59% of whites, 56% of blacks and 63% of other minority voters – say it is more important to make sure there is no cheating in elections than to make it easier to vote,” reports Rasmussen. “Likewise, majorities of all racial groups – 64% of whites, 59% of blacks and 58% of other minority voters – reject the claim that voter ID laws discriminate against some voters.” However, 61 percent of Democrats are more concerned with making it easier to vote than they are about election integrity.

This is a serious problem, even for the “winners”. If the “winners” also think there was cheating, they won’t feel the need to vote in order to ensure a victory.

What if they gave an election and nobody came?

And there were still lots of votes cast?

Source: A Majority of Voters Think Cheating Affected the Results of the 2020 Election

TRUMP VINDICATED AS JUDGE RULES MICHIGAN SECRETARY OF STATE VIOLATED ELECTION LAWS….

A judge in Michigan has vindicated President Trump by ruling that Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, broke state law when she unilaterally changed election rules concerning absentee balloting in the 2020 election. This ruling legitimizes a key claim made by the Trump legal team in its challenges to the 2020 election.

A major change imposed by Benson was loosening the signature verification requirement for absentee ballots. Michigan Court of Claims Chief Judge Christopher Murray ruled that this change violated Michigan Administrative Procedures Act.

The court made the following conclusion:

…nowhere in this state’s election law has the Legislature indicated that signatures are to be presumed valid, nor did the Legislature require that signatures are to be accepted so long as there are any redeeming qualities in the application or return envelope as compared with the signature on file. Policy determinations like the one at issue — which places the thumb on the scale in favor of a signature’s validity — should be made pursuant to properly promulgated rules under the APA or by the Legislature.

Over 3.1 million Michiganders voted by absentee ballot in November. Biden “won” the state by just over 154,000 votes, according to the state-certified results.

….

Michigan was not the only state where Democrat state officials unilaterally changed election laws, so this ruling certainly raises legitimate doubts whether Biden truly won the election without invalid votes.

Source: TRUMP VINDICATED AS JUDGE RULES MICHIGAN SECRETARY OF STATE VIOLATED ELECTION LAWS….

Courts Refused to Consider Merits of Trump 2020 Claims

Rasmussen survey last month found that 61 percent of Republicans say Joe Biden did not win the election fairly. That number hasn’t changed much since early January, when 69 percent of GOP voters voiced the same concern. That 34 percent of all voters and 36 percent of independents agree with them is a strong signal that something went terribly amiss in the maelstrom of election cases.

The election is over. There has been an inauguration. So why did ABC’s George Stephanopoulos feel the need to berate a U.S. senator and his audience with the demand, “Can’t you just say the words: This election was not stolen?” Why must he shout, “There were 86 challenges filed by President Trump and his allies in court. All were dismissed!”

Perhaps, the answer lies in the details of those cases, as much in how they were adjudicated as in the final rulings.

Let’s start with some clarity: The list of more than 80 cases includes both the same cases that were appealed through various courts and many that had no direct tie to the president’s legal team or the Republican Party. In reality, there were 28 unique cases filed across the six contested states by President Trump or others on his behalf.

Twelve were filed in Pennsylvania, six in Georgia, and two or three in each of the other states. Of course, there was also the lawsuit filed by the state of Texas against the state of Pennsylvania that had the potential to change the outcome. So let’s call it 29.

To be sure, that is still a lot of cases. Yet to understand why there is still widespread unease with the election, would it not be better to stop demanding conformity and instead dig deeper to see what the courts told us in those cases, and what they did not? A review of them shows that, contrary to a common narrative, few were ever considered on the merits.

Death by Technicalities

First of all, we can recognize that many of the cases produced no useful information relative to election integrity. We learned nothing from a lawsuit dismissed by a state judge in Georgia (Boland v. Raffenspergeron the basis that the plaintiff had sued an “improper party” rather than hearing the merits of why the ballot rejection rate allegedly dropped from 1.53 percent in 2018 to 0.15 percent in the 2020 general election.

Source: Courts Refused to Consider Merits of Trump 2020 Claims

NONSENSE, ALL THE BEST PEOPLE ASSURED ME THAT HIS SUITS WERE ALL FRIVOLOUS: Trump Won Two-Thirds of…

Of the 22 cases that have been heard by the courts and decided on their merits, Trump and Republicans have prevailed in 15, according to citizen journalist John Droz Jr., a physicist and environmental advocate in Morehead City, N.C.

Droz thus reports that  Trump has won two-thirds of the cases fully adjudicated by the courts.

Three of the 15 cases whose rulings were favorable to Trump were filed on or after election day, Nov. 3.

Droz and a team of volunteers dug through court filings and legal minutiae to track down 81 lawsuits that were filed in connection with the Nov. 3, 2020 presidential election. The lawsuits were tracked on Droz’s publicly available spreadsheet that was current as of Feb. 6.

Source: Epoch Times

Hat tip: NONSENSE, ALL THE BEST PEOPLE ASSURED ME THAT HIS SUITS WERE ALL FRIVOLOUS

More about that Time article: the Arizona call by Fox and many other incidents of interest

That recent Time article I’ve already discussed ( in this post ) is the gift that keeps on giving. The more you think about the article, the more it seems to reveal and/or suggest. For example, take this excerpt [emphasis added mine; additions in brackets mine]: Election night began with many Democrats despairing.

Source: More about that Time article: the Arizona call by Fox and many other incidents of interest

Time Magazine explains how the election was rigged

A second odd thing happened amid Trump’s attempts to reverse the result: corporate America turned on him. Hundreds of major business leaders, many of whom had backed Trump’s candidacy and supported his policies, called on him to concede. To the President, something felt amiss. “It was all very, very strange,” Trump said on Dec. 2. “Within days after the election, we witnessed an orchestrated effort to anoint the winner, even while many key states were still being counted.”

In a way, Trump was right.

There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans. The pact was formalized in a terse, little-noticed joint statement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO published on Election Day. Both sides would come to see it as a sort of implicit bargain–inspired by the summer’s massive, sometimes destructive racial-justice protests–in which the forces of labor came together with the forces of capital to keep the peace and oppose Trump’s assault on democracy.

….

This is the inside story of the conspiracy to save the 2020 election, based on access to the group’s inner workings, never-before-seen documents and interviews with dozens of those involved from across the political spectrum. It is the story of an unprecedented, creative and determined campaign whose success also reveals how close the nation came to disaster. “Every attempt to interfere with the proper outcome of the election was defeated,” says Ian Bassin, co-founder of Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan rule-of-law advocacy group. “But it’s massively important for the country to understand that it didn’t happen accidentally. The system didn’t work magically. Democracy is not self-executing.”

That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures.

Source: Time Magazine

Hat tip: Time Magazine explains how the election was rigged

It was necessary to destroy democracy in order to save it.