The Left-Wing Dominance of Dominion
Dr Coomer -- Director of Product Strategy and Security for Dominion Voting Systems -- posted a long rant in support of Antifa and calling for (violent?) action. A lobbyist for the company, Brian McKeon, is a long-time advisor to Joe Biden.
Dominion Voting Systems are associated with multiple democrat political players. 96% of their employees donate democrat, and the company itself donated up to $50k to the Clinton Foundation. Six (6) identified lobbyists working for the company are connected to the Biden-Harris campaign and Democrat operations in some way.
Wouldn't this be enough to question the neutrality of these voting machines, especially with the reports of glitches benefiting Joe Biden coming in from so many states?
Click here to download the clickable PDF.
BTC Donations: 15UdQzkFiDhHeWZqk4oPCLMPZv21o6mmyk
A Mountain of Evidence
For the last 4 years, anti-Trump activists have sought to undermine the presidency of President Donald J. Trump. They accused the President of colluding with Russia to win the 2016 election -- allegations with very little real evidence even after concerted attempts to dig up dirt for the entirety of those 4 years.
When we first wrote these words, it's been 4 days after the election, and already Trump Supporters have a mountain of evidence for Joe's #VoterFraud. Statistical forensics showing that Biden's contested state numbers are unnatural, voting software glitches that always seemed to favor Joe Biden, poll-watchers not being allowed access to polls, whistleblowers from the US post service saying that there are standing orders to backdate ballots, votes for Trump not being recognized, US Supreme Court orders that go ignored, and of course #DeadPeopleVoting.
This site is only the tip of the iceberg -- literally thousands of separate reports have been made, showing a clear pattern of voter fraud.
Joe cheated. Let's not let him get away with it.
If you're new here, read through the site, starting with the section on Benford's Law, below.
If this is a repeat visit for you, or if you already know where you want to go, find that section on our handy table of contents.
Did you notice the three blue buttons on the top of the page? Try them out.
Looking for new updates? The Info Dump section contains everything we recently received.
Have a case of election fraud to report that you don't see here? Report to the Trump Campaign directly here, and also send us a copy of the report here.
Table of Contents
BTC Donations: 15UdQzkFiDhHeWZqk4oPCLMPZv21o6mmyk ETH Donations: 0x81F52B4D411A0bE41e7C52a05f315d99DCD9e22D
Benford's Law Irregularities in Biden-won Contested States
Benford's law states that, in natural data sets, the leading digits are always distributed in a specific, nonuniform way. While one might think that the number 1 would appear as the first digit 11 percent of the time (i.e., one of nine possible numbers), it actually appears about 30 percent of the time (Figure 1). Nine, on the other hand, is the first digit less than 5 percent of the time. The theory covers the first digit, second digit, first two digits, last digit and other combinations of digits because the theory is based on a logarithm of probability of occurrence of digits.
It is commonly used to detect fraud in large data sets by comparing leading digits to what the Benford curve (Figure 1) predicts.
Legal status: In the United States, evidence based on Benford's law has been admitted in criminal cases at the federal, state, and local levels. Evidence for the Enron case hinged on the Benford analysis of their accounting numbers (Figure 2).
Figure 1: Benford's Law
Figure 2: Enron scandal - Benford Analysis
Precedent for elections: Benford's law has been invoked as evidence of fraud in the 2009 Iranian elections. The Benford irregularity in the Iran case was shown through the below distribution graph. Note that the expected Benford distribution is in black, and the Iran distribution is grey.
The slight "unBenfordness" of the above distribution (hint: look at number 7) was enough for major international accusations of election fraud and the demonstrations of millions of Iranians across multiple cities.
US Election Fraud 2020: Now look at the US Election's "unBenfordness" and where they cluster in tight state races where Biden was declared victor (graphs for Chicago, Milwaukee, WI, and Allegheny, PA). (Source) Bonus: A comparison between Biden's Milwaukee numbers and the Enron case is also provided.
As is plain, Benford analysis show multiple issues with the US election numbers that are a lot more blatant than the Iranian election fraud case and even gives the Enron fraud case a run for its money. Biden numbers in contested states are not even close to following the Benford curve.
The usage of Benford in elections has been disputed in the past, but usually for cases like Iran where only one digit falls outside the curve. For the Milwaukee graph alone, five leading digits lie outside the predicted Benford curve.
To put it another way: If Biden didn't commit fraud, Benford's law -- which is also used to detect fraud in taxes, scientific papers, accounting, and census data everywhere in the world -- would be completely disproved.
Here is a full Twitter thread explaining the statistical anomalies of Biden's numbers under statistical analysis.
Statistically Anomalous "Vote Spikes" Keep Favoring Biden over Trump
An update in Michigan listed as of 6:31AM Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 141,258 votes for Joe Biden and 5,968 votes for Donald Trump
An update in Wisconsin listed as 3:42AM Central Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 143,379 votes for Joe Biden and 25,163 votes for Donald Trump
A vote update in Georgia listed at 1:34AM Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 136,155 votes for Joe Biden and 29,115 votes for Donald Trump
An update in Michigan listed as of 3:50AM Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 54,497 votes for Joe Biden and 4,718 votes for Donald Trump
Here's an example graph to show what this means:
In the above Wisconsin graph, a single update to the vote count brought Biden from trailing by over 100,000 votes into the lead. Note that the x-axis (time) expressed in Central Standard Time (CST).
A statistician / group of statisticians did an analysis of the above (all data points sourced from scraped New York Times data) and formally proved that the statistical anomalies are enough to warrant investigation towards election fraud. Here's the paper:
Here's a summary of their argument:
The basic intuition is: big margins are one thing, and so are super-skewed results, but it’s weird to have them both at the same time, as they generally become inversely related as either value increases.
We will demonstrate below that the data overwhelmingly follow this intuition, but that four key vote updates identified by this report cut against this intuition.
In particular, we will show the existence of a very strong inverse relationship within vote updates, across all states and times, between the difference of votes for Joe Biden and Donald Trump (often referred to as the “Biden-Trump margin”) and the the ratio of Joe Biden’s votes to Donald Trump’s votes (often referred to as the “Biden:Trump ratio”).
Here at JoeCheated.com we are huge fans of this work, so we will not take traffic away from them by giving you the complete explanation on our site. Please go to their site and read through the complete arguments yourself.
The following spreadsheet contains a list of over 300 dead people who registered to vote in Detroit in the 2020 US Election. You are welcome to verify each name on this list through this public link: https://mvic.sos.state.mi.us/Voter/Index
Demonstration: Here are screenshots of Twitter user Fleccas showing that a 118 year old “William Bradley”registered to vote and then actually voted via absentee ballot in Wayne County, Michigan.
William Bradley died in 1984.
Here is a walkthrough showing how you can find dead voters (i.e., people born in the 1800s) directly on the Pennsylvania voter list, through Open Data Pennsylvania. (Video Source.)
New: Trump Legal Team Releases Kraken, Media Ignores
345k votes switched to Biden in 2 states in a single second
Poll workers trained to add Biden and delete Trump.
Soros office space rented to 2 Dominion offices that disappeared overnight.
Votes tabulated outside the U.S by a voting system that disrupted elections in Venezuela and Cuba.
Trump only has 3 lawsuits -- all the rest of the lawsuits are from private citizens and other parties. Contrary to media claims: ALL of Trump's lawsuits are still in play.
New: Sworn Statements Attesting To Election Fraud
Michigan GOP state senators are requesting a full audit of the 2020 General Election, lists all techniques used for the #MassiveVoterFraud.
A Dominion Voting employee's sworn affidavit of her witnessing fraud for hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of votes.
Former police captain's testimony of massive ballot harvesting scheme.
Voter Fraud Caught On Tape
"What kind of election is this?" the Asian-American lady says, while she describes the irregularities that happened during her time as Ballot Observer on Nov 3rd. "This felt like a drug deal!"
On Tuesday night President Trump was leading significantly in several swing states including Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Then all of the sudden Joe Biden jumped up 200,000 votes just in Michigan and has the lead over President Trump.
The Asian American ballot observer of the Michigan election says a mysterious van full of ballots arrived at 4 AM in the morning.
Her full testimony -- translated from Mandarin -- can be seen in the video.
The Bombshell #DetroitLeaks recordings.
Multiple Detroit pollworker trainings were recorded explicitly training pollworkers on the Michigan Voter Fraud strategy:
Kick out poll watchers: Prevent the poll watchers from seeing the ballot counting through the excuse of COVID-19 social distancing, even telling trainees to call 911 if they get too close. This was explicitly mentioned as a technique to prevent observation of what the pollworkers are doing. (At one point someone made a joke that the pollwatchers would need binoculars to see)
Challenged ballots, which are supposed to be separated for later analysis, are processed as regular ballots. This is important because challenged ballots are the ones provided to individuals whose eligibility or registration status in the state cannot be confirmed. Before 2020, no challenged ballot would go into the tabulator, because a tabulated ballot is anonymous and could not be identified or challenged in the future. The trainer instructed trainees to cover ballot barcodes with Post-It tape to be able to do this.
Allow everyone with an easily forged piece of paper to vote through the aforementioned "challenged ballots", even people who are not registered in the voting database. Tens of thousands of these "new voter registration receipts" can be generated very easily
Staff polling stations with high-school age teenagers as Electronic Pollbook Inspectors. These teens wouldn't be able to stay until the early hours of the morning, so they have todrop off their laptops with someone else -- and the frauding pollworkers should be the one taking care of the laptop.
No one to call for help
Count challenged ballots, DESTROY provisional ballots.
Videos of incidents of voter fraud poured in on social media, while being censored by Silicon Valley.
We see ballots for Donald J Trump in the trash.
We see ballots with pre-filled Democrat tickers, in which the ballots seemed to be pre-filled by stamping machine, not handwritten -- indicating a massive operation.
Ballots being spoiled -- not being handled within the actual poll-counting location.
Rudy discusses three affidavits filed in Michigan, one from a long-time city worker, one from a Dominion Voting Systems employee performing IT service, and one from a Republican credentialed poll watcher. These affidavits, which Rudy claims are 3 among nearly 100, detail several forms of explicit fraud taking place systematically at the TCF Center in Detroit, including:
- Poll workers instructed to count mail-in ballots without validating the postmark, the signature, or any other voter ID information;
- Poll workers instructed not to request any form of voter ID for in-person voters;
- Poll workers instructing voters to vote straight-Democrat and watching them vote;
- Poll workers accepting in-person votes from people who had already been sent absentee ballots, without requiring them to produce the unused absentee ballot;
- Poll workers running ballots through tabulators 5-10 times to count them repeatedly;
- Approximately 100,000 ballots arriving in unsealed cardboard boxes at 4:30am, after most poll watchers had gone home, which were 100% for Joe Biden, and did not even have down-ballot choices marked;
- Systematic efforts to prevent Republican poll watchers from witnessing, let alone validating, the process by which mail-in ballots were verified and counted
No unGoogled link since you need to give Rudy's YouTube channel some love: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd-5Xm5PFmg
Hacking A Voting Machine? Super Easy, Barely an Inconvenience!
Optical scanning / tabulating machines for ballots with amazingly lax security. A pollworker can easily get admin access with a bit of jostling and button-pushing. As demonstrated here, this should raise questions about the sanctity and security of our ballot-counting methods, especially in places where Republican poll watchers were systematically being pushed 30ft away or out of the room.
9 Reasons why the 2020 Presidential Election is Deeply Puzzling (From Spectator.com)
Full article here: https://spectator.us/reasons-why-the-2020-presidential-election-is-deeply-puzzling/
Late on election night, with Trump comfortably ahead, many swing states stopped counting ballots. In most cases, observers were removed from the counting facilities. Counting generally continued without the observers.
Statistically abnormal vote counts were the new normal when counting resumed. They were unusually large in size (hundreds of thousands) and had an unusually high (90 percent and above) Biden-to-Trump ratio.
Late arriving ballots were counted. In Pennsylvania, 23,000 absentee ballots have impossible postal return dates and another 86,000 have such extraordinary return dates they raise serious questions
The failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots. The destruction of mail in ballot envelopes, which must contain signatures
Historically low absentee ballot rejection rates despite the massive expansion of mail voting. Such is Biden’s narrow margin that, as political analyst Robert Barnes observes, ‘If the states simply imposed the same absentee ballot rejection rate as recent cycles, then Trump wins the election’
Missing votes. In Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 50,000 votes held on 47 USB cards are missing
Non-resident voters. Matt Braynard’s Voter Integrity Project estimates that 20,312 people who no longer met residency requirements cast ballots in Georgia. Biden’s margin is 12,670 votes
Serious ‘chain of custody’ breakdowns. Invalid residential addresses. Record numbers of dead people voting. Ballots in pristine condition without creases, that is, they had not been mailed in envelopes as required by law
Statistical anomalies. In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch. It is particularly perplexing that all statistical anomalies and tabulation abnormalities were in Biden’s favor. Whether the cause was simple human error or nefarious activity, or a combination, clearly something peculiar happened.
We are huge fans of Patrick Basham, the Director of the Democracy Institute, who wrote this article, and we encourage you to go directly to the article and share it around.
Software "Glitches" that Favor Joe Biden
A glitch in software (Dominion Democracy Suite, brochure here) used to tabulate ballots in Antrim County, Michigan caused at least 6,000 Republican votes to be counted as Democrat, according to Michigan GOP Chairwoman Laura Cox. The miscalculation, Cox said in a press conference, was first reported by a county clerk. A short investigation revealed that 47 counties in Michigan may have also suffered from a similar glitch with the same software, which could have caused some counties to rake in a higher number of Democrat votes than usual.
6,000 might not sound like much, but if we take all of the counties in Michigan that used the Dominion software and multiply it by the number of ballots that switched from Biden to Trump in just that one county, we get:
(1+47) x 6,000 = 288,000
Joe's margin in Michigan is only about 146k.
The Dominion Democracy Suite software is used in 30 states. Google it.
Ghost Voters: 353 U.S Counties had 1.8 Million More Registered Voters than Eligible Citizens
A September 2020 study revealed that 353 U.S. counties had 1.8 million more registered voters than eligible voting-age citizens. In other words, the registration rates of those counties exceeded 100% of eligible voters. The study found eight states showing state-wide registration rates exceeding 100%: Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
The study collected the most recent registration data posted online by the states themselves. This data was then compared to the Census Bureau’s most recent five-year population estimates, gathered by the American Community Survey (ACS) from 2014 through 2018. ACS surveys are sent to 3.5 million addresses each month, and its five-year estimates are considered to be the most reliable estimates outside of the decennial census. (Source.)
New: Election Lawsuit Tracker
When discussing election-related lawsuits. the mainstream media narrative seems to focus only on the lawsuits filed by President Trump. It is less known that Joe Biden's campaign has filed 60 lawsuits just since August, 2020, in multiple US states. These lawsuits were made to change the "rules of the game" in the 2020 elections. These are last-minute changes to get rid of deadlines and security measures to the voting process. Some of these lawsuits are not yet settled, and may anull election results in some states (including PA) since ballots received after election day would be considered inadmissible under Constitutional court decisions.
The tracker is below, last updated Nov 12th, 2020. Degoogled version here: https://gofile.io/d/AUy2AO (4th page).
Election Rule Changes Requested by Democrats in Pennsylvania
(Or, why a large portion of the Pennsylvania ballots might be illegal.)
The timeline so far:
- Constitution says State Legislature gets to make the election rules
Key here: the standing election law in PA says that ballots had to be received by Nov 3rd to count.
- Governor in PA went to legislature to allow ballots from after election day
Around the summer, the (D) Gov of PA tried to pressure the (R) PA state legislature to change the rules, to allow ballots to be counted that were *postmarked* by Nov 3rd but not actually received until Friday.
- Legislature refused the request
The (R) legislature refused to change the state election laws, so the standing election law in PA still says they must be actually received by Nov 3rd to count.
- Governor goes to PA Supreme Court instead to get a court order
The gov requested the PA supreme court (strongly Democrat controlled) to issue a court order that ballots received late will still count, and the court gave the order.
- In principle, the court order itself is illegal, and in violation of state election law, as well as in violation of the US Constitution
But by this very same court order, the precincts in PA have been counting late-received ballots for the last few days.
- Anticipating all this, there were guidelines to segregatee ballots received after election day. Basically they needed to be counted separately, and not included in the vote totals -- as any such votes are very likely the target of legal action which might invalidate them
Precincts in PA ignored the guidance, didn't segregate the ballots received after election day, and reported the totals along with the normal votes
- US Supreme Court just issued them an order that they are LEGALLY BOUND to comply with the "guidance", they MUST segregate those votes and remove them from the counted totals
So, the legal battle will be over whether it is legal for a court order to overrule the election laws set by the state legislature. And on this front the constitution is exceptionally clear: the state legislature gets to make the state's election laws, nobody else.
- Those votes received after election day will almost certainly end up the subject of a lawsuit that goes to the US Supreme Court.
There is a good chance that it will overturn the PA supreme court's order, in which case the ballots received after Nov 3rd will need to be thrown out, as per the state's election laws.
What's worse, PA is not the only state with an ongoing election lawsuit.
Unfurl the section below if you'd like to know the details of Democrat lawsuits in multiple states. (Quite a long read! Feel free to go to the TLDR summary if you prefer to skip it.)
Democrat Lawsuits in Wisconsin, Indiana, NC, Minnesota, Michigan, PA, Iowa, Alabama
The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals’ made a decision to stay (or stop from going into effect) the order of a federal district court judge appointed by then-President Barack Obama that “extended the deadline for the receipt of mailed ballots from Nov. 3 (Election Day) to Nov. 9, provided that the ballots [had been] postmarked on or before Nov. 3 … .”
In doing so, the court of appeals chastised the district court judge, reminding him that “the Supreme Court has insisted that federal courts not change electoral rules close to an election date” and that “the design of adjustments during a pandemic” is not a “judicial task.”
On Oct. 26, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, rejecting the Democratic National Committee’s request for a stay of the 7th Circuit’s order. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a concurrence explaining his rationale for why this decision differed from the high court’s decision in the Pennsylvania case (more on that in a moment), and Justice Neil Gorsuch also wrote a concurrence emphasizing that “[t]he Constitution provides that state legislatures—not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials—bear primary responsibility for setting election rules … [a]nd the Constitution provides a second layer of protection, too. If state rules need revision, Congress is free to alter them.”
Unfortunately, the 7th Circuit’s election-related work didn’t end with Wisconsin’s case. The same court had to repeat itself only five days later when it stayed and “summarily reversed” an Indiana-based federal judge’s order “requiring the state [of Indiana] to count all absentee ballots received by November 13, 2020, ten days after Election Day.”
The court relied on the same rationale as in its previous cases and in some instances even said “[s]ubstitute ‘Indiana’ for ‘Wisconsin’ and the essential point remains.”
An important point to keep in mind that too many seem to forget or want to ignore is that, as the 7th Circuit said, “as long as the state allows voting in person, there is no constitutional right to vote by mail.”
The fact that there is a pandemic is still “not a good reason for the federal judiciary to assume tasks that belong to politically responsible officials.”
In other words, it is up to state officials, not judges, to decide what the rules are applying to voting and the receipt of absentee ballots.
3) North Carolina
Shifting gears, some plaintiffs have pursued their election-related claims in state courts and then entered into settlement agreements or consent decrees with state officials who refuse to defend their state laws as they are obligated to do.
That’s known as collusive litigation, in which state election officials use lawsuits filed by their friends and political allies to subvert laws implemented by state legislatures that they don’t like or that were passed by their political opposition.
Even more problematic, these consent decrees in turn often spawn their own rounds of federal litigation by state legislators and others who object to state laws being undefended and summarily changed through settlement agreements.
That’s what happened in North Carolina, where the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to stay a six-day extension—from three days after the election to nine—during which mail-in ballots could be received and counted by election officials so long as the ballots were mailed on or before Election Day.
This extension was the result of a state court consent decree entered into between the state court plaintiffs and the North Carolina Board of Elections, which is controlled by Democrats, while both houses of the North Carolina General Assembly are controlled by Republicans.
A lower court judge found that the board had “secretly” negotiated the settlement without consulting the legislature and “showed little or no interest” in defending state law against the lawsuit.
Judge James A. Wynn, another Obama appointee, wrote the opinion for the entire 4th Circuit, over the vigorous dissent of Judges J. Harvie Wilkinson III and G. Steven Agee, with whom Judge Paul Niemeyer joined.
The central dispute between the majority and the dissent centered on what constituted the “status quo” when applying the Purcell principle, established by the Supreme Court in 2006. That’s the idea that federal courts generally should not interfere with a state’s election-related decisions close to an election.
Wynn and the majority said, “The state court issued an order approving the Consent Judgment on October 2. This October 2 order established the relevant status quo for Purcell purposes. Under this status quo, all absentee votes cast by Election Day and received by November 12 would be counted.”
The dissenters countered that “we are faced with nonrepresentative entities changing election law immediately preceding or during a federal election. In making those changes, they have undone the work of the elected state legislatures, to which the Constitution clearly and explicitly delegates the power” to prescribe the times, places, and manner of holding elections.
As the dissenters pointed out, “The Constitution does not assign these powers holistically to the state governments, but rather pinpoints a particular branch of state government—‘the Legislatures thereof.’”
Foreshadowing Gorsuch’s concurrence in the Wisconsin case, they went on to say, “Whether it is a federal court … or a state election board—as it is here—does not matter; both are unaccountable entities stripping power from the legislatures. They are changing the rules of the game in the middle of an election—exactly what Purcell … counsels against.”
In fact, Niemeyer noted, the 4th Circuit majority was changing the rules when “well over 1,000,000” North Carolinians had already voted.
The court’s action “disrespects the Supreme Court’s repeated and clear command not to interfere so late in the day. This pernicious pattern is making the courts appear partisan, destabilizing federal elections, and undermining the power of the people to choose representatives to set election rules.”
Emergency appeals have already been filed with the Supreme Court by both the Trump campaign and North Carolina state legislators, no doubt encouraged by Wilkinson and Agee saying that they “are likely to succeed on their appeal.”
A federal district court in Minnesota recently confronted a similar issue with another collusive lawsuit. There—as in North Carolina—Steve Simon, the Minnesota secretary of state, a former Democratic state legislator, entered into a consent decree with certain groups, as a result of a state court lawsuit, agreeing “not to enforce Minnesota’s statutorily mandated absentee-ballot receipt deadline of 8:00 p.m. on Election Day, November 3, 2020.”
“Instead, the [state] court ordered [Minnesota officials, consistent with the consent decree] to count ballots that are postmarked by November 3, so long as election officials receive them within a week of Election Day.”
As a result, two Republican Party presidential electors brought suit in federal court challenging the collusive consent decree and the court order approving it as unconstitutional. Specifically, they argued the actions violated the “Electors Clause” in Article II of the Constitution, which grants state legislatures the authority to determine how to select presidential electors, and Congress’ power under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 to set the “[t]ime of [choosing] the Electors.”
However, the court never reached the merits of this case because it found that the electors did not have standing, or the ability to pursue these claims in federal court, because they had not been injured by the change in election procedures. But this seems like an odd result, given that it is presidential electors who are elected by voters when they cast ballots, not the presidential candidates themselves.
The Michigan Court of Appeals, that state’s intermediate appellate court, ruled on Oct. 16 that a lower Michigan court had incorrectly required the state to accept mail-in ballots up to 14 days after Election Day and that it had improperly prohibited the state from enforcing its laws relating to who, other than the voter, can handle and deliver his or her ballot.
It made clear that “designing adjustments to our election integrity laws is the responsibility of our elected policymakers, not the judiciary.”
In fact, the court said:
Our legislature has addressed the expected increase in [absentee] voter ballots by empowering clerks to begin processing [absentee] voter ballots earlier in an effort to provide a final vote tally after polls close for the 2020 election … . While plaintiffs may view these efforts as inadequate first steps, there is no reason to believe that these specific efforts are constitutionally required, even in the midst of a pandemic. Instead, they reflect the proper ‘exercise of discretion, the marshaling and allocation of resources, and the confrontation of thorny policy issues’ that the people have reserved exclusively for our Legislative and Executive branches to exercise.
The court also acknowledged that “[i]mposing limits on whether third parties can possess or collect ballots simply reflects a policy decision by a duly elected legislature, where the Constitution places responsibility to regulate and preserve the purity of elections.”
Interestingly, one of the plaintiffs in this case is the Phillip Randolph Institute. This is the same radical organization that lost a 2018 Supreme Court decision, Husted v. Phillip Randolph Institute, in which it tried to prevent the state of Ohio from maintaining the accuracy of its voter-registration list by removing individuals who had died or moved out of the state.
On Oct. 19, an evenly divided Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 and thus left in place a ruling by Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court in a lawsuit brought by the Pennsylvania Democratic Party that would require—according to that court’s interpretation of state law—state officials to count absentee ballots received up to three days after the election even if they don’t have a postmark showing they had been mailed by Election Day.
In a surprising move, it was Roberts who joined with the court’s liberals to refuse Supreme Court review of the state court’s decision.
Roberts didn’t explain his vote in this case. However, he did write a short concurrence in the later case out of Wisconsin in which he agreed to stop the extension of the absentee ballot deadline to try to explain why he voted differently in each case.
He claimed that because “the Pennsylvania applications implicated the authority of state courts to apply their own constitutions to election regulations,” that case was different than “the federal intrusion on state lawmaking processes” in Wisconsin.
According to Roberts, because “different bodies of law and different precedents govern these two situations,” the circumstances require “that we allow the modification of election rules in Pennsylvania, but not Wisconsin.”
The fallacy of that argument is that the U.S. Constitution delegates authority over election rules to state legislatures, not state courts.
On Oct. 24, however, perhaps in anticipation of possibly getting a better decision with the empty seat on the Supreme Court filled, the state’s Republican Party went back to the Supreme Court and asked it to decide the case on the merits, rather than simply asking it to stop the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s order from taking effect while the litigation proceeds.
The outcome of that request remains to be seen.
The Pennsylvania state Supreme Court also ruled on Oct. 23 that election officials could not reject absentee ballots because the signature on the ballot does not match the signature of the voter on file, throwing out one of the most basic security protocols in place for mail-in ballots.
On Oct. 14, the Iowa Supreme Court held that a lower state court abused its discretion when it issued an Oct. 5 stay preventing the Iowa secretary of state from requiring that county officials distribute “only the blank Official State of Iowa Absentee Ballot Request Form … .”
While the decision turns largely on state law, the court said, “Clearly, reasonable people can disagree on whether sending out blank or prepopulated absentee-ballot request forms is better policy … [but m]ore importantly, it is not the role of the court system to evaluate the wisdom or fairness of policy choices made by other branches of governments.”
Contrary to the court’s comment about “reasonable people,” knowledgeable election officials understand that sending out absentee-ballot request forms that are already populated with a voter’s registration information—rather than requiring the voter to provide that information—cuts out one of the safety protocols for authenticating absentee-ballot requests.
And finally, we turn to Alabama. We previously discussed the 11th Circuit’s rulings that have repeatedly stayed a recalcitrant federal district judge’s order prohibiting Alabama from enforcing its witness and photo-ID requirements for absentee ballots, and the fact that this same decision did not stay the district court’s order telling Alabama state officials they could not stop local officials from providing curbside voting, something not authorized under state law.
As we noted before, federal appeals court Judge Barbara Lagoa—who was rumored to have been one of two finalists for the Supreme Court vacancy that ultimately went to appeals court Judge Amy Coney Barrett—would also have stayed the district court’s order with regard to curbside voting.
Well, Lagoa was right. Alabama officials sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court, which it granted—meaning Alabama officials can run their elections as they see fit (within constitutional bounds, of course) and once again prohibit curbside voting.
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissent, which Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined, that makes it clear that they would have no hesitation in substituting their “expert” judgment on how to deal with the health issues raised by the COVID-19 pandemic for that of state and local officials.
All told, an avalanche of election-related litigation has been filed in courts across the country. The common objective in all of these cases seems to be to get rid of the deadlines and security measures in place for absentee or mail-in ballots by overriding the rules set by state legislatures to govern the election.
The quantity and complexity of these lawsuits so close to an election—after many votes have already been cast—emphasizes the importance of the Supreme Court’s Purcell principle that federal courts should not intervene at the last minute, upsetting expectations and creating even more chaos in the process.
TL;DR Summary: Joe Biden's campaign has filed 60 lawsuits just since August, 2020, in multiple US states. These lawsuits were made to change the "rules of the game" in the 2020 elections. These are last-minute changes to get rid of deadlines and security measures to the voting process, and should raise questions.
Republican Poll Watchers Denied Entry to Polls (Videos)
The current media narrative: "Republicans had poll watchers from the beginning! The only thing that is in contention is how far away they were able to watch the ballots being counted."
Reality: Republicans were put 30 feet away from the counting, and ballots keep being brought away and brought in, out of view. In smaller locations with less than 30 feet of space, poll watchers were put outside the room.
Confirmation of Spoiled Ballots Illegally Handled
Hidden Camera Footage of Ballot Harvester for a House Republican Candidate Stealing Votes for Joe Biden.
GOP house candidate Mauro Garza apparently paid $5000 to a "ballot chaser" to harvest ballots throughout the county. The ballots were then used to vote for Mauro Garza himself -- and Joe Biden.
The video includes the "ballot chaser" bragging that she has personally stolen 7000 votes.
Of course, Texas didn't flip to Biden. Key question, though: Is this an isolated incident, and did similar practices flip other states?
Post Office Whistleblower
Pennsylvania USPS Whistleblower Richard Hopkins Goes Public, confirms Federal Investigators have spoken with him about Postmaster Rob Weisenbach's order to backdate ballots to November 3rd, 2020 .
A Pattern of Voter Fraud by Democrats
Democrat Congressman from Philadelphia charged with conspiring to violate voting rights by fraudulently stuffing the ballot boxes for specific candidates in the 2014, 2015, and 2016 primary elections, bribery of an election official, falsification of records, voting more than once in federal elections, and obstruction of justice, the U.S. Department of Justice announced Thursday. Michael “Ozzie” Myers, 77, a Philadelphia Democrat, is accused of conspiring with and bribing the former Judge of Elections for the 39th Ward, 36th Division, Domenick J. Demuro, according to the Department of Justice.
Info Dump: All Election Fraud Reports
(Click to expand)
Thread from CulturalHusbandry:
Real Election Update
(Note: Reformatted for clarity and linked to sources. Original thread here.)(Click to unfurl)
Site Foreword: This thread explains the real status of the US Presidential Elections as per November 9th, 2020. We have reformatted and edited the thread for readability, as well as linking to sources. We will try to keep editorializing to a minimum, and any substantial text we add (not including edits or removals for typos, clarity, or fact-checking purposes) will be formatted in italics. Again, go here for the original thread.
1. Recounts are Happening in Several States.
Election rules: Vary for each state, but many states trigger an automatic recount if the margin falls under half a percent (.5%), which means in these states Trump does not have to pay for a recount. If he does pay for a state, he would only have to put up US$ 3 million per state, which will be returned to him if the recount reverses the results. Thus, what we know for certain:
Georgia has a recount (49.5% Biden vs 49.3% Trump)
Pennsylvania has a recount (49.7% B vs 49.1% T)
Nevada has a recount (50.1% B vs 47.7% T)
Wisconsin has a recount (49.6% B vs 48.9% T)
Michigan has a recount (50.6% B vs 47.9%T)
Arizona has a recount (49.5% B vs 49.0% T)
Also note that Pennsylvania has to section the ballots into two categories (after Nov 3 versus up to Nov 3) due to Judge Alito's ruling which complicates it further. (Source)
2. Election Fraud Lawsuits Are In The Works.
Here are the merits of just some sample cases:
Pennsylvania has a UPS worker agreeing to testify in court that the supervisors were backdating ballots that they received after election day to Nov 3rd.
Software "glitch" (or tampering) in a single county in Michigan which gave 6,000 Trump votes to Biden. The same software is used in 47 other counties in Michigan and 30 other states. (Source from this very site.)
Pennsylvania/Georgia not allowing Republican observers in (especially during the period on Election night when votes for Biden skyrocketed)
The Federal Election Commission chair has already stated that he believes voter fraud took place, specifically citing that the refusal to allow Republicans back in to observe and counting anyway is a violation of law.
Limestone County already had 1 arrest
3. Dominion: The Voting Software That Illegitimately Gave Votes To Biden.
Amy Klobucher, Elizabeth Warren and Ron Wydden already got involved in the Dem Primaries specifically due to worries that Dominion was potentially a threat for voter fraud/manipulation
Dominion also had a court case against them in Georgia wherein the presiding judge was very worried about the potential for damage
Glitch in Michigan swapped some 3k votes from Trump to Biden
Dominion is used in 47 counties in Michigan
It is also used in 30 different states
Most importantly it is used in every 2020 election swing state
It has some Dem lobbyists working for them including Pelosi's aide
It also violated Benford's law with Hilary in 2016
And works in conjunction with the Clinton Foundation on Project DELIAN from the Democracy Project
So for mathematical proofs they will go looking at:
>1st Digit Benford's law
>2nd Digit Benford's Law
>Chi Squared Goodness of Fit test
>Last Digit frequency analysis
>You can also use integer percentages as an in identifier of potential electoral falsification.
>You can run fourier spectra histograms for leader result/voter turnout.
>You can even look at if the rate of invalid ballots falls, and you see an increase in the share of ballots for a candidate there is a possibility of tampering, especially if this is paired with a decrease in an opposing candidate's share.
For example, if 1k votes were declared invalid, and you saw Biden gain 1k, while Jorgensen lost 1k, it would suggest tampering.
>Even simple combinatorics could provide mathematical validation of fraud based on chance due to the down ballot run issue.
4. Ballot Run issue
>Essentially most of the found votes turned up with a weird conundrum
>They voted for Biden but did not vote for any congressman, senator, etc.
>Essentially they only voted on a single thing per ballot
>Statistically in the past this has happened at a rate of 3%
>This year it ran at a rate of 18+%
>6x higher rate of ballots, but only a "26%" increase in voter turn out - statistical anomaly
Where this is headed:
At this point you are just moving the line back as far as you can towards Dec. 14.
If you can do it without a state of emergency, then better.
If not, you call the emergency powers into play and designate Chinese interference into the election
>Joe's low opposition to China, Trump's anti-China streak, Trump killing the TPP, and the Hunter Biden laptop scenario all help correlate to this move
Trump tells the DOJ to investigate and they will due to a recent Barr precedent.
The repubs in the states in question can refuse to hand over until after the DOJ Investigation.
Sure dems can challenge but it will just go to the Supreme Court.
Legislature supports all these moves of stalling (including emergency powers if it comes to that but probably won't).
Dec. 14 rolls by and the vote goes to the house.
Each house rep gets 1 vote.
Repubs have 26, Dems at 23. Even if they hold all 2018 wins, and gain Pennsylvania seat, they still end up at 26 vs. 24. 25 with Georgia iirc.
Repubs vote Trump.
2nd term for Trump.
Meanwhile the Media has primed the populace for "Trump stealing the Presidency".
So you get even more riots. Potentially much more violent ones.
The question that remains is, does anyone care enough about the presidency, to risk the riots?
The answer is, of course, yes as we've seen factions nationwide riot over far less.
Summary: Trump-Supporting Independents, Republicans, and Democrats have the Right -- and the Evidence -- to Question Election Results.
The Democrat-controlled media is already anointing Joe Biden as #46, telling the public that it is in the media's right to announce the winners of presidential races in this country. This is incorrect. The media is unelected, and already wields too much power in the US without the ability to decide the presidency.
In 2020, a very diverse group of people came together to vote for Trump. That group included Republicans, Democrats, and Independents of all stripes. We have LGBT folks, black people, brown people, Asians. Trump supporters include people who are very left-leaning socially, pro-choicers, and refugees. This site itself was created by a group of people that include LGBT people and minorities.
The media is already trying to frame this diversity of votes through the lens of #OrangeManBad, by blaming the Trump campaign for disinformation campaigns that target these minorities, target us. But this, in itself, is gaslighting.
Minorities, Democrats, Independents, and Republicans vote for Donald J Trump because we recognize the America in him.
And none of us want to lose that America through fraud.
We call upon YOU to send JoeCheated.com to your local representatives and legistlators. Share it widely, throughout the comment sections of the internet. We have backup domains in case the #bigtech giants censor this link, so keep checking back for more details and additional information.
Joe Biden stole this election. But we can't let him steal America.