Notes on the 2020 Election

As I acknowledge below, I regard there being large-scale election fraud on the Democrats’ part a priori plausible. So, soon after the election, when many allegations of fraud were appearing, too many to remember, I began making notes of them. Here they are, along with some conclusions and other observations, without much attention given to organizing them or editing out redundancies. Since I am adding to this post as new information comes to light, some inconsistencies should become apparent.

I How I approach this:

I can express my judgment as a Bayesian inference. This is not the only way to think about evaluating the import of evidence, but I think it’s readily applicable to this case. In case you’re not familiar with Bayes’ Theorem, it’s

Pr(H|E) = ((Pr(E|H) x Pr(H)) /Pr(E),

where

H is the hypothesis that there was massive fraud and E is the evidence for it,

Pr(H|E) is the likelihood (conditional probability) of the hypothesis, given the evidence,

Pr(E|H) is the likelihood of the evidence, given the hypothesis,

Pr(H) is the prior probability of the hypothesis (likelihood) given all our background beliefs but not E

and

Pr(E) is the probability of the evidence, its likelihood in light of all our background beliefs, i.e., should we expect to see it in the absence of the hypothesis, i.e., if there was no widespread fraud?

Thomas Bayes, an 18th century English Presbyterian cleric, derived the theorem now named for him from the fundamental, self-evident theorem: Pr(A|B) = Pr(A & B)/Pr(B). Bayes’ theorem was largely unnoticed until its significance was recognized in the philosophy of science in the last quarter of the preceding century. Since then, it has been put to use widely across many disciplines and technologies.

The equation makes explicit the relations among one’s various judgments of probability. For instance, as the prior probability of H increases, so does Pr(H|E). If it’s what we expect to see in any event, we don’t need much evidence to judge that it’s probably true. While if Pr(H) is low, it can be reasonably believed only on the basis of very good evidence.

All things being equal, if Pr(E) is low, i.e., it’s not something we’d expect to see given all our other beliefs, then unless Pr(E|H) x Pr(H) is low, Pr(H|E) is high. But if the evidence is what we’d expect to see no matter what, then even if Pr(E|H) and/or Pr(H) is high, it won’t do much to raise Pr(H|E). And so on.

The arithmetical formalism on its own, of course, proves nothing. What you get for Pr(H|E), in this case Pr(widespread fraud|the evidence) depends on what values one inputs in the numerator and denominator. And, of course, we cannot input actual numerical likelihoods, but only use this framework to consider the types of judgments, and their relations, that come into play.

In the political context, the prior probability of systemic fraud is very probable, in virtue of the Left’s widespread belief that Trump is singularly evil and a threat to the nation (or, in reality, to the ruling political class). I don’t find it plausible that those who felt justified in propagating preposterous lies about Trump, and who conceived and perpetuated the Russia hoax and the Ukraine impeachment would hesitate to get rid of Trump and secure their power by election fraud if they thought they could. Their efforts, coextensive with essentially the entire Trump presidency, involved not just much unethical conduct, including the gross deception of the American public, but the violation of Federal law and lying to Federal judges. If these people acknowledged any constraint on what they would do to safeguard their rule from Trump, other than a high likelihood of being caught and punished, I don't know what it is. Further, they could be confident that the mainstream media, almost all Democrats, and many Republicans would defend them, or at least ignore the fraud, no matter what evidence was brought to light. (We should see what occurred not as the Democrats stealing the presidency from the Republicans, but as the ruling elite stealing it from the American people,) These are people who believe they are entitled to rule in virtue of their moral and intellectual superiority, and have demonstrated a willingness not to abide by constraints of common morality or law when their rule is threatened. So, I set out taking Pr(H) as high. (Below, I include an appendix in which I explain why the underlying ideology, and not just the history, of the Democratic party supports this conclusion.)

What’s remarkable about the current discussion is that this prior probability is largely ignored. Yet this value conditions the evaluation of the other elements. When the accused is known to have had a strong motivation, as well as means and opportunity, to commit the alleged crime, one does not require a huge amount of evidence to reach a conclusion of probable guilt. But in this case, there’s a great deal of evidence. In face of it, one would have to set out with a very low prior probability that the Democrats would commit large-scale fraud if they had the means and opportunity. The history of the past four years makes such a judgment incredible.

How about Pr(E)? Would the salient phenomena of Nov. 3 – 4 be reasonably expected, assuming no fraud? Now we have to break down E into its various components, e.g., if there were no fraud, how likely is it that the vote counting would stop essentially simultaneously in all the swing states where Trump had substantial leads? And then, in the small hours of the night, after Republican poll monitors had been forcibly or deceptively expelled, would there be sudden, massive, unexplained, and statistically remarkable spikes of Biden votes in a few places where there is a long history of election fraud? Would there be multiple precincts reporting vote totals that exceed the number of voters by as much as 350%, while most precincts in the same city reported voter participation of from only 15%-20%? Would there be 5000 sworn affidavits testifying to overtly fraudulent or at least very suspicious activity or 12,000 incident reports to the RNC? Perhaps there are innocent explanations of all this but if none come to the fore, then Pr(E) is low. With Pr(H) and Pr(E|H) high and Pr(E) low, I wind up with Pr(H|E) high.

Overall, it seems to me that those now claiming there was no serious widespread fraud must believe either (1) the Democrats would never try to steal an election, even if they thought it was necessary to do away with Trump, or (2) the Democrats were so sure that non-campaigning Biden, despite his corruption, mental state, and willingness to enact extremely unpopular leftist policies, would win comfortably that they would have seen no need to be ready to steal the election if, by mid-evening, Trump had a large lead, significantly better than in 2016. I don’t think either is plausible. Contrary to (1), the Democrat controlled cities in question have a long history of voter fraud. If it occurred this time, when the stakes were higher, there was only a difference of scale and audacity.

Beyond ideological considerations, since the election it has become clear that a very large amount of money was supplied by big tech oligarchs to various officials and jurisdictions for the purpose of aiding a Biden victory. Some of this funding went to facilitating illegal changes in voting procedures; much went to paying thousands of individuals illegally to traffic ballots. However, it is at this point not clear to what--or to whom--much of this money went. The desperation with which officials are fighting forensic audits (in contrast to meaningless recounts that include possibly fraudulent ballots) is consistent with their involvement in election fraud.

II Before the Vote

1. Long before the election the Democrats and their media frequently warned that if he lost the election Donald Trump would not voluntarily leave the White House and would have to be forced out by the military. We might take this merely as a continuation of the baseless fantasizing about Trump being a dictator. On the other hand, we might take it as an attempt to create a lens through which any objections Trump would make to a stolen election would be seen and automatically discredited. (In contrast, Hilary Clinton pronounced that Joe Biden should under no circumstances concede.) Further, Democrats and their media prepared the public well before the election, advising them that there would be no final results on election day night, and that it would take days, at least, for a final result. It’s a matter of public knowledge, per their own testimony, that individuals who had been involved in perpetrating “color revolutions” outside the United States, e.g., in the Ukraine, planned to instigate the same in the United States, i.e., massive, widespread lawsuits and mass demonstrations, in the event that Trump won, so as to reverse the outcome.

2. In more than one of the contested states, the secretary of state overtly broke the law in ways sure to facilitate vote fraud. The Republican governor of Georgia made an illegal deal with the Democrats, represented by Stacey Abrams, to make changes certain to enable fraud. In PA, state authorities illegally changed voting rules, allowing for votes arriving by mail to be counted after the polls closed. On the other hand, in PA the legislature mandated that every citizen could vote absentee, despite this being plainly prohibited by the state constitution (Article VII, sec. 14), which explicitly specifies the conditions necessary for absentee voting. When the Trump campaign challenged this the PA supreme court ruled that the appeal was too late, and should have been made prior to the election. At the same time, it ruled that candidates could not challenge voting procedures before the election. Thus, it ruled that the policy cannot be challenged. In Philadelphia and other areas, counters defied court orders, including eventually one from SCOTUS, and counted these votes. The illegality consists in the U.S. Constitution assigning state legislatures, not governors or state attorney generals, the sole authority to determine voting procedures. COVID-19 was offered as an excuse for these extralegal changes in voting procedures, but it was never explained why, in states that have always made provision for absentee voting, it was now necessary to mail out millions of unsolicited ballots and then in many cases make no effort to confirm the identity of the alleged voter.

3. Not long before the election, PA requested a custom change to its ballots to permit the option of either straight-party voting or ‘à la carte’ voting. When the voter opts for a straight party vote, the machines were programmed to count the presidential vote separately from the other votes for Republicans. This makes possible results in which there’s a large recorded number of down-ballot Republican votes, but anomalously few for Trump, as in Shiva Ayyadurai’s analysis of the vote in three MI counties where the anomalous divergence increases as a smooth function as the overall number of Republican votes increases. Trump is more, not less, popular among Republican voters than the down-ballot candidates.

4. Prior to the election, Mark Zuckerberg gave at least $500 million, parceled out to various states and municipalities, to encourage anti-Trump voting. One of these cities was Green Bay, WI. The city accepted its share of the money, which came with the stipulation that Democratic operatives be given access to the facility in which absentee ballots were stored (of which Wisconsin had an unprecedented number because the state’s constitutional constraints on permitting them were flouted.) Once there, the operatives were permitted to “cure” the absentee ballots, i.e., to make them countable despite lacking signatures or the addresses of signature witnesses. The city clerk and other city employees strenuously objected to these activities but were overridden by the mayor, a highly partisan Democrat.

5. Audio recordings exist of training sessions for poll workers in MI. These include the giving of specific instructions on how to prevent Republican observers from seeing the actual counting of ballots. They were also instructed on how to harass poll watchers who objected to anything they saw, or to not being permitted to observe the counting, and how to have them ejected. Further, they were told to expect persons to show up to vote who were recorded as having already voted by mail. When they insisted they had not already voted, they were to be given a ballot for a provisional vote and told the matter would be looked into. But the workers were told to trash all the provisional ballots. This was received with laughter by the poll workers.

6. Typically, a state designs a ballot for a generic general election but does not itself print them out. Instead, it sends a .pdf file of its generic ballot to each jurisdiction for printing. Anyone who obtains access to this file can change it at will, print out as many as desired, fill them in, and include them with legitimate ballots for counting.

7. For years prior to the election, the Democrats strenuously resisted attempts to make elections more secure, invoking spurious claims that to do so was "voter suppression," largely on the ground that members of minority groups lack the competence to acquire official photo IDs.

8. On October 8, 2020 and also on election day, CISA (Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency) issued warnings that Iranian hackers were tampering with the voting by way of machines connected to the internet.

9. In the spring and summer of 2020 Politico, the New York Times, the Washington Post, other leftist publications, and various Democratic politicians sounded the alarm because the state of Georgia had purchased new Dominion voting machines which, they warned, were vulnerable to hacking, putting the integrity of the election at risk. The chaotic presidential primary in June, the first use of the machines in the state, was chaotic; the New York Times described it as a meltdown. Some expressed concern that the state’s Republican governor Raffensperger would use the machines to commit election fraud in the upcoming general election to benefit Trump. After the 2020 election, turning on a dime, these sources ridiculed concerns about the vulnerability of the Dominion machines as groundless, and portrayed the claim that they had been used to steal the election in Georgia as an absurd conspiracy theory.

10. On July 8, 2022, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin ruled in Teigen v. Wisconsin Election Commission that the commission had acted illegally, authorizing the use of drop boxes in the November 2020 election. Wisconsin law specifically prescribes that an absentee ballot must be either mailed, or submitted to an election clerk, and that this must be done in person, not by another person acting on the voter’s behalf. Prior to the election, Meagan Wolfe, Administrator of the Wisconsin Election Commission, acting unilaterally, without consultation with other members of the commission, gave local election officials permission, in writing, to set up unsupervised drop boxes. As a result, 570 boxes were used in the general election. The Court’s ruling means that votes collected by these means could not legally be counted. The number of votes from the illegal drop boxes far exceeded the number of votes by which Biden putatively won the state’s electoral votes. This is sufficient grounds to de-certify the election. It is now known, thanks to the work of Gregg Philipps and Catherine Englebrecht of True the Vote, that a great many ballots were placed into the state’s drop boxes by ballot traffickers in the pay of leftist organizations. This follows the legislature’s creation of a special counsel investigation conducted by retired Wisconsin Supreme Court justice Michael Gabelman. It concluded with the recommendation that the legislature should consider de-certifying the election due to irregularities, illegalities, and fraud. Earlier, the Racine County Sherriff’s Office uncovered eight cases of vote fraud at one nursing home in which votes were acquired from mentally incompetent residents. The Sherriff believes that the same type of fraud occurred in other nursing homes in the county, and in multiple counties across the state, if true, the fraud involved many thousands of votes.

11. In the months prior to the election, various leftist groups formulated plans to riot in Washington D.C., to create chaos in the event of a Trump victory. The avowed intention was, in contrast to the so-called insurrection of January 6, 2021, a violent overthrow of the Federal government ousting Trump and involving the take-over of government buildings in the city, The plotters included Federal employees, who would assist in the seizure of their workplaces, and groups associated with Antifa and BLM. It is not known how serious a threat this was, The aim might have been to frighten Republican lawmakers, with images of the riots of the preceding summer in mind, into ignoring or denying the theft of the election for the Democrats.

12. In the summer of 2020, Patrick Byrne came into contact with a group of cyber election specialists. On the basis of what they had seen in other countries, they predicted that on election night months later, all vote counting would be stopped for unspecified reasons and that later in the night and early the next day there would be statisically inexplicable vote dumps for one candidate in the swing states.

III The Vote Count

1. On the evening of election day in Atlanta, vote counting stopped for two hours at the State Farm Arena, allegedly because there had been a break in a water main. This did not occur. There had been a flood at a polling place (a school), and early the morning of election day a toilet somewhere in the arena had overflowed and had been fixed. The monitors and media were required to leave the arena on false pretenses. According to sworn testimony, that vote counting continued after they left. Surveillance video shows poll workers removing containers of ballots from under a table, putting the same pile of ballots through a tabulation machine three times, and surreptitiously passing a small object that appears to be a USB drive to an unidentified individual. The timing of these events corresponds to the injection of a very large spike of votes, nearly entirely for Biden, into the tally.

2. The law requires that partisan poll watchers have access to the vote counting. Nonetheless, in all the contested states, virtually simultaneously vote counting stopped and Republican poll watchers were expelled. When they resisted they were verbally abused and physically threatened. In some cases, police were called to eject them. Earlier, when watchers were permitted inside areas where votes were counted, they were confined at distances from which it is impossible to observe the counting. When close enough to observe the counting, they were surrounded and berated by abusive poll workers who kept them from seeing what was going on. In one MI counting center, cardboard was placed over windows to hide the vote counting. Monitors who were inadvertently allowed to remain have given sworn testimony to fraudulent and suspicious activity, such as vans showing up in the middle of the night loaded with an estimated 100,000 ballots in garbage cans, trash bags, paper bags, cardboard boxes, and various other non-standard containers. The first van, which arrived at 3:30 a.m., unloaded 61 boxes of ballots. Three witnesses testified that when they saw some of these ballots, or heard their votes being called out, each had a lone vote for Biden, no down-ballot votes, and no Trump votes. These ballots, delivered in the dead of night and arriving after the closing of the polls, were illegal. Eventually, official surveillance video was procured, despite resistance from election officials, which shows truckloads of ballots being delivered at 3:30 a.m. and returning with a second load one hour later.

3. The late-night Biden vote spikes are initially the most troubling aspect of the election, particularly because these large statistical anomalies correspond to testimony of fraud given by poll watchers who managed to avoid being evicted. In one Michigan center, 384,733 ballots were counted in 2 hours and 38 minutes on four machines. The published specification of the these scanning machines in question is 2000 ballots per hour under ideal conditions. Thus, the reported votes, almost all of which were for Biden, included 289,866 more than was physically possible. This physical impossibility corresponds to various statistical improbabilities in vote spikes approximating to impossibilities.

4. Intraparty comparisons of presidential candidates to down-ballot candidates, by election day vs. mail-in, have surprising results:

(a) Trump vs. Republican candidate for state treasurer in PA:

On election day: Trump receives 120,00 more votes than the Republican candidate for state treasurer.

By mail-in: Trump receives 41,000 fewer votes than for state treasurer.

(b) Biden vs. State AG

On election day: AG candidate beats Biden by 52,000 votes.

By mail in: AG candidate receives 54,000 fewer votes than Biden.

This is what we’d expect to see if the mail-in vote in the presidential contest was shifted from one candidate to the other. A winning president typically has long coattails, his party winning down-ballot races. Of 27 House races regarded as toss-ups, the Republican candidate won 27. At the state level, despite Biden’s alleged history-making win, Democrats did badly and Republicans did well. These results are what we would reasonably expect if Biden had lost badly to Trump.

5. In the Democrat ‘machine’ cities mail-in ballots were separated from the signed envelopes in which they arrived. This is ‘forensic destruction’ that renders recounts meaningless. Illegal votes are simply re-counted.

6. In Georgia, extrapolations from telephone surveys indicate that from 35,559 to 38,886 absentee ballots were returned by Republican voters, but not counted, and from 16,938 to 22,771 Republican voters received absentee ballots but didn’t request them.

Based on USPS change of address data, 20,311 absentee or early voters voted in Georgia who are not residents of the state. Also in GA, 96,600 mail-in ballots were counted despite there being no record of them being returned. More that 2,500 felons, 66,247 underage, and 2,423 unregistered are recorded as having voted. From 30,000 to 40,000 ballots lacked verifiable, valid signatures. 3,987 non-citizens voted, and 10,315 who managed to vote despite being dead. 40,279 Georgians voted in counties other than those in which they are registered. These numbers of illegal votes, or at least ballots, dwarf the 11,799 votes by which Biden officially carried the state,

7. Contrary to law, at least several thousand voter registrations in the contested states gave false addresses, not residential, but commercial address or, in many cases, PO boxes disguised so as to appear to be residential, e.g., not “P.O. Box #234” but “Unit #234,” “Suite #234,” “Apt. #234,” and so on. The overwhelming majority of these voters voted early by mail. 9989 Georgia voter registrations have non-residential addresses. A Project Veritas undercover video shows the executive director of one organization in Atlanta saying that it had fraudulently registered “thousands” of homeless persons’ residence as the organization headquarters. Another investigation produced video of non-residential or non-existent addresses, e.g., parking lots or highway underpasses, in Nevada and Detroit.

8. In Nevada’s 3rd CD, in 2020 there were 13,372 applications to register to vote that were incomplete, missing the DOB and sex of the applicant. In 2016, this number was 68, in 2012 it was 0, and in 2008 it was 1. Those whose applications lack this data were permitted to vote, but it is impossible for poll workers to identify the voter as the registered individual.

9. Mail-in ballots are presumably not counted in the order in which they were received, but shuffled (randomized) by the time they reach tabulation centers. Thus, one would expect the percentage of votes from a given locale for a given candidate to be relatively constant over time, as they were for both candidates until the after-hours counting began. This is not the case for Biden’s votes: the percentage of mail-in ballots for Biden increased drastically in the spikes that occurred during the night. Later, as smaller tranches came in, the distribution returned to statistical normalcy, with just enough Biden votes to maintain his lead. In some cases, many of these post-spike trances contained the exact same number of votes, or in some cases multiples of those numbers. This appears the product of an algorithm, not a record of actual votes.

10. Five largest vote clusters in Wayne County (Detroit), MI:

(i) Psychiatric hospital

(ii) Unidentified apartment block

(iii) Convent

(iv) Care facility

(v) Homeless drop-in center

On election night, a shocked Democratic poll official in Philadelphia who was kept away from the vote counting, pronounced that what was going on a coup.

11. In PA, there was an exceptionally large number of votes for Biden from ‘inactive voters,’ i.e., they have not voted in the last 20 years. Traditionally, such voters are moved to vote only by an extensive ground game, which the Biden campaign lacked. This is a category of registered voters whose votes are particularly susceptible to being stolen, given that they most likely won’t turn up at the polls to discover others have voted in their name. However, many individuals who were not inactive in various swing states arrived to vote on election day but were informed they had already voted by mail. They were allowed to vote provisionally, but only an analysis of signatures on the envelopes for mail-in ballots and comparison of them to voter registration signatures could lead to their votes being counted. Currently, demands for this analysis are being resisted. In some cases, the envelopes have been illegally separated from the ballots, rendering such an analysis impossible.

12. Drop boxes were placed to receive early votes. These were in some cases not monitored. In one PA case, a witness testifies to seeing vote harvesters make use of these boxes, putting into them more than the legally permitted number of votes. Sidney Powell is in possession of photos of check stubs used to pay for ballot harvesting, which is illegal in every state except California.

13. In certain contested states, e.g., Arizona and Virginia, although Trump was far ahead the media declared Biden the winner. Almost simultaneously with Fox News inexplicably calling Arizona for Biden, the ballot counting stopped in all the now-contested states, and Republican poll watchers were expelled or otherwise not permitted to observe the vote counting. Meanwhile, in Florida and North Carolina, where Trump was far closer to winning, network declarations were inexplicably long-delayed. Typically, the media might declare a winner even though he is behind in the current vote count, but in these cases, it’s not long before the vast majority of votes are counted and their projection verified. It’s unprecedented for it to take several days of counting to verify the projection. The most bizarre instance was the very premature call of AZ for Biden by Fox news. In fact, the outcome in Arizona could not be decided for several days. An effect of Fox doing this was to encourage persons who were watching the incoming results and expecting a quick Trump victory to judge that there would be no early result, stop watching and go to bed, while the amazing “blue shift” occurred with very few onlookers.

14. In PA, several thousand ballots were mailed out, filled in by the voter, returned, and received the next day, and several thousand ballots were mailed out, filled in by the voter, returned, and received the same day, or even mailed out, filled in by the voter, returned and received prior to being mailed out! This is remarkable efficiency for the USPS. The same phenomenon occurred in GA.

15. In a great many precincts in Wayne County (Detroit), there were overvotes, i.e., more votes counted than registered voters. If authentic, these are historically high percentages, e.g., in precincts that have historically voted at best at a 20% rate for Obama, the percentages were much higher and in several cases over 100%, 200%, up to 350% in one precinct. Note that there are instances where these numbers exceed not just the number of registered voters, but the number of persons eligible to register to vote, as well as the number of persons who actually voted. It was this that led the two Republicans on the canvassing committee to refuse to vote for certification until these numbers were reconciled. According to their sworn testimony, they were verbally abused and, with their families, physically threatened. One is, according to the Democrat members of the canvassing committee. a racist if she does not accept the ‘loaves and fishes’ miracle of multiplying votes. Even under these conditions, they agreed to certify the vote only on the condition that there would be an impartial audit, which the Democrat members agreed to and almost immediately reneged on.

16. In Wisconsin, the only way to vote without presenting ID is by declaring oneself “indefinitely confined.” The exception is designed to enable invalids to vote. In previous elections, the number of persons granted this status never reached as high as 2000. Yet, in the 2020 general election, 169,282 votes under this exception were counted. This is not legitimately due to COVID-19, which is explicitly excluded as grounds for an indefinite confinement exception. As many as 28,395 votes came from those who falsely identified themselves as indefinitely confined, but were later found to have been on vacation, having weddings, attending protests, and so on. One was a Biden elector. Also in WI, at least 170,000 ballots lacked the separate application document required by law. Over 100,000 late-arriving ballots were illegally back dated by postal workers and counted. Early voting in person is not allowed in Wisconsin. In heavily Democratic city of Madison officials flouted the law, setting up tables and boxes to revived ballots five weeks before the election. 17,271 ballots are known to be in this category, but many more were mixed with legal, election day ballots and cannot be identified. Also, 26,673 ballots were counted submitted by persons no longer residents of the state. In comparison, Biden's official margin of victory was 20,682. More recently, a significant amount of fraud came to light involving collecting votes from nursing home residents.

17. The pattern of votes tabulated in swing states: Trump was well ahead for hours. Late at night or early next morning huge tranches drastically favoring Biden appear. Remaining batches of votes have exact same ratio of Biden to Trump. For example, in Georgia, Trump leads Biden 57% to 42% Biden for hours. Then a large Biden spike during the night. Thereafter, every remaining batch of votes is 50.05% Biden, 49.95% for Trump. The other contested states show very similar patterns. Further, in at least two states, multiple batches of ballots of exactly the same number, almost all for Biden, were recorded during the night. To all appearances, this is the work of an algorithm designed to create and then sustain a Biden lead, not a representation of actual votes.

18. In Montgomery County (PA’s third-largest county), at 9:09 a.m. on Nov. 5, an increase of 90,022 mail-in votes was recorded, yet the total increase of votes recorded was 9534; 80,488 votes disappeared. 95.4% of the remaining votes were for Biden. In previous and subsequent batches of mail-in votes from the same pool of voters, 74.9% were for Biden and 24.4% for Trump. The probability of this is barely distinguishable from zero.

19. As noted above, well before election day, Democrats were predicting, that because of the mail-in voting, there would be no results that night, nor even in the next few days or even weeks. Every state presumably had the resources to count virtually all the votes by Wednesday morning, as in the larger states that either Biden or Trump handily won. If Texas, a never seriously contested Trump state, and Illinois, a never seriously contested Biden state, and Florida, a hotly contested state that went for Trump, why couldn’t Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, all states eventually called for Biden, do it too? In the not too distant past, prominent Democrats including Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren had strongly expressed concerns about mail-in voting being highly susceptible to fraud. Those voices have fallen silent since the election. Prior to the election, Biden said that his campaign had created "the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics." Campaigning in Detroit, three days before the election, speaking to a rally, Biden said, "I don't need your help to get me elected, but after I'm elected I'll need your help." Pelosi said, “I feel very confident that Joe Biden will be elected president on Tuesday, whatever the end count is on the election that occurs on Tuesday. He will be elected, on January 20 and he will be inaugurated president.” Perhaps these are ‘gaffes,’ which do frequently emanate from Biden and Pelosi. On the other, hand they may reveal the folly of sharing secrets with aging individuals who do not always know what they are saying. Update: in a speech given in December 2021, President Biden said, “The struggle is no longer just who gets to vote or make it easy for eligible people to vote. It’s about who gets to count the vote – whether your vote counts at all,” he continued.

20. In sworn testimony, a Republican poll monitor reported that poll workers continuously used manual adjudication for ballots that were not machine readable to record fraudulent votes for Biden. When a tabulation machine rejected a ballot—often for no discernible reason—workers were instructed to manually copy the votes onto a fresh ballot, using a pink highlighter. When it was ‘discovered’ that the machines could not read these ballots, poll workers were supplied with piles of fresh ballots which they were to fill in by hand. Efforts made by Republican poll watchers to monitor this were largely thwarted. In the cases where what was being done was observed, all ballots were being filled in with Biden votes. Also, poll workers consistently illicitly took piles of unmarked ballots back to their counting places. The same poll watcher testified that every Republican challenge was dismissed out of hand, and that in the two large urban counties of SE Michigan, no Republican was permitted to serve as a poll worker, and that in the Detroit tabulation center, virtually all the poll workers cheered when the Republican watchers were forced out and when the counts suddenly shifted from Trump to Biden. One individual, an IT specialist in the temporary employ of Dominion, testified that over the course of many hours see saw workers repeatedly feeding stacks of Biden through tabulation machines multipole times and that in this time period she saw not one Trump ballot but tens of thousands of votes for Biden.

21. In PA, 36% of absentee ballots were from individuals who had not requested them.

22. In Michigan, of persons recorded as voting who are at least 80 years old, over 17,000 were dead.

23. In Michigan, many thousands of ballots were tabulated multiple times, according to the sworn testimony of poll watchers.

24. In Arizona, 36,400 individuals who were unable to supply evidence confirming they are legal residents of the state were nonetheless provided with “Federal Only,” ballots. 22,903 mail-in ballots were returned the day before they were mailed out. 12% (265,589) of the state's mail-in ballots required adjudication. At least 103,000 ballots were adjudicated without the presence of Republican poll observers. Approximately 50,000 votes were pre-loaded in Arizona tabulation machines prior to the opening of the polls. At least 150,000 individuals allegedly registered after the close of the registration deadline passed.

25. In Michigan, military ballots cannot be entered into the tabulation machines and must be duplicated manually for tabulation. Contrary to law, this duplication process was carried out with almost no Republican observation. One Republican observer testified that she had seen many military ballots, all of which were for Biden. It was for the counting of the military ballots that the windows were covered with cardboard.

26. There is sworn testimony that there were large numbers of mail-in ballots that arrived in a pristine condition and did not need to be unfolded to be input into counting machines. Mail-in ballots must be folded twice to go into an envelope.

27. Sworn testimony: there were large numbers of ballots on which votes were machine-printed. Dominion machines have the capacity to print on ballots to enable visually impaired voters to vote. In Fulton County, GA (Atlanta) six experienced poll workers swore under oath that 30,000 ballots were counted that were on different paper than all other ballots, that their bubbles were filled in perfectly and in exactly the same way, as though by machine, many were put through the tabulators twice, their watermarks were significantly different than those of other ballots, that 97% were for Biden, and that many were put through the tabulators twice. . A judge in Georgia has declared that if it is determined that there were counterfeit ballots, he will decertify the election.

28. A USPS subcontractor truck driver testifies that he delivered a truckload of several hundred thousand filled-in ballots from Bethpage, Long Island to Pennsylvania. These ballots were traced to a printing company in Michigan which prints legal ballots for Lancashire County and Delaware County in PA, as well as for locales in Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

29. A postal worker in PA testifies that his supervisor ordered him to back-date a large number of mail-in ballots so they could be illegally counted.

30. In Michigan, the law requires that after votes are counted, a precinct’s ballots are placed in a sealed container. In the event of a recount, the ballots in a container cannot be counted if there are more votes recorded from the precinct than the number of ballots in the container. In Wayne County, 71% of the precincts’ votes are unbalanced, i.e., there are more votes recorded than ballots. Thus, no meaningful recount is possible in this county. Further, ballots cannot be included in a recount if they are in a container with a broken seal; many of the containers’ seals have been broken.

31 Although the Virginia vote has not been in the news, it’s worth noting that it exhibits anomalies similar to those in other states. The VA vote total at 5:07 a.m. on Nov. 5 was 3,572,807. At 5:12 a.m., it dropped to 3,199,165, i.e., over 350,000 votes simply disappeared.

32. Biden’s putative win depends entirely on anomalous returns from a few large cities with long histories of vote fraud, cities in which counting was simultaneously stopped, Republican poll watchers evicted, and tranches of huge numbers of Biden votes appeared during the night. Although Trump received a record proportion of the Black vote, and Biden received a proportion historically regarded as too low for a Democratic victory, the huge vote spikes dramatically in favor of Biden are legitimate only if Biden received an unprecedently high proportion of the Black vote.

33. In Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, the number of fraudulent votes produced in the traditional manner, i.e., not by means of voting machine manipulation, far exceeds the reported Biden leads.

34. 27 states, where there have been no significant accusations of vote fraud, were able to count all election day and mail-in votes by the next day. A week later, some states, where there are now accusations of vote fraud, were allegedly still counting votes and asserting that they did not know how many ballots remained to be counted. These are states where there was a “blue shift,” familiar from earlier elections where there have been charges of fraud, i.e., what appears to be a solid Republican win erodes and disappears in the days following the election as new votes are “discovered,” e.g., the 2018 Arizona senate race. There appear to be no cases of these late-appearing votes overturning an apparent Democratic win in a major contest. The 2020 presidential contest is an extreme example, with huge numbers of votes appearing after hours. overwhelmingly for Biden. (I have a friend who escaped the Communist regime in Poland literally on the eve of the imposition of martial law. Her mother, still living in Poland, was employed as a poll worker. After elections, in which the Party invariably received well over 90% of the vote, she complained about having to work late because she had to stay until “the vote came out right.”)

35. Departures from a robust statistical regularity known as Benford’s Law are commonly regarded by forensic accountants as initial evidence of financial fraud. People try to create numbers that look natural or random but very often fail because what they produce violates this regularity. It states that in large, randomly generated numbers, approximately 30% will have 1 as the first digit, 17% will have 2 as the first digit, and so on, up to 5% with 9 as the leading digit. Recorded Biden votes show a sharp divergence from this pattern. Investigators consider this is prima facie evidence of fraud, but its application to precinct vote totals has been disputed. My rather cursory look at the issue left me asking why, if this is the case, Trump’s vote totals consistently follow the Benford rule while Biden’s do not.

36. The most recent account from the states indicates that there are 213.8 million registered voters in the United States. 141.5 million votes were counted in the 2020 election. Trump won 74 million. That leaves at most 67.5 million remaining for Biden. This assumes no third-party votes, which is obviously false. Yet Biden allegedly received 81 million votes. It’s unlikely that this can be accounted for as due to late registrations, since the trend in new voter registrations was strongly Republican. The exact number of late registrations in some states is not yet available, but face value, as many as 13.5 million Biden votes are suspect.

37. In some cities in the various contested states, officials were unable to give any, or any consistent, reports on the number of ballots remaining to be counted. This suggests an intent to wait to see how many votes one candidate received before introducing sufficient fraudulent votes to overcome his lead.

38. Examination of the official time series of GA votes by county reveals that in various counties votes for Trump were decremented, rather than incremented, for a total of 17,650. Because these changes were entered along with vote totals for a great many counties, it was not apparent at the time. For example, in DeKalb County at 9:11 p.m. on election day Trump had 29,391 votes and Biden had 17,218 votes. At the next update Trump had 17,218 votes and Biden had 29,318, i.e., 12,110 votes were switched from Trump to Biden. Similarly, across 15 PA counties, sequential decrements in Trump vote totals sum to 213,707 election day votes and 218,469 absentee votes. In some cases, the decrease in the Trump vote count occurred simultaneously in different counties. There appear to be no decrements in the Biden vote total.

39. In PA, the state reported that it mailed out just under three million mail-in ballots, and that 98% of were returned. However, according to the USPS, 67% were returned. Possibly, the difference is explained due to 930,000 ballots being deposited in drop boxes, though this seems unlikely.

40. An ominous sign: In North Carolina, after a long, unexplained delay, analogous to those that occurred in other states in which there was a late-night ‘blue shift,’ the race was called for Trump. The Republican senatorial candidate, Thom Tillis, also won. In fact Republicans won every statewide office on the ballot except for the four ‘Council of State’ seats, viz., Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Auditor, which have statutory or constitutional authority over election regulations. Official state running totals reveal that after election day, all four of the Republican candidates’ vote totals were decreased by at least 27,000 votes while the corresponding Democratic candidates’ totals were increased by slightly lower amounts. All the vote shifts involved mail-in votes. How it is possible for a candidate’s vote total to decrease over time remains a mystery. As it happens, the margins of victory for the four Democrats fall just over the 10,000 vote threshold that triggers an automatic recount. An essentially similar phenomenon occurred in the 2016 gubernatorial contest officially won by the Democrat. Also, as of January 15, the number of early votes reported on 23,000 greater than the number reported on election day.

41. Normally, there is an inverse relationship between the number of votes a candidate wins by (or loses by) in any given vote dump, and how favorable the ratio of his votes to those for his competitor in that vote dump. Deviations from this are statistically improbable. It’s plausible that a candidate gets 98% of the vote in a very small batch, but not likely for him to get 98% of the vote in a very large batch unless this disparity occurs in batches of all sizes. The vote spikes, in which Biden got very large numbers of votes and Trump got very few are extraordinarily improbable. If, in a large vote dump, Biden got 98% of the votes, one would expect a similar pattern in other, smaller vote dumps. But there is no such pattern; it’s as though Biden got almost all his votes in a few vote dumps. When the votes in the various states are graphed over time, there is a smooth curve with Trump and Biden votes increasing in parallel up to, and then after, vertical spikes in which Biden received very large numbers of votes with very few for Trump, putting Biden ahead. Absent an innocent explanation for the huge, one-sided spikes, this is prima facie evidence of fraud on a massive scale.

42. There were 3276 precincts in which votes ranged from 84% to 350% of those eligible to vote; 19 @ 100%. 84% is very improbable, in light of precedent. 350% is impossible. Normalizing to an 80% turnout, which is extremely high by historical standards, this amounts to 431,954 excess votes.

43. Biden putatively won despite being soundly defeated in the “bellwether states,” Ohio and Florida, and despite being down in the swing states by hundreds of thousands of votes until the mysterious shutdowns of counting that preceded the massive, unexplained vote spikes. Obama won 69 million votes and carried 873 counties. Trump won 74 million votes and carried 2497 counties, Biden won 477 counties and officially acquired 81 million votes. And we are asked to believe that he did this with almost no campaigning, having essentially no ground game, despite having very little enthusiasm. And this while pushing policies at odds with the desires of the public, after expressing approval for BLM and Antifa. And despite having trouble executing a coherent sentence. In 2020 there were many anomalies of this type: for example, since 1896, 100% of the time when IA, FL, NC, and OH voted for the same candidate, he has won the presidency. This was true of Trump in 2016, but in 2020 he won these states but officially lost. Further, the comparison between results in heavily Republican counties and in heavily Democratic counties across the country is worth noting: in these Republican counties, Trump's share of the vote increased. In contrast, in the heavily Democratic counties, Biden did not do better than Clinton in 2016. The exceptions to this are the handful of counties where there is significant evidence of massive fraud and in which Biden did significantly better than either Clinton or Obama is the preceding three elections.

44. The absentee ballot rejection rate in PA dropped by a factor of 30 from earlier elections, even though many were voting by mail for the first time.

45. There are 20 US counties that have voted for the winner in every presidential election since 1980. Trump won 19 of them by an average of 16%. He won every bellwether county in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. This means that while Trump increased his vote totals in, and won 19, of the 20 bellwether counties, Biden won every battleground state that Trump won in 2016 and which Biden had to win in 2020. And he won those states only by accruing huge a huge number of votes, arriving late at night, in a handful of large cities.

46. In large cities, Biden did better than Clinton and Obama only in Milwaukee, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Atlanta, i.e., cities where a large number of poll watchers gave sworn testimony of fraud. In all other large cities he did considerably worse. And in all large US cities, Trump did far better with Black, Hispanic, and immigrant voters than he did in 2016, and better than any Republican in recent history. One might counter that the historical number of votes allegedly for Biden indicates not that Biden is more popular than Obama or Clinton, but reveal the widespread disdain for Trump. This on its face is implausible since the country as a whole, in both red and blue states, exhibited no such phenomenon; in other Democratic areas, where there is no evidence of major fraud, Biden did poorly in comparison to Obama and Clinton.

47. In York county PA, there were 13,000 more Republicans registered than in 2016, yet Trump won it by a smaller margin than he did in 2016. Overall, in PA, there were on election day 680,000 more Republicans registered to vote than in 2016, yet Trump officially lost to Biden. This is plausible if a great many Republicans voted against Trump, but every indication is that Trump had very high support in his own party, much more than Biden had in his.

48. Trump received 12 million more votes than in 2016, an increase of more than any incumbent in history. He received more votes in the Republican primaries than any previous incumbent president, far more than an incumbent president traditionally receives who goes on t0 be re-elected.

49. Most people who vote for a presidential candidate also vote for the Senate candidate of the same party. Historically, and in all non-swing states in 2020, this pattern occurred. However, in the swing states, there were extreme variances between the number of votes for Biden and the number of votes for the Democratic senatorial candidate. No unusual variances occurred on the Republican side. The variances on the Democratic side were from 10 to 100 times greater than on the Republican side. These results are totally unexpected, given the fact that Trump voters more strongly support Trump than they support the Republican party, and Biden voters are more supportive of the Democratic party than of Biden. However, these results are readily explained by the infusion of a great many fraudulent ballots hurriedly marked only for Biden (and, e.g., trucked in from Bethpage, Long Island), with no down-ballot votes. Witnesses have sworn that they saw just such ballots delivered in the dead of night.

50. In Fulton County, the most populous in Georgia, paper mail-in ballots sent to voters in predominately Republican precincts differed from those sent to voters in predominately Democratic precincts. The ballots differed with respect to the markings that enable the optical scanner in the tabulating machine to align with what’s on the ballot. In virtue of the difference, many of the ballots sent to Republican precincts cannot be properly aligned and are rejected and set aside for adjudication. Officially, Fulton County had to manually adjudicate 93.67% of its mail-in ballots. This is a 780% increase of the number in 2016. Nationally, in the 2016 general election, 1.2% of mail-in ballots required adjudication. Officials in the county refuse to permit an audit of the actual paper ballots, which have been surreptitiously removed.

51. Also in Fulton County, 100% (900/900) of the military ballots were counted for Biden. In 2016, Trump garnered 64% of the military votes there. In Georgia as a whole, 93% of the military ballots went to Biden.

52. Nationally, Biden’s support among Black voters was below 90%, historically a level at which Democrats do not win. Trump’s support among Black voters increased by 35%. Yet Biden allegedly won by receiving a statistically amazing number of votes from Black voters in the large cities in the swing states. Trump won 35% of the Hispanic vote, a major inroad into a group that traditionally votes Democratic.

53. Given the Left’s strategy of characterizing Trump as a racist, one might suspect that the huge virtually all-Biden vote dumps in the large swing state cities were due to minority hostility to Trump. But this lacks plausibility in light of the fact that nationwide, Trump’s share of minority votes increased significantly from 2016. In large cities, the largest increases were in areas with majority-minority populations, e.g., his increase in the Bronx significantly exceeded his increase in Manhattan.

54. Trends in voter registrations in the four years leading up to a general election are very reliable predictors of the presidential vote. The 2020 results bear this out, with the exception of the states where massive vote fraud is now alleged, where the strong Biden showing is completely unpredicted and contrary to registration trends.

55. Fairfax County is part of suburban Washington, DC and thus a Democratic stronghold. In 2016, Clinton won its congressional districts by wide margins: 68/25, 56/37, and 66/27. Late on election night 2020 two vote dumps of 90% Biden votes were entered into the tabulation and then removed. (Edison Corp. explained this by saying that it was not able to confirm these votes. A discrepancy of 110,000 votes remains between the Edison numbers and the official state numbers.) Then came a third large vote dump which added 308,000 votes for Biden, with a ratio of 80/20 over Trump. This accounts for 73% of all Fairfax County votes for Biden. However, none of the Congressional districts came close to such a high margin in favor of Biden. It’s not clear where these votes came from, or why they are not reflected in the CD ratios. In 2016, Clinton won the entire state of VA by 212,000 votes, yet if the numbers for 2020 are legitimate, then Biden received 230,000 votes from this one county.

56. After certifying the 2020 election amidst multiple charges of fraud, the state of Michigan purged 177,000 names from its voter rolls in January 2021. Biden officially won the state by 154,000 votes.

57. In Clark County NV, which includes Las Vegas, over 90,000 mail-in ballots were sent to wrong addresses and returned, unused, via U.S. mail. It is not known how many more misaddressed ballots were also sent out but filled in and returned by persons other than the addressee. Various individuals report receiving mail-in ballots from states they have not lived in in years, where they lived only a few months, and where they never registered to vote.

58. In 2020 Trump received 1.5 million more votes in California than he received there in 2016. Biden received 2.3 million more votes there than Clinton did in 2016. Thus, the number of votes cast (not including minor party votes) increased from 2016 to 2020 by 3.8 million votes. However, the population of the state, including children, non-citizens, and non-registered, increased by fewer than 700,000 from 2016 to 2020.

59. In the large cities in the swing states that provided Biden's margin for victory and where accusations of fraud are concentrated, there were over 450,000 ballots counted that had just one vote, for Biden. Poll watchers who, despite the attempts to thwart them, were able to see some of these ballots, testified that the votes appeared to have been printed by machine.

60. Mail-in ballots are printed out, each with a number added in sequence. Bundles of ballots are inserted into envelopes, addressed, and mailed out. A particular neighborhood receives ballots in a sequence corresponding to the original sequence. So, e.g., the first house on a mail route receives ballot number 98713, the next house receives number 98714, then 98715, and so on. Those who return them do so randomly, not in the sequence in which they are printed out and delivered. There’s no reason to expect the person who received ballot n will return it immediately after ballot n-1 and immediately before ballot n+1. The probability that the ballots will be returned in the same sequence in which they were printed and mailed out is, for any practical purpose, zero. Yet in the 2020 election many bundles of ballots were provided to the counters in precisely the numerical sequence in which they were printed. This phenomenon, observed in the election, is not at all unexpected if the ballots were filled in by someone other than the putative vote, never having been mailed to anyone.

61. Green Bay, WI was one of the cities that received large grants from Zuckerberg intended to enhance Democratic turn-out. The agreement stipulated that out-of-state Democratic activists would be given access to where absentee ballots--of which there were a great many thanks to procedures that overtly violated the state's constitution--were stored. Over the protests of city employees, these individuals were involved in the counting of votes, in a manner the frustrated city workers regarded as contrary to law.

62. In Georgia, at 12:18 a.m. on Nov. 4, a batch of ballots was counted that contained 23,487 votes, 98% of which were for Biden. Later, at 1:34 a.m., a batch was counted containing 136,155 votes for Biden and 29,115 for Trump. Sworn witnesses there report that there were three boxes of ballots containing 100% Biden votes, and three other boxes containing over 98% Biden votes.

63. There is a 21% discrepancy between the number of ballot batches reported by the Georgia Attorney General who certified the election, and the number of ballot boxes produced by court ordered access.

64. Traditionally, the United States census reports the number of persons who voted in the most recent general election with a high degree of accuracy. Insofar as the numbers do not agree, this has been because the census over-records the number of voters, i.e., people report that they voted when they did not. This is not terribly surprising. The post-2020 election results sharply diverge from this, recording that 154,628,000 Americans voted in the November election, although 158,000,000 votes were counted. This is very surprising.

65. A leaked audio recording of a training session for Detroit poll workers reveals the trainees being taught (i) how to keep poll watchers from seeing the actual counting of ballots, (ii) how to deal with persons who arrive to vote in person but who are recorded as having already voted by mail: give them a provisional ballot, tell them that the issue will be investigated, and at the end of the day dispose of the provisional ballots, and (iii) not to segregate any challenged ballots, but to put them into tabulators to be counted. This tactic was also employed in Maricopa county, AZ, where 58,550 voters were issued provisional ballots. In the more recent recall vote in CA, historically very large numbers of election day Republican voters were informed that they had already voted by mail. As noted above, there is video of ballots being stolen from CA mailboxes.

66. The audit and canvass of Maricopa County, Arizona: (distinct from the forensic audit) found that 173,104 votes were missing or lost, and there were 96,383 ‘ghost’ voters. Keep in mind that Biden allegedly won the entire state of Arizona by 10,000 votes.

Among the findings of the forensic audit:

(i) More than 255,000 early votes appeared in the county final vote file that lacked a corresponding entry in the early voting returns file.

(ii) The number of mail-in ballots received and recorded exceeded the number of mail-in ballots sent out by more than 9,000.

(iii) Almost 2,500 votes are in the early vote returns that have no one recorded as having cast them.

The audit also discovered that many thousands of files containing data about the vote were removed from the EMS (election management system), a great many of them the night before the audit began. If these files have been destroyed, this is a violation of Federal law. As was already known--despite the company’s denial--the EMS hardware can connect to the internet and has been in communication with unknown IPs since the election.

67. Delaware County, PA, population 560,000+, is located just southwest of Philadelphia. It was the last county in the state to submit its final vote count. Officially, Biden carried the county by 86,000 votes. Without these votes, Trump would have won Pennsylvania. Soon after the election there were a great many reports of irregularities and charges of fraud in the county. In May 2021, a group of local citizens filed a ‘Right to Know’ request asking to inspect the election data which the county is legally required to save for 22 months after a Federal election. The public has the legal right to access the information requested. Whistleblowers charge that immediately after this request was filed, county election officials and others working with them planned ways to obstruct the request and began destroying evidence they were legally required to present. Whistleblowers videoed the Director of Elections instructing workers and others to destroy evidence, They also supplied video of a county attorney tearing up paper tapes from the machines and asserting that he was going to have the shredded paper burned. In one video an election official acknowledges that what he is doing is a felony. One worker testified that when she questioned what was going on she was threatened with being killed.

68. In the days immediately after the election voters in Maricopa County, AZ complained that they were supplied with Sharpies at polling places, even though official instructions with which they were familiar warned not to use them because of bleed through. Bleed through is a problem because machine scanning can detect both the mark on the side it's reading as well as a mark on the other side of the paper. These complaints were ridiculed by Maricopa county officials and the media. The Arizona Attorney General conducted an “investigation,” lasting two days, which involved asking county election officials about the matter. He determined that there had been no problems caused by use of Sharpies. The official finding was that the use of Sharpies had not caused neither overvotes or ballots to be rejected by tabulation machines. This response was deceptive because of its irrelevance. The issue is that the use of Sharpies causes bleed through that requires the ballot to be manually adjudicated. Despite the official instructions, many voters were aware of from earlier elections, Katie Hobbs, Arizona Secretary of State, campaigned for the use of Sharpies for voting on election day. On October 22, Kelly Dixon, a county election official, sent an email memo to all precincts, instructing them to supply ballpoint pens for early voting from Oct. 23 through Nov. 2, but to supply only Sharpies for election day voting. The memo said, “We NEED to use markers on election day” [emphasis in original.] As is well known, the preponderance of the Republican vote is in-person, on election day. The county supplied precincts only with Sharpies for election day, no ballpoint pens. The explanation given was that to use regular pens would “gum up the machines,” although their use prior to election day on the same machines was not an issue. Jovan Pulitzer’s examination of adjudication records revealed that, according to official reports, tens of thousands of ballots were adjudicated, i.e., modified prior to being counted. In another analysis, he also found that a great many ballots used on election day in Maricopa County were of a lower quality paper than was legally permissible. The lower quality paper exacerbates bleed through.

69. The Arizona legislature is in possession of an anonymous email purporting to be from a whistleblower in Pima County, which includes Tucson. It has been verified that the message originated in that city. The message describes a pre-election meeting to which Democratic poll workers were invited on Sept. 10, 2020. They were required to leave phones and recording devices outside. The allegation is that the attendees were informed of a plan to inject 35,000 fraudulent votes for each Democratic candidate into the count by means of the electronic tabulation machines. The message stated that attendees were told that the same methods would be used in Maricopa County to introduce a much larger number of fraudulent votes. The email’s sender reported asking how the presenters knew the fraud would succeed, and being told that it had been tested in judicial retention elections since 2014, where it had been successful. The sender also reported that the presenters said that post-election audits would not bring the fraud to light, because “no candidate will spend the kind of funds needed to audit and contact voters to verify votes and the full potential of the total registered voters, which is more than 500,000 registered voters” [sic]. Because the accusation is anonymous, it must, of course, be taken with a grain of salt. However, contrary to Democrats’ expectations, there has been a careful audit and partial canvass of the 2020 general election in Pima County. Among the facts that have come to light is that some precincts reported a voter turnout of over well over 100%, and many with turnouts of 97% or 98%; in some cases, the number of votes counted far exceeded the total population. These are unprecedented numbers for general elections, except in certain precincts crucial to the Biden ‘victory’ in 2020. Among other findings: 172 ballots were received from one address, and the average age of voters allegedly voting by mail from a university fraternity house at the University of Arizona was 45.

70. Surveillance video of drop boxes paid for by Mark Zuckerberg and installed in heavily Democratic precincts in Atlanta records massive fraud. One drop box accumulated 19,000 ballots over a weekend, although only 24 people dropped off ballots during that period. (Note that Trump allegedly lost the state by only 11,000 votes.) Surveillance video coordinated with cellphone pings reveals a team of 240 operatives going from one drop box to the next, emptying piles of ballots into each of two dozen boxes. In Georgia, as in most states, this is illegal ballot harvesting. Similar evidence of this practice has also emerged from Arizona, Wisconsin, and other states.

IV The Machines

1. One month before the election, a warehouse in Philadelphia was burglarized. Just one laptop and USB keys to Dominion voting machines were stolen. The thief was not apprehended, but officials announced theft had ‘nothing to do with the election’ and that it was ‘not malicious.’ the putative Biden win in PA depends on 60,000 votes from that county. A similar theft occurred earlier in the year in Atlanta.

2. An investigator in Denver, Joel Oltmann (founder of conservative organization FEC United) infiltrated Antifa conference call. He hears Eric Coomer, Dominion VP for Engineering & Director of Strategy and Security (at US Dominion office in Denver), answer someone who asks, “What if Trump gets re-elected?” by saying, “Don’t worry. He won’t get re-elected. I made fucking sure of that!” Coomer traveled to the swing states during 2019 to pitch and coordinate the use of the Dominion hardware. Since 2016, Coomer online had expressed vehement, extreme, unhinged anti-Trump and anti-USA views; they have been scrubbed since the election, but screenshots are preserved. Although he initially denied authoring these posts, when deposed under oath he admitted that he had. (No one who reads his media posts could reasonably doubt that, given the means and opportunity, Coomer would engage in election fraud. That he had the means and opportunity, as was well as the motive, is well attested. Thus Pr(H) = high.) Post-election, Coomer and other employees have been erased from Dominion websites. Coomer holds a U.S. patent for anomaly detection/adjudication software used in Dominion machines, and four other patents pertaining to the operation of the voting machines. (In Sept. 2019, a group of patents, including two credited to Coomer, were sold to Chinese interests via HSBC Bank in Canada. In the filings for the sale Coomer’s patents were described as pertaining to “ballot adjudication in voting systems utilizing ballot images.” A ballot image is a digital picture the tabulator makes of the paper ballot. The image, not the paper ballot, is what is counted. Operators of the machine can manipulate the ballot image at will, and they can enter blank paper ballots and from them make any ballot image they choose.) Cybersecurity experts have reported that voting machines were physically connected to a server that programmed to communicate with locations in China and other nations; see #24, below.

3. Dominion voting machines are programmed to detect anomalies on ballots. If there’s an anomalous mark on the ballot, e.g., a stray mark, or a bleed-through of ink as from a Sharpie, or if its size, shape, or format are irregular, its votes are not initially counted and the ballot is transferred to a separate location where a small number of unsupervised ‘adjudicators’ trained by Dominion examine each ballot to decide if it should be rejected or its votes counted. If they decide to count it, they manually create a duplicate for machine tabulation. The machines’ sensitivity to anomalies can be set by anyone with a digital key or remotely, if the device is connected to the internet. Sensitivity can be set to count every ballot as having anomalies. Adjudicators can accept every ballot for one candidate and reject all others, or record votes for one candidate as being for another. Accepted ballots are returned to machines for counting en masse, as in the tranches of 100,000 Biden-only ballots appearing suddenly in the after hours vote count. In Wayne County, during the post-election day counting, a Republican poll watcher requested access to such a locked adjudication room. He was persistently denied access. He secured a court order that he be permitted to observe the tabulation occurring there, but for two days that order was defied while the counting continued. Finally, he was permitted to enter, but only for five minutes out of every two hours. The only ballots being tabulated he was finally able to see were military, with every vote he saw going to Biden. The Dominion voting machines in Antrim county, MI transferred votes from Trump to Biden. This was initially called a ‘glitch,’ and later attributed to human error. A court-ordered forensic analysis revealed that the machines were programmed to reject an astounding 82% of the ballots. A significant number of these ballots were rejected in virtue for their size or formatting. Presumably, all legal ballots in the county would have the same size and formatting. (There is a credible report that half a million counterfeit ballots were purchased from a printer in China, and that a Michigan printing company that supplies ballots to various states also supplies ballots to unofficial customers, including one in Bethpage, NY, where, according to sworn testimony, a truck was loaded with ballots and driven to PA, where, contrary to USPS regulations, the recipients refused to issue the driver a receipt.) Rejected ballots were sent for manual adjudication in separate locations without supervision or observation. The normal adjudication audit files have gone missing. The audit files for previous elections are available, as is standard procedure. The machines in Clark County, NV (Las Vegas) are reportedly rigged in the same way at approximately an automatic 70% rejection rate. The MI analysis concluded that the Dominion machines are intentionally designed to facilitate vote fraud.

4. A hand recount in one town in NH revealed that Dominion-owned tabulation machines subtracted 6% of the vote from every Republican candidate. The same type of machines are used to count the vote in 85% of precincts in the state.

5. In Georgia, the state contracted for Dominion voting machines shortly before the primaries, over the objection of many voices, including prominent Democrats and cyber specialists, that they are vulnerable to fraud, and despite the fact that they had been rejected in other locales, including Texas. In Fulton County GA, 95% of ballots were rejected by the voting machines and were hand adjudicated. Earlier to 2020, HBO produced a documentary film highlighting the alarming vulnerability of the machines used in U.S. elections to hacking. There, the avowed concern, expressed by prominent Democrats, was the possibility that Russia could interfere in our elections. Since the election, they appear to have changed their minds about the system’s vulnerability, characterizing it as a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

6. Dominion machines were observed as physically connected to the internet, which is illegal. Since the election, the company had asserted that this is impossible, but the publicly available manuals for the machine contain specific instructions for how it should be connected to the internet. In any event, each machine can receive data, including operating programs, directly from USB devices, which can in turn be connected to any computer connected to the internet. Dominion denies that its machines are meant to be connected to the internet during vote counting, yet its contract with the state of Michigan stipulates that they will be. In testimony to a committee of the Georgia state legislatures, a cybersecurity expert in real time remotely gained access to a Dominion machine. It should be noted that while Dominion is just one of several companies that supply tabulation machines for U.S. elections, almost all machines used in this country have essentially similar software, and essentially similar vulnerabilities, derived from the Diebold Corporation.

7. Election data from Dominion machines is sent directly to Clarity Voting Systems, a company owned by Scytl, which is headquartered in Barcelona and has servers in a variety of countries. Military intelligence examination of traffic patterns shows that the U.S. voting data was sent to servers in Frankfurt on Nov. 3 and 4; on Nov. 5 these servers went off-line. Vote totals from Scytl were supplied, via Clarity, to U.S. media outlets. This includes the running tally sent to the NY Times via Edison Corp. on which various analyses of the election results have relied.

8. Nancy Pelosi’s former Chief of Staff is now a lobbyist for Dominion. (It’s worth noting how “fact checkers” seek to deceive about this, calling this claim “mostly false” because there is no known evidence that he had any connection to the “glitches” in the Michigan county where Dominion machines were found to have diverted 6,000 Trump votes to Biden. So-called fact checkers appear regularly to engage in this practice, refuting a claim other than the one supposedly being checked. Also, it’s common practice for them to call a claim about some person or institution false solely on the basis of their denial of it, e.g., the claim that Dominion is connected to Scytl is called false because Dominion denied it.)

9. In one small rural county in GA, a Dominion tabulator’s vote totals were compared with a hand recount. The machine switched 37 votes from Trump to Biden. This was barely noticeable on election day, yet extrapolated to the entire state, this is double the number of votes by which Biden allegedly beat Trump.

10. Amazingly, there are multiple instances on the night of election day of the vote totals displayed on live TV changing in the space of a few minutes, or even seconds, as the total of Trump votes is decreased and the total of Biden votes increased, sometimes by the exact same amounts. The feed that displays these numbers, which the viewer sees on the TV screen, comes directly from the servers outside the U.S. This was observed in the Georgia senatorial runoff as well. Further, examination of the underlying records of multiple states at the county level show hundreds of instances in which votes were subtracted from Trump’s totals. In many cases Biden’s totals increased by the exact same number of votes. In PA, from 7:31 am to 8:32 a.m. on the morning after election day, the publicly presented vote totals changed, removing 32,615 votes from Trump. In the same interval, the reported percentage of the total vote counted dropped from 89% to 87%.

11. Smartmatic, the company that supplies the software that runs on Dominion voting machines, was founded in Venezuela. Its CEO is Venezuelan and the current chairman of its board is a member of the Biden transition team. There is sworn testimony, supplied to US intelligence investigators, that the software was designed at the behest of Chavez to steal elections and that it was used for this purpose, and that it was exported to other countries for this purpose. At its inception, Chavez owned 28% of the company. Contrary to public claims made by the company, the machines can easily be instructed to manipulate voting data. The publicly available manuals for operating the machines give explicit instructions for how to do race weighting, e.g., how to automatically multiply one candidate’s vote total by .6 and another’s by 1.5. There is no other known explanation for vote counts, typically given either as percentages or as whole numbers, being recorded as decimals. The running vote totals from one location in California, all of which are decimal values, not whole numbers, at one point records a single vote being cast, resulting in .659 votes for Biden, .322 for Trump, and .019 for other candidates. A voter cannot parcel out his one vote among more than one candidate, but can only cast his whole vote for one candidate. The recorded numbers are plainly the product of a race weighting algorithm. Dominion and other machines can easily be used for election fraud, but we should keep in mind that this does not imply that the management of the company intended them to be used for this purpose.

12. The machines must stop counting in order to be re-programmed. We know that in the swing states, the machines were stopped at the same time, and there is sworn testimony that they received programming updates online. Other testimony reports that shortly before counting began, machines were reprogrammed either online or by personnel employing USB drives.

13. After the election, Dominion’s offices in Denver and Toronto were closed, and more than 100 employees removed their affiliation with the company from Linkedin.

14. Russell Ramsland, a cybersecurity expert, for Allied Security Operations Group, testified that systematic comparisons of all U.S. counties that used Dominion and closely related voting machines with those that did not reveal overperformance by Biden by at least 5%. Hands-on analysis of three small counties in Michigan has confirmed this. This is calculated from predictions based on demographics and past voting behavior of each county. The predictions were accurate nationwide for counties that did not use Dominion machines. In the summer of 2020, prior to the election, Allied Security Operations was predicting election fraud on three levels: by means of massive local cheating, by use of the machines, either by the companies themselves, or by outside manipulation, to add, remove, or switch votes, and by the injection of large numbers of votes from foreign servers.

15. At present, it remains a mystery why the data on American elections is transmitted to the Scytl Corporation in Barcelona—ownership unknown—and from there to servers in Frankfurt, from where it is transmitted back to the U.S.

16. SEC records show that on October 8, 2020 UBS Securities Co. Ltd. invested $400 million in the parent company of Dominion Voting Systems, Staple Street Capital. UBS Securities Co. Ltd., aka UBS Beijing, has a sister company, UBS Securities LLC., registered in New York. The boards of the two companies are interconnected, sharing board members. Their board members are mostly Chinese nationals closely connected to the CCP, the PLA, and the Chinese government’s use of information systems for totalitarian rule. It appears that for all practical purposes, Dominion is owned by the CPA. Also, the one company with ownership of the code for the machines is a Chinese-owned company. None of this implies that any particular Dominion officer or employee engaged in the fraud, but it does imply they were highly vulnerable to being used for this purpose.

17. Forensic investigators assert that the Dominion machines they examined contain a data file of registered voters who had not voted by election day night. Anyone with access to the machines could use these names to fabricate fraudulent ballots. (I don’t know whether these investigators have given sworn affidavits about these findings.)

18. Almost every advanced country has outlawed the use of electronic voting machines because the opportunity they afford for fraud is obvious. Such prominent Democrats as Rep. Schiff, Sen. Klobuchar, Rep. Ted Lieu, Sen. Wyden, Sen. Warner, Rep. Lofgren, Rep. Val Demmings, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, and Rep. Jennifer Wexton were among the Democrats who, though now afflicted with amnesia, prior to the election warned about the vulnerability of the voting system to hacking. Among their warnings was the statement that all it would take to change the outcome of a presidential election was fraud in a handful of cities in swing states.

19. A Dominion voting machine can quickly and easily be rebooted in administrative mode, enabling anyone, without tools or more than minimal computer knowledge, to enter and/or change votes at will. A poll worker has demonstrated this on video. Although they now dismiss as crackpot conspiracy theories claims about this vulnerability, numerous mainstream news outlets, e.g., PBS, New York Times, over the past several years produced stories about this problem with the machines and warned of the threat to democracy they pose. Since the election, those who made these warnings have gone silent on the issue.

20. Maricopa County, AZ (Phoenix) defied a subpoena issued by the state legislature to allow forensic examination of its voting machines and ballots. When it was finally ordered to do so by a judge, the ballots were loaded on a truck and removed to an unknown location, and then returned. However, shredded ballots from the election were recovered from a dumpster. This is one of various instances—some cited above—of those operating voting machines refusing to comply with courts and state legislatures on access to their machines. This must be seen in light of the systemic attempt to prevent Republican and independent monitors from exercising the legal right to see and challenge vote counting. It appears that there is something to hide.

21. Extensive cybersecurity analysis reveals heavy internet traffic between a great many voting machines in the United States and other nations, particularly China, immediately before, during, and after election day. Further claims have been made that these connections facilitated changes of many votes from Trump to Biden, but so far as I know they have not been substantiated, and some analysts assert that the claims are dubious and the evidence at least in part fabricated More on this below, at #23. 22. When machines that run Smartmatic software detect an unreadable ballot, rather than rejecting it and spitting it out, it creates a digital ballot image, just as it does with other ballots. However, it sends the image to a special file. As noted above, the machines can be programmed to high levels of sensitivity, so a high proportion of ballots are sequestered as unreadable. For example, the Fulton County, GA director of elections reported that 20% of the ballots were sent for adjudication. This is an unprecedented high percentage, yet we know that in other locales it was much higher. After the ballot images have accumulated in this file, an operator accesses them for adjudication. She can immediately record them en masse as all containing votes for a candidate of her choice, ignoring the voters' intentions. This is one way to explain the implausible huge Biden vote spikes recorded after counting had been officially stopped for the night. Also, the machines are designed in such a way that there is no digital record of who adjudicated the ballots or when it occurred.

23. Information travels over the internet not in a continuous stream. but in discrete “packets.” “Packet capture” reveals the IP addresses of the machines that sent, and of those that received, the packet, as well as a timestamp that shows when the message was sent and received. Normally, the content of the captured data packet is inaccessible. By this means, analysts know that a great deal of data was being sent to a great many voting machines across the United States during, and in the days following, the election. The IP addresses of the originating computers identify them as outside the United States. mainly China. but also other countries, such as Iran, with interests in defeating Trump. IP addresses can be faked and verification requires physical access to the computers. Some machines the United States have been examined and found to have received the data in question. Accessing computers in China and other foreign nations is generally infeasible. However, reportedly this has been done surreptitiously in a few cases, in which the authenticity of the originating IP was authenticated.

24. Cybersecurity experts make a compelling case for the algorithmic theft of the election: Hack rolls of registered voters and add the names of eligible but unregistered voters, or illegible, or even nonexistent voters to the rolls. In some states no hacking was necessary because left wing groups were given access to the electronic voter rolls. This allows for the creation of a store of names of persons who are not really registered, but appear to be registered, to be created. Any mail-in ballot, if scrutinized, will correspond to what appears to be a properly registered voter. Many names are added on or shortly before election day and removed from the voter registration list shortly thereafter. While the names are on the rolls, the apparent proportion of registered to eligible voters is amazingly high, e.g., 98%. As necessary, the store of illicitly registered voters is augmented with names that correspond to no existing human being, to dead persons, or to persons who no longer live in the area. It is already known that the voter rolls were hacked in Pennsylvania to such an extent that the legislature hired an outside firm to re-create them from scratch.

As the election proceeds, an algorithm continually calculates in real time the rate at which fake mail-in ballots must be injected into the count to reach the pre-selected target number in a way that is hard to detect. This can easily be done remotely, through the internet; no reasonable doubt remains that the tabulation machines were illegally accessible in this way. The target number is selected by extrapolating from the 2016 election, adjusted for population growth and to shift the winner from the Republican to the Democrat by a margin that does not seem implausible. This algorithm has been uncovered independently by mathematical data analysts from different parts of the country. Equipped with this algorithm, one is able to precisely predict the election outcome at the precinct level. One analyst noted that while those intent on fraud had few means to shape the in-person vote, this method amounted to a “knob” they could turn to choose how many bogus mail-in votes were introduced into the count. In some cases, election officials refused to say how many mail-in ballots remained to be counted, even days after the election. They had to wait for the remaining votes to be counted to ascertain how many fraudulent votes would have to be added to ensure a Biden victory. Knowing that this method will be applied enables one confidently to say, as Nancy Pelosi did, that Biden would win, no matter how many votes Trump received on election day.

The method described here is designed to keep the steal from being obvious, e.g., it doesn’t involve there being more votes than there are (apparently) registered voters, individuals eligible to register to vote, or even the actual population. (Exceptions to this occur in some large cities controlled by Democrats, where such phenomena are historically taken as a matter of course.) However, this makes the system vulnerable to breaking down in the event that an unexpectedly large number of genuine votes are cast for the opposing candidate. In this case the reservoir of bogus votes can be too small to make up the difference and reach the targeted outcome. It appears that this occurred on the night of November 3, 2020. It became clear—though this was suppressed by the media until late in the evening—that Trump had won Florida decisively, despite the bogus votes injected into the system with the expectation that they would be sufficient to put the state in the Biden column. It was apparent that there were going to be too few fake votes to reach the target there, and to all appearances this was occurring in other key states; it seemed clear that Trump had handily won re-election, surprisingly receiving many more votes than he had in 2016; most second-term presidents, even when re-elected, win significantly fewer votes. At this point, the vote tabulation was officially stopped in the remaining battleground states while the algorithm was modified, and new ballots were hastily printed and delivered during the night. This panicky response to the surge of votes coming in for Trump forced the perpetrators to engage in easily detectable fraud. This desperate measure, necessitated by the Trump landslide, explains the anomalous spikes of huge numbers of Biden-only votes that generated the initial suspicions of election fraud. (That there would be a huge number of Trump votes was predicted from every data point other than polling.) Beyond the manipulation of voter rolls, the scheme also involved the illicit means to hurt Trump and help Biden described elsewhere in this post.

25. Across the United States, the major purveyors of voting machines are approaching county election officials, telling them, in some cases, that their machines need to be updated, and in other cases, that they need to replace batteries. When the batteries are replaced, a machine temporarily loses power and permanently loses all saved data, including the data from the 2020 election, is lost. When a machine is updated, saved data is not necessarily lost. However, there is evidence that an update currently underway by a major machine provider also involves the destruction of data from the 2020 election. In Mesa County, Colorado an employee of the provider arrived to update the machine. (The update was labelled the “Trusted Build.”) Prior to the visit, the county election officials had a forensic image of the machine made. Once made, a forensic image cannot be changed. After the update, a second forensic image was made. Comparison of the before and after images reveals that a large amount of data from the 2020 election was erased. This included logs of connections made to the internet before, during, and after the election. It was also found that both before and after the update the machine contained a custom-made program that, when executed, shut off the machine’s privilege protections, i.e., restrictions on who is permitted to access the machine, as well as the encryption of data sent over the internet. The examination revealed two illegalities: it is contrary to law for a voting machine to be connected to the internet during an election, and it is contrary to law to destroy any election record prior to 22 months after the election. Further, while the Mesa County clerk was en route to attend Mike Lindell’s Cyber Symposium the Colorado Secretary of State raided her office. Previously, this Secretary of State had unilaterally banned all audits of elections by private individuals illegal.

26. Microscopic analysis of Maricopa County paper ballots conducted in conjunction with the forensic audit reveals that 70,000+ of them were printed by machine, not filled in by human hands. In the video of high-level individuals (including Eric Coomer) from Dominion making their sales pitch to election officials in Chicago explained that one of their machines was capable of filling in the 'bubbles' on ballots in ways designed to appear as though they were filled in by hand, No explanation was offered as to why the machine is equipped with this capability.

27. In 2016, Clint Curtis testified before the House Judiciary Committee that while employed by Yang Enterprises, Inc. in 2000, he was asked to write a program to manipulate election results, guaranteeing that any designated candidate in any election would win by a 51% to 49% margin, irrespective of the actual vote. Curtis told the committee that initially he believed he was asked to create this software so as to show election officials and campaigns how to detect electronic fraud. However, when he presented his work to his employer, he was told that he needed to modify program to delete itself to make the fraud undetectable. He left the company and became a whistleblower. Lest anyone assume that election fraud is unique to Democrats, the company told Mr. Curtis the project he worked on was for the benefit of a Republican candidate, Tom Feeney, a member of the Florida House and close political ally of George Bush in south Florida. The Democrat members of the committee expressed serious concern about the nation’s vulnerability to election fraud, although they now describe charges of fraud as absurd conspiracy theories. Yang Enterprises, which does high-level IT work for the Federal Government, has been accused of transmitting classified information to the Chinese government.

28. As votes continued to be counted after the amazing vote dumps that created a lead for Biden, the Trump vote exhibits an extraordinary phenomenon. Vote counts for Trump and Biden continued gradually to increase, with the difference between the two candidates remaining constant. However, this was only because at regular intervals the Trump vote begins to climb faster than the Biden vote but, when the increase reaches a certain point, the Trump vote declines, returning precisely to where it was previously. There is no similar phenomenon in the graph of Biden vote. A candidate's actual vote total cannot decline in one instance, let alone multiple times over regular intervals. This can be explained as a result of algorithmic manipulation, imposing a ceiling on the Trump vote total.

V The Aftermath

We should finally consider the Democrats’ behavior after Biden was inaugurated. This is at the least as consistent with a stolen election as their behavior prior to the voting. Defenders of the Biden regime behave as though they have something to hide. One might have reasonably expected them to be very happy, gloating over what they believe was a clear Biden victory that ignominiously dispatched Trump. Instead, they are angrier than ever and appear fearful, threatening all manner of reprisals against Trump and his supporters and taking extreme attempts to silence those who raise questions about the election. For example, the MI attorney general is seeking to have attorneys who take cases for plaintiffs charging election fraud disbarred, and to send the state police to arrest them. She threatened any state legislator who questioned the election results with investigation, with a view to criminal charges. The DOJ has threatened the Arizona state legislature to desist from its efforts to do a forensic audit of Maricopa county. This is historically unprecedented in the United States, where accusations of election fraud are regularly publicly voiced—consider Hilary Clinton, who still maintains that Trump stole the 2016 election with Russian help—and, when serious (unlike Clinton’s) adjudicated in the courts. Now, to say that the Biden presidency is illegitimate, or even to ask for an investigation, is characterized as sedition. Attempts to communicate evidence for fraud are censored in social and traditional media. My sense is that anyone really convinced his side won would greet naysayers by demanding that they show their evidence, rather than going to extremes to silence him. Over the past four years, Democrats and their media insisted, on the basis of minimal evidence, that was eventually exposed as fabricated, that the Trump presidency was illegitimate, because he conspired with Russia. Those who spent years propagating this groundless conspiracy theory now dismiss those who believe there was election fraud as “conspiracy theorists” who have no evidence worth examining yet must be silenced. A prosecutor advised a judge that the “QAnon shaman” in custody as a result of illegally entering the U.S. capitol ought not to be given bail, lest he spread the story that the election was stolen. (As is becoming increasingly clear, the "insurrection" on January 6, 2021 was instigated largely by Federal agents and now appears to be 'Reichstag Fire 2.0.') Efforts by government officials, agencies, and their media allies to silence discussion of the election irregularities is extreme and unprecedented. This is consistent with desperation to cover up a crime.

One noteworthy example: despite sworn affidavits that the event occurred, the media insisted that no late-night, and thus illegal, delivery of thousands of ballots to the Detroit tabulation center took place. Finally, after overcoming election officials’ strenuous resistance, security video was obtained that confirmed the claim, and in fact revealed that two, not one, such deliveries took place. The same witnesses who testified under oath about the delivery also swore that the ballots they observed from them were all, or almost all, for Biden.

Further, officials in disputed areas have fought intensely, in some cases acting overtly contrary to law, to prevent independent forensic audits of the vote and in some instances making them impossible by the disappearance or destruction of evidence. The official winners do not appear confident that the candidate they supported actually won. The Democrats hatched a bizarre, extralegal ‘impeachment,’ based on preposterous claims that Trump had incited an ‘insurrection’ on January 6. If there were a conviction, Trump could be banned from running again. This extreme behavior is unreasonable if they believe the lackluster, corrupt, barely campaigning, and cognitively impaired Biden beat Trump by over five million votes. But it is reasonable to try this if they know that in reality Trump won by an overwhelming landslide and could do so again. Currently, the official winner sits in the White House, ruling by executive order, surrounded by barbed wire and protected by thousands of troops from the population that allegedly cast a historically unprecedented number of votes for him.

Continuing from #25, above: There is stiff competition, but what may be the most disturbing evidence of algorithmic control of the 2020 election has been documented by Dr. Douglas Frank. The U.S. census bureau publishes the most recent population numbers for each county in the United States, showing how many persons of a particular age are resident in each county. The census bureau also supplies estimations of current numbers, more or less than the most recent census. This provides an accurate picture of each county’s population, by age, at the time of the general election. Examining official results in some counties in Pennsylvania, Dr. Frank discovered that the number of registered voters was perfectly correlated with the graph of population and was unexpectedly very close to it. To the surprise of local election officials, the percentage of persons of, say, 23 years of age registered to vote would be, say, 98% of the persons eligible to vote. (In quite a few cases this number overshot the population, reaching beyond 100% of the eligible population.) These are unprecedently high percentages of registration. So, we have, for each county, two graphs, with little space between them, that are almost perfectly isomorphic, one for residents at each age, and one for registered voters at that age. The actual number of voters—or “voters”—can be plotted as third graph. So, e.g., 89% of 23-year-old voters in the county is recorded as voting. And this third graph has almost the exact same shape as the other two. The proportion of voters to persons registered to vote to persons eligible to vote are uniform for the county. All this is somewhat surprising, but the astounding fact is that if, say, 89% of 23-year-olds are recorded as having voted, this is the same for every county in the state. And this holds for every age cohort in the entire state. In every county, irrespective of its demographic characteristics, we will find, say, that 98% of 23-year-olds are registered to vote, and that 89% of them voted. This is far too improbable to be natural. Further, if we look at, say, a neighboring state, we might find that the numbers differ, but the same pattern persists. If, e.g., in any one county 94% of 47-year-olds are registered to vote, and 90% are recorded as actually voting, this will be true of every county in that state. This appears to be true of all 50 states and every one of the 3,242 counties in the U.S. There is a single polynomial ‘key’ for each state which, once known, enables one to precisely predict the number of registrants and actual voters for each age cohort for every county in that state. It was also found that there were very large, sudden increases in voter registration in the period leading up to the election, followed by very large, sudden decreases shortly thereafter. To all appearances, there were a great many ‘ghost’ voters registered in this country on election day 2020, including non-existent persons, dead persons, one person ‘split’ into several, e.g., separate registrations and ballots returned by Don Wacome, Donald H. Wacome, Donald Harry Wacome, Don H. Wacome, and so on, persons no longer living at the address from which mail-in ballots were sent, children, and inactive voters who are legally registered but have not voted for many election cycles. The ominous implication is that the remote manipulation of the election outcome is not restricted to the crucial cities in the swing states, but systematically applied to the entire nation, including states Trump won. Applied over many election cycles, as appears to be the case, this would make a ‘red’ state gradually turn ‘blue’ in a way that raises no alarms. The one positive feature of this method of fraud is that it depends on a finite reservoir of fraudulent votes. A very large turnout in favor of the candidate against who this machination is applied can ‘break the algorithm,’ when there are too few bogus votes to overcome the landslide of votes for the opposing candidate. This appears to have happened in Florida, Texas, and probably other states early in the evening of election day, necessitating the need to stop vote counting to revise the algorithm in other states to make up for the lost electoral votes and, finally, the desperate expedient of introducing huge tranches of fake Biden votes during the night, which made the fraud impossible to conceal.

VI Conclusion

I take it as likely that not every datum here is correct or correctly interpreted—though I’ve omitted reports that seemed unsubstantiated or from suspect sources—and that there might be innocent explanations for some of what occurred. When trust in institutions erodes, unsubstantiated rumors flourish, whatever the motives of their originators. This means that to find the truth we must be on guard to filter out false reports, either from con artists hoping to enrich themselves, honest individuals falling victim to confirmation bias, or false flag operations intended to discredit the claims of fraud. What deserves our greatest attention are vote totals coming from official sources and sworn affidavits of eyewitnesses, particularly when these correspond to statistical anomalies in the vote totals.

It should be clear that the oft-repeated Democratic/media claim that the Trump campaign’s claims are baseless is patently false. This is a case of what a fascist of an earlier era calls "the Big Lie," a lie so extravagant that trusting people cannot imagine it being a lie. As Michael Anton wrote, “Irregularities that our own State Department considers sufficient proof to declare third-world elections fraudulent are, here at home, not even enough to qualify as evidence” (Michael Anton, “The Election and Its Aftermath,” Claremont Review of Books, Winter 2020/2021). What of the claim that there is no evidence of “widespread” fraud? It is ambiguous. What was essential to the theft of the election took place in just six cities. Maybe there is no specific evidence of fraud in most parts of the country (but see contrary indications in “The Machines”). In that sense the media claim could be true, but not relevant. What’s relevant is the mass of interconnected evidential facts that indicate fraud in all the contested swing states, as well as in some other states. The further claim, that there is no evidence of widespread fraud that would change the outcome of the election, is false, since in the above survey, the number of votes that are overtly illegal or that appear to be fraudulent clearly exceeds the alleged Biden margins in each of the contested states.

Currently, the media claims that the charges of fraud have been heard by the courts and rejected as baseless. This is false; while various courts have refused, on procedural, and probably political, grounds, to hear cases from the Trump legal team, the states, or Sidney Powell, in no salient cases has the evidence advanced by Powell or the Trump team be considered. However, there have been a great many lawsuits and most have been decided in favor of Trump or the GOP; they won 16 of the 23 cases decided on the merits. The media has propagated disinformation to the effect that Trump has lost in cases presided over by judges he appointed. This is false: very few judges who have found against those challenging the official election are Trump appointees. A small proportion of the available evidence has been presented to committees of state legislatures. They have generally been convinced that there probably was extensive fraud, but courts are refusing to involve themselves in the large issues of the election.

Particularly disturbing is that government law-enforcement agencies and the courts, like the media, have no interest in the evidence for election fraud. One might have thought that over 3000 sworn affidavits obligates law enforcement to investigate. As someone said, the FBI took fast action, investigating a rope hanging in a NASCAR garage that looked like a noose, but have done no serious investigation of a truck carrying tens of thousands of filled-out ballots across state lines. We may hope what happened in 2020 was a one-off, but the official non-response is likely to encourage those involved to keep at it. Loss of trust in Federal law-enforcement does serious damage to the nation.

My hypothesis, based on the various independent but convergent pieces of evidence, is that the perpetrators, fearing a Trump win, set out relying on the traditional means of vote fraud, i.e., ballot harvesting, paying for votes, purported votes from the dead, from non-residents, from illegal aliens, augmented with race weighting and vote shifting wherever machines of the needed type were in use and accessible. Conjoined with this, there were the openly illegal changes to voting regulations that violated state constitutions or the U.S. Constitution. This was designed to drastically increase the number of mail-in and absentee ballots, and at the same time to drastically decrease the security and scrutiny of those ballots. As was well known beforehand, these changes allowed for the mass mailing of ballots with little or no constraints on voter verification. (The first order of business, H.R. 1, for the House of Representatives is to facilitate, and in some cases require, the practices that made the 2020 election fraud possible.) I don’t believe that at this point any complex conspiracy was behind this aspect of the fraud. There was simply the tacit understanding that those in a position to regulate the voting or to count votes would do whatever they could get away with to stop Trump. (Here's the high prior probability mentioned above.) The estimation of what they could get away with was, no doubt, influenced by knowing the media would suppress and deny reports of fraud. Also, much of it occurred in locales with long histories of vote fraud, It only needed to be scaled up.

However, an explicit conspiracy is manifest when, on the evening of election day, it was apparent that when Trump was on his way to a landslide victory, that traditional vote fraud would not suffice, someone had to decide that the vote count had to stop in the large cities in the swing states so masses of fraudulent ballots could be introduced and tabulation machines could be reprogrammed to guarantee the desired outcome. See #24 in “The Machines.” The fact that Trump received an unprecedented large number of votes yet supposedly lost to Biden because of a small number of inexplicable spikes in those large cities indicates that he actually won significantly more, and Biden significantly fewer, votes than are credited to them.

The Democrats believe, or purport to believe, that Joe Biden handily beat Donald Trump in 2020. Yet what they have been doing since indicates that they are motivated by fear of him being elected again in 2024. Normally, one would consider a soundly defeated incumbent president as politically neutralized. Imagine the Republicans acting to ensure that Jimmy Carter does not run again. The bizarre second impeachment, after Trump had left office, had no plausible purpose other than as an opportunity to bar him from running again. The ongoing hysteria about the riot in which a group of anti-election theft protestors entering the capitol building on January 6, 2021, and the preposterous House investigation into it, obviously has no function other than to declare Trump guilty of fomenting insurrection, which would constitutionally bar him from holding office. Beyond this, the current regime has tried, in essence, to criminalize support for Trump, labeling those who voted for him, or oppose them in any way, ‘domestic terrorists.’ Add to this the desperate measures that Democratic officials have taken in the attempt to prevent forensic audits, and canvasses, of the vote. The extent to which the so-called "insurrection" at the capitol was the spontaneous act of overzealous Trump supporters outraged at the fraudulent election, and to what extent it was instigated by the Democrats, is not yet clear. We know that Speaker Pelosi and the DC mayor rejected Trump’s request to bring in the National Guard in case the demonstration got out of hand. Further, there is significant evidence that the Federal government placed agent provocateurs in the crowd and that they instigated the incursion in at least some instances. and we know that members of Antifa dressed as Trump supporters took part, especially where doors and windows were broken. There are plenty of reasons to suspect that the January 6 riot was ‘Reichstag Fire 2.0’ engineered so it could be used as it has in fact been used. Lost in the Democrats’ attempt to exploit January 6 is the plain fact that Trump had no reason to want the capitol to be attacked and the Senate proceedings disrupted. This was his last chance, within the legally ambiguous situation, to at least delay the theft of the election. Thus, his efforts to bring in the national guard to prevent any disruption and his pointedly calling on the crowd to be peaceful.

A prediction: Recently, an essay in Time magazine explained how Democrats, considering the removal of Trump imperative, conspired to ensure a Biden victory by at best quasi-legal means. The author was quite smug and proud of the success. I suspect that this is the first step in what’s known as a “limited hang-out,” in which a partial omission of guilt is made initially to deflect focus from patently illicit acts. Over time, as an increasing amount of difficult to suppress evidence comes to light, the perpetrators and their allies will permit the theft of the election to become an “open secret,” justified by the noble end of removing Trump from power, even as they continue to ridicule and threaten their political opponents for believing it. An analogy: It is now widely acknowledged that John F. Kennedy became president after the 1960 election only because of election fraud on the part of the Democratic machine in Chicago. In retrospect, many now regard this as a laudable crime, given the ex post facto heroic status of the slain Kennedy and the ignominious demise of Nixon in the Watergate scandal. Trump is more detested by the ruling class than even the hated Nixon, so this result might be achieved more quickly.

In February 20210, before it became evident that the Biden regime would be a disaster, the Time Magazine article, mentioned above, celebrated what it acknowledges “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” in order to elect Biden.

Since then, it is increasingly acknowledged that the election was “rigged,” though in polite society no mention of overt crimes such as the destruction of votes, shifting of votes from Trump to Biden, the introduction of bogus votes, and algorithmic control of outcomes remains unmentionable. Yet the implication of what it is now permissible to say is obvious: the Democrats at the least bent the law to have millions vote by mail. Why is this an aspect of a ‘rigged’ election unless the shift to mail-in voting resulted in large-scale fraud? If there was no such fraud, but only the potential for it, why talk about it as an element of a rigged election?

As the 2022 mid-term elections approach, the regime knows that it has a relatively small window of time in which to impose its vision on the United States; see "Don't Call Them Socialists" on this site for my account of the nature of that vision. It has every motive to try to duplicate the fraud perpetrated in 2020. Likely Republican control of the House and Senate, conjoined with increasing public knowledge of the means and scope of the fraud, opens the perpetrators to removal from office, disgrace, and legal punishment. However, Republicans seek to convince the public that the Biden regime rigged the 2020 election but that they will be kept from a repeat performance in 2022. If they succeed on the first but fail on the second, their voters will stay home, seeing no reason to cast votes that will not count. The fate of the republic hangs on this.

Finally, the Proof

The evidence described in the foregoing suffices to convince reasonable, honest persons that the presidency of the United States was stolen in November 2020, with what are now plainly disastrous results. But now, thanks to a heroic effort by True the Vote, a grassroots election integrity organization founded in 2008 in Texas, this has now been proved.

In the spring of 2022, True the Vote made public its examination of the trafficking of ballots in the urban centers of the swing states. This organization originated in the discovery of election fraud in Houston during the Obama regime. It was quickly targeted by the Lois Lerner IRS and by four other Federal agencies in retaliation for doing so. Its founder, Catherine Englebrecht, testified on this to Congress in 2014. Acting on the testimony of whistleblowers and witnesses soon after the 2020 election, True the Vote used geotracking data, i.e., records of cell phones’ self-locating pings, to identify thousands of individuals engaged in illegal ballot trafficking. These “mules” (on analogy to those hired to carry illegal drugs by criminal organizations) are shown to have moved from one box to the next many times, while intermittently returning to the headquarters of left-wing ‘get out the vote’ organizations. In accord with state election rules, many precincts videotaped their drop boxes around the clock. The videos, which were acquired often with great difficulty despite being public records, allow True the Vote to correlate the cell phone data with video of the illegal ballot stuffing. Some videos show the traffickers taking selfies of themselves with the ballots before depositing them, presumably in order to get paid. In at least one video a mule is seen signing multiple mail-in ballot envelopes before dropping them into the box. Because phones can be tracked to the owner’s place of residence, in many cases the identity of the mule is known. This data is being supplied to law enforcement agencies and is not being made public. Further, at various locations, chain of custody records report a startling divergence of the number of individuals seen voting, on video, and the number of ballots retrieved. For example, at one voting location in Georgia, 270 persons voted in a 24 hour period, and this corresponds with the number of persons observed voting on video; yet 19,062 votes are recorded from that box in that 24 hour period. In fact, in some cases, far more ballots were counted than could plausibly be accounted for by legal voters and mules combined. Clearly, large numbers of illegal ballots were introduced by means other than by the mules. Collaborating with Dinesh D’Sousa, they produced a film documenting the fraud. It is now being presented to the public. There were certainly many more than 2000 traffickers, most dropping illegal ballots in many drop boxes. Beyond this, True the Vote did not have the resources to track mules who put bogus ballots into the U.S. mail. Counting only the ballots trafficked by these 2000, the estimate is that 400,000 illegal ballots were counted in a few precincts in Arizona, Wisconsin, Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. This is 7% of the mail-in vote in these states. This is the bare minimum of illegal votes introduced into the 2020 election on Joe Biden’s behalf. This leaves no reasonable doubt that Trump, not Biden, won these states and that Trump would have handily won the electoral college vote but for the fraud. It remains to be seen whether the criminal organization that carried out the election fraud, and its allies in the Democratic party and the media, will succeed in suppressing, distorting, and denying proof of what is arguably the most egregious political crime in American history.

In the course of its investigation, True the Vote came upon the fact that personal information about millions of American poll workers and about voting locations was stored on s server in China by a Chinese owned company election services company in Michigan. The New York Times published an article castigating True the Vote for Victimizing the individual operating the company in the U.S. The next day, Los Angeles county had him asked for his arrest and he was apprehended as he attempted to leave the country.

More on prior probability:

Both major political parties have engaged in election fraud. As I noted above, the earliest known case of fraud by means of computer was on behalf of a Republican campaign in Florida. However, large-scale election fraud has long been the forte of Democrats. As long ago as the late 19th century Democratic ‘machines’ maintained themselves in power in large cities by systematic vote fraud, and this has continued in certain cities to the present day, as regular indictments and convictions testify. The criminal acquisition of, and use of, political power attracts the corrupt to both parties, but the underlying ideology of the contemporary Democratic party helps explain why election fraud is more “at home” among Democrats and thus why it’s reasonable to ascribe a high prior probability to the 2020 presidential election being stolen.

The two parties have very different conceptions of the aims of government and law. Those on the Right, which include both mainline Republicans and Libertarians, are conservatives insofar as they revere and , and maintain the U.S. Constitution, which established a classically liberal form of government. The “utopia” of the Right is a society in which laws framed by elected representatives are enforced with impartiality. Within this neutral framework, individuals could peacefully pursue the good, however they conceive it. Government has no legitimate authority beyond this. The actual United States is an imperfect but, in historical terms, close approximation to this ideal. The laws are just insofar as they protect the natural rights of all individuals, and they are equally enforced. Imperfection characterizes all things human, so there is always room for reform and improvement. Sensitive to the ever-present unintended consequences of human action, those on the Right believe that reforms must be incremental, piecemeal, and reversible. Most social order, however, depends not on man-made law but on the natural moral law, which has an objective foundation that transcends human society. There are serious moral restrictions on what individuals may do to achieve their goals. The same holds for political goals. Even when some greater good for society can be achieved, it might not be achievable by morally permissible means. When those on the Right lie, cheat, and steal in pursuit of their ends, however noble, they are most often denounced and rejected by the Right at large. In philosophical terms, the Right is largely “deontological” in outlook; the goodness of intended ends does not guarantee there are morally right means to realize them. And, in fact, given human limitations, attempts to achieve apparently good ends by immoral means most often make things worse.

Those on the Left, which now includes those who now have decisive power in the Democratic party, envision a utopia very different from the actual United States. In it there is not only perfect equality, but perfect equity, and thus what they conceive as perfect justice. The moral imperfections of human nature are not innate but will be healed by the enlightened application of political power. Democrats and other Leftists believe that human nature can be molded so as to arrive at this ideal society; the impediment to achieving it is found not in intractable limits of history, human nature, human knowledge, and human reason, but in the recalcitrance of those on the Right. For those on the Left, the goodness of the political goal they embrace—and what good could be greater than a world of perfect justice?—justifies means that ordinary morality condemns. This is the “consequentialist” view; the ends, if good enough, justify the means, however bad. There are no moral constraints on the pursuit of the envisioned good. “How could it be wrong to do what’s necessary to make the world a better place?” For today’s Democrats, it is permissible, even obligatory, to violate both traditional moral and legal norms to defeat the enemies of utopia. One ought to lie, cheat, steal and, in extremis, kill if doing so is necessary to bring about the envisaged utopia. A “blind” legal system is not of inherent value, as it is for the Right; law is an instrument, used as a weapon to advance the Leftist vision and to destroy those who stand in its way. They see no objection to there being one legal system for themselves, and another for their enemies. The right to a fair trial, to legal representation, and to be regarded as innocent until proved guilty, are obstacles to be brushed aside. Other fundamental natural rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as the right to freedom of speech and assembly, and to bear arms, are ignored, derided, and overturned as matter of course. Similarly, democratic procedures, embodied in free and fair elections, which are sacred on the Right, may be subverted at will when doing so advances the Leftist cause. Given the threat from the Right they saw in Donald Trump, it is predictable that they would go to any length, unfettered by legal or moral constraints, to deny him power.