Tuesday, February 2, 2021

Yes, It Was a Stolen Election You’d have to be blind not to see it.

 Front Page Mag 23 Dec 2020

Jon Perazzo

As Americans continue to watch the 2020 election controversy unfold, the very same publications that spent years lying about President Trump’s “Russia collusion” are once again telling us what we are dutifully supposed to believe. The Los Angeles Times, for instance, assures us that Trump’s “baseless” and “dangerous” claim “that the election was rigged to benefit Joe Biden” has been thoroughly “debunked.”[1] The New York Times proclaims that “Trump’s false election fraud claims” are founded upon nothing more than a “torrent of falsehoods.”[2] Sneering at “how Trump drove the lie that the election was stolen,” The Washington Post mocks Republicans who “are still pretending that there was election fraud.”[3] And CNN.com warns that “Trump's obsession with overturning the election” has now begun to spiral “out of control.”[4]

But so much for what the comic books have to say. What follows is a compilation of vital facts that will demonstrate, to anyone interested in following the truth wherever it may lead, that the 2020 presidential election was indeed rife with fraud, and that Joe Biden, if he should in fact be sworn into office next month, will be an illegitimate president from the very start.

Before the Election: How We Got Here

Fifteen years ago, a landmark report by the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, known informally as the Carter-Baker Commission, advised all U.S. states that in order to guarantee free and fair elections, they should: increase voter ID requirements; minimize the use of mail-in ballots, which “remain the largest source of potential voter fraud”; disallow ballot harvesting by third parties; purge voter rolls of all ineligible or fraudulent names; allow election observers to monitor ballot-counting processes without restraint or obstruction; ensure that voting machines are accurate in their tabulations; and encourage news organizations to “delay the release of any exit-poll data until the election has been decided.” All of these recommendations were widely ignored in the elections of November 2020.[5]

During the months leading up to this year’s presidential race, the Biden campaign assembled a team of some 600 lawyers and more than 10,000 volunteers to “[go] into every single state” in order to “call out local rules that don’t adequately ensure access to vote.”[6]

Beginning more than a year ago, Democrats filed nearly 300 lawsuits in dozens of states[7] – most notably all of the key battleground states – in an effort to change election laws and regulations in ways that would benefit Democrat candidates. For example, they sought to: (a) extend the statutory deadlines by which mail-in ballots could be submitted, postmarked, or received by election authorities; (b) permit people to vote earlier than ever before, in some cases as many as 50 days prior to Election Day; (c) eliminate signature, signature-verification, and witness requirements for mail-in ballots; (d) void state laws that disallowed ballot harvesting by third parties; (e) terminate photo-ID requirements for in-person voting; (f) introduce provisions that would allow for the “curing” of mail-in ballots that contained errors or omissions; and (g) require state election officials to send unsolicited mail-in ballots to every person listed as a registered voter, even though such lists have long been notoriously inaccurate.[8] 

Though the Democrats did not get everything that they wanted, they got most of it. Broadcaster and bestselling author Mark Levin, citing the cases of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona -- and their combined 73 Electoral College votes – explains what happened:

“Every one of these states [and others as well] were targeted by Democrats. Every one of these states violated the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 [which empowers the state legislatures alone to make election law for each state]. Every one of them, because changes were made to their election systems not by the state legislature, but by other public officials.… That’s 73 Electoral College votes. This is why Donald Trump won the election…. [I]f the federal Constitution had not been violated, yes, Donald Trump would be … president of the United States today. Putting all fraud aside. All fraud aside. This is why you should be furious with the United States Supreme Court, that had as its duty, as its sworn responsibility … to insist that the states comply with the federal Constitution under Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, and that any changes made outside that clause, by governors, secretaries of states, by courts, federal or state, by election boards or other bureaucrats, will be deemed unconstitutional. [The Supreme Court] had a case [in Pennsylvania] … before a single vote was counted, they had a case [alleging unconstitutional changes to election laws] and they didn’t take it up…. [The Democrats] made these changes, they plotted, they planned, they litigated, they pressured, they lobbied, and now we have, if he’s sworn in, Joe Biden, who will be an illegitimate president of the United States in every meaning of that word, ‘illegitimate.’”[9]

The Implausibility of Trump’s Loss

While President Trump was granting interviews on a daily basis to friendly and hostile media outlets alike, and was holding campaign rallies that drew tens of thousands of passionate supporters, Joe Biden, for the most part, remained locked away inside his basement, rarely even agreeing to give brief video interviews. On the few occasions when Biden did take part in interviews, he was typically disoriented, incoherent, and seemingly exhausted. And when he held “rallies,” they were invariably awkward, uninspired events mired in pessimistic rhetoric and attended only by tiny handfuls of people.[10] Common sense tells us that no candidate so pathetically inept and so deeply unappealing, could possibly have inspired 15.4 million more people to vote for him, than had voted for Democrat icon Barack Obama in 2012.[11]

Late on Election Night – November 3, 2020 -- President Trump led Biden by approximately 100,000 votes in Wisconsin, 300,000 votes in Michigan, 300,000 votes in Georgia, and 700,000 votes in Pennsylvania. Then, suddenly, all four of these states suspended their vote counts, almost simultaneously. By the early-morning hours of the following day, Wisconsin had flipped in Biden’s favor, followed by Michigan soon thereafter. A few days later, Georgia and Pennsylvania followed suit as well.[12]

President Trump received more votes than any previous incumbent seeking re-election, and he increased his 2016 vote total by 11 million -- the third largest rise ever achieved by an incumbent. By contrast, President Obama had comfortably won re-election in 2012 with 3.5 million fewer votes than he had received in 2008.[13]

Biden in 2020 won only 17% of all counties nationwide, a record low.[14]

According to exit polls, 95% of Republicans voted for Trump. Moreover, black support for Trump grew by 50% above its 2016 level, while Biden’s black support fell well below 90%.[15]

Trump also increased his share of the national Hispanic vote from 29% in 2016, to 35% in 2020.[16]

Trump easily won Florida, Ohio and Iowa in 2020. Since 1852, the only presidential candidate to lose an election while winning these three states was Richard Nixon in 1960 – an outcome that was likely the result of election fraud by Democrats.[17]

Biden’s purported victory is due entirely to the fact that he seems to have overperformed specifically in the tiny handful of Democrat-run cities that provided him with narrow leads in each of the battleground states, and nowhere else. As The American Spectator puts it: “Biden [won] Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin because of an apparent avalanche of black votes in Detroit, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee. Biden’s ‘winning’ margin was derived almost entirely from such voters in these cities, as coincidentally his black vote spiked only in exactly the locations necessary to secure victory. He did not receive comparable levels of support among comparable demographic groups in comparable states.”[18]

The Washington Examiner notes how strange it is that Trump could have lost the election even though “Republicans won all 27 House races [that] the Cook Political Report rated as ‘toss-ups’ in its 2020 election analysis, in addition to picking up 7 of the 36 seats the outlet rated as ‘likely Democrat’ or ‘lean Democrat.’”[19] Moreover, Democrats were unable to overturn even a single Republican seat in the House.[20] And in New Hampshire, Republicans seized control of both the state House and the state Senate, which had been firmly in Democrat hands.[21]

In a December 6 interview with Mark Levin on Fox News, pollster and Democracy Institute founder Patrick Basham said that if Biden was indeed the winner of the presidential election, he had defied key “non-polling metrics” in a way that may be “not statistically impossible, but it's statistically implausible.” Basham explained that there are “a dozen or more of these metrics ... [that] have a 100% accuracy rate in terms of predicting the winner of the presidential election,” including “party registration trends, how the candidates did in their respective presidential primaries, the number of individual donations, [and] how much enthusiasm each candidate generated in the opinion poll.”[22] Other notable variables are the candidates’ social media followings, their broadcast and digital media ratings, the number of online searches that their names generate, the number of small donors they have, and the number of individuals who are betting on them to win.[23] “In 2016,” said Basham, “[these metrics] all indicated strongly that Donald Trump would win against most of the public polling. That was again the case in 2020. So if we are to accept that Biden won against the trend of all these non-polling metrics, it not only means that one of these metrics was inaccurate ... for the first time ever, it means that each one of these metrics was wrong for the first time and at the same time as all of the others.”[24]

Noting also that “Donald Trump improved his national performance over 2016 by almost 20%,” Basham stated: “No incumbent president has ever lost a reelection bid if he's increased his [total] votes.”[25]

Because so many ballots were cast in 2020 by people voting by mail for the first time, most experts, using historical patterns as a guide, predicted a higher-than-usual rate of ballots being rejected for flaws such as missing information, inaccurate information, or a failure to place ballots in secrecy envelopes.[26] But precisely the opposite occurred in the battleground states:

  • In Pennsylvania, a mere 0.03% of the state’s mail-in ballots were rejected in 2020 – a rate more than 30 times lower than the 2016 rejection rate of 1%.
  • In Georgia, the rejection rate in 2020 was 0.2%, more than 30 times lower than the 6.4% figure from 2016.
  • In Nevada, the 2020 rejection rate was approximately 0.75%, less than half the 1.6% rate from 2016.
  • In North Carolina, the 2020 rejection rate was 0.8%, less than one-third the 2.7% rate from 2016.
  • In Michigan, the 2020 rejection rate was 0.1%, about one-fifth the 0.5% rate from 2016.[27]

Citing what occurred in Pennsylvania, an Epoch Times report provides a partial explanation for these low 2020 rejection rates: “Election officials in [Pennsylvania’s] Democrat strongholds … exceeded their authority in order to give voters preferential treatment that wasn’t afforded to voters in Republican-leaning areas of the state. Specifically, election workers illegally ‘pre-canvassed’ mail-in ballots to determine whether they were missing a secrecy envelope or failed to include necessary information. When ballots were found to be flawed, voters were given an opportunity to correct, or ‘cure,’ their ballots to make sure they counted.”[28]

What Happened in Georgia

In Georgia, illegal ballots were cast by, or in the name of: more than 2,500 felons; 66,247 underage voters; 2,423 unregistered voters; 4,926 individuals who had failed to register prior to the state’s voter-registration deadline; 395 individuals who voted in two states; 20,311 voters who had moved out of state and thus were no longer eligible to vote in Georgia; 40,279 people who had moved across county lines in Georgia without re-registering in their new county of residence; 30,000 to 40,000 people whose absentee ballots lacked a valid, verifiable signature; and at least 1,043 individuals whose voter registrations claimed postal facilities as their home address and disguised their box numbers as “apartment” numbers.[29] Almost all of the people in this latter category were absentee voters who cast their ballots early.[30]

Nine individuals at various recount sites in Georgia issued sworn affidavits stating that they had seen large numbers of uncreased mail-in ballots – meaning that the ballots had not been folded and mailed in an envelope as required by law -- almost all cast for Biden. As longtime poll manager Susan Voyles wrote in her affidavit: “It was pristine. There was a difference in the texture of the paper … There were no markings on the ballots to show where they had come from, or where they had been processed. I observed that the markings for the candidates on these ballots were unusually uniform, perhaps even with a ballot marking device. By my estimate in observing these ballots, approximately 98% constituted votes for Joseph Biden.”[31]

At least 96,600 absentee ballots in Georgia were requested and counted but were never recorded as having been returned by the voter to county election boards.[32]

In a major Fulton County, Georgia polling place, surveillance cameras captured perhaps the most graphic video evidence of election fraud ever recorded. At about 10:30 PM on Election Night, poll workers and election observers were told that because of a water-main break inside the building, they were to go home for the night and not return until 8:30 the following morning, at which time all vote-counting – which was purportedly being suspended for the overnight hours -- would resume. By approximately 10:50 pm, everyone had left the facility except four Democrat poll workers who stayed behind. As soon as everyone else had gone home, these four individuals promptly pulled four large, wheeled cases out from under a long table whose floor-length black tablecloth had theretofore concealed them. The cases were filled with approximately 6,000 ballots apiece, and the four remaining poll workers proceeded to count them until about 1:00 a.m. – with no Republican observers on hand. Moreover, it was later confirmed that there had not been any water-main break in the building; that was a phony excuse designed to create a pretext for removing non-Democrat poll workers.[33]

A vote update in Georgia at 1:34 AM on November 4 added 136,155 votes for Biden and 29,115 votes for Trump.[34]

According to Real Clear Investigations journalist Paul Sperry: “In the early hours of Nov. 5, a surge of some 20,000 mail-in votes suddenly appeared for Joe Biden, while approximately 1,000 votes for President Trump mysteriously disappeared from his own totals in the critical swing state [of Georgia].”[35]

Data expert Edward Solomon analyzed the 2020 election results in Georgia and found that approximately 200,000 votes had been transferred from Trump to Biden at the precinct level.[36]

What Happened in Pennsylvania

Some 165,412 of the mail-in and absentee ballots that were requested in the names of registered Republican voters in Pennsylvania, were never tabulated by vote-counters. Williams College mathematics professor Steven Miller, who specializes in analytic number theory and sabermetrics, analyzed the data and concluded, in a sworn affidavit, that: (a) the number of ballots “requested in the name of a registered Republican by someone other than that person” was “almost surely … between 37,001 and 58,914,” and (b) the number of “Republican ballots that the requester returned but were not counted” was “almost surely” between 38,910 and 56,483.[37]

A sworn affidavit claims that election workers in Pennsylvania were instructed to assign ballots without names to random people across the state. Consequently, thousands of Pittsburgh residents who showed up to vote in person were told that, according to official records, they already had voted.[38]

At least 1,400 early and absentee voters in Pennsylvania listed their home addresses as those of post offices, UPS facilities, and FedEx locations, disguising the box numbers as “Apartment,” “Unit,” “Suite,” etc.[39]

In Pennsylvania, more than 51,000 mail-in and absentee ballots were marked as having been returned just one day after they were sent out by election officials, a virtual impossibility. Nearly 35,000 additional mail-in and absentee ballots were marked as having been returned on the same day that they were sent out, and another 23,000+ had a return date that was earlier than the sent date. Further, there were more than 43,000 mail-in and absentee ballots marked as having been returned just two days after being sent out, which still represents an implausibly fast turnaround time. Plus, more than 9,000 mail-in and absentee ballots had no “sent” date listed at all.[40]
 
A Republican poll observer from Pennsylvania’s Delaware County, Greg Stenstrom, who is an expert in security fraud, told a Senate GOP Policy Committee hearing that 47 USB cards containing poll results had gone missing without explanation. He also said that he had witnessed at least two dozen instances where a warehouse supervisor uploaded USB card data to voting machines without being observed by a poll watcher.[41]  

Whistleblower Jesse Morgan, who worked as a truck driver for a subcontractor with the USPS, says that on October 21 he drove a truck filled with potentially upward of 288,000 ballots from Bethpage, New York to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, thereby illegally transporting ballots across state lines.[42]

Affidavits by postal workers in three Pennsylvania cities have testified that various post offices illegally backdated ballots and ordered that Trump mail be placed in the “Undeliverable Bulk Business Mail” bin while emphasizing that Biden mail should be delivered on time.[43]

Pennsylvania postal worker Richard Hopkins told James O’Keefe of Project Veritas that Erie County postmaster Robert Wisenbach had told postal employees to separate mail-in ballots that arrived after November 3 from other mail, and to backdate those ballots so that they would be counted in the election. Both the Washington Post and New York Times later published false stories claiming, incorrectly, that Hopkins had retracted his allegation.[44]

In one particular vote spike in Pennsylvania during the wee morning hours of November 4, approximately 570,000 votes were added to Biden’s total, while a mere 3,200 were added to Trump’s total – a ratio of about 178-to-1.[45]

What Happened in Michigan

According to one affidavit, a Michigan election supervisor violated existing state law by instructing election workers at in-person polling places not to request photo identification from voters.[46]

Affidavits filed in Michigan claim that poll workers were instructed to ignore signature mismatches, backdate late-arriving ballots (to make it appear that they had arrived before the statutory deadline), and process ballots of questionable validity.[47]

Poll challenger Andrew Sitto swore in an affidavit that boxes filled with tens of thousands of unsealed, unsecured ballots—all cast for Democrats—had arrived in vehicles with out-of-state license plates in Michigan’s Wayne County at 4:30 AM on the morning after Election Day. “I specifically noticed that every ballot I observed was cast for Joe Biden,” said Sitto. According to another sworn affidavit, the names on the ballots in these boxes did not appear on either the Qualified Voter File (QVF) or the supplemental lists of voters who had registered shortly before Election Day.[48]

Sitto says that in the vote-counting room where he was stationed on Election Day, an election official at one point used a large sheet of cardboard to block the windows; that same official subsequently refused to let Sitto re-enter the room after he had left for a break.[49]

Robert Cushman, a poll challenger in Detroit, said in a sworn affidavit: “I saw the computer operators at several counting boards manually adding,” “to the QVF system,” “the names and addresses of these thousands of ballots … from unknown, unverified ‘persons.’”[50]

In 18 sworn affidavits in Michigan, the witnesses claimed that election officials had counted the ballots of people whose names were not in the voter file, and that those names were added into the system with the birth date of January 1, 1900.[51] One of these 18 affiants was Robert Cushman, who said in his testimony: “When I asked about this impossibility of each ballot having the same birthday occurring in 1900, I was told that was the instruction that came down from the Wayne County Clerk’s office.”[52]

Approximately 9,500 Michigan mail-in ballots were purportedly submitted by voters whose names and birth dates matched those in the death records of the Social Security Death Index. In addition, nearly 2,000 more ballots were cast in the names of voters who claimed to be aged 100+ but were not listed in public records as living individuals.[53]

In a federal lawsuit filed against Michigan on November 10, President Trump’s re-election campaign presented 234 pages of sworn witness affidavits describing how, in violation of Michigan’s election code, Republican poll challengers had been prevented in various ways from being able to properly observe the vote-counting process – particularly in Wayne, which is Michigan’s most populous county. “Election officials would applaud, cheer, and yell whenever a Republican challenger was ejected from the counting area,” the lawsuit stated.[54]

Seven witnesses in Michigan said they had seen the same stacks of ballots being run through tabulation machines multiple times by Democrat poll workers (with no Republicans alongside them).[55]

An affidavit filed by a postal worker in Traverse City, Michigan states that various post offices illegally backdated ballots and ordered that Trump mail be placed in the “Undeliverable Bulk Business Mail” bin while demanding that Biden mail should be delivered promptly.[56]

Another postal employee in Traverse City contacted James O'Keefe of Project Veritas to describe, on video, how his supervisor, Johnathon Clarke, had required postal workers to illegally segregate and manually backdate ballots received after the statutory deadline of 8 PM on Election Day. The workers were then ordered to immediately send these doctored ballots to the P.O.’s main distribution center. When Mr. O’Keefe subsequently reached Clarke by phone to question him about the allegations, a startled Clarke refused to say a word and immediately hung up the call.[57]

IT and cyber-security specialist Melissa Carone, who on November 3 and 4 worked as a contractor for Dominion Voting Systems -- the company that provided the voting machines in 66 of Michigan’s 83 counties in 2020[58] -- told a Michigan Senate Oversight Committee hearing: “What I witnessed at the TDS Center [where votes were being counted] was complete fraud. The whole 27 hours I was there. There were batches of ballots being ran through the tabulating machines numerous times, being counted eight to ten times, I watched this with my own eyes. I was there to assist with IT.” Adding that she was “under the impression 100 percent that all of these workers were in on this,” Carone claimed: “There was not a single ballot that the whole night, the whole 27 hours that I was there, that was for Donald Trump, not one.”[59]

Carone also has noted that there were approximately 22 to 24 tabulating machines in the location where she was working, and that she observed election-related malpractice “thousands of times” while she was at the site.[60]

The anti-election-fraud organization “Guard the Vote” examined 30,000 of the 172,000 mail-in and absentee ballots that were cast in the city of Detroit. Of those 30,000 ballots, 229 were cast in the names of dead people, while another 2,660 were cast by people claiming invalid home addresses such as those of vacant lots and burnt-down houses. In short, at least 2,889 (9.6%) of these 30,000 Detroit ballots should have been discarded. If this rate of ineligibility is representative of the city’s 172,000 mail-in votes as a whole, more than 16,500 of those votes were likely invalid.[61]

Patty McMurray, a Republican poll challenger in Detroit, claims that she saw large numbers of photocopied mail-in ballots submitted in the names of unregistered voters, all cast for Biden. “Not one of the ballots was a registered military voter, and the ballots looked like they were all the same Xeroxed copies of the ballot,” she testified. “They were all for Biden across the board. There wasn’t a single Trump vote. None of the voters are registered.” Asserting that election workers had entered those names and addresses with phony birthdates that “would override the system and allow them to enter nonregistered voters,” McMurray added: “Throughout the day, that’s how they would override voters that were neither in the electronic poll book or the supplemental, updated poll book.”[62]

A vote update in Michigan at 3:50 AM on November 4 added 54,497 votes for Biden and 4,718 votes for Trump.[63]

Another vote update in Michigan at 6:31 AM on November 4 added 141,258 votes for Biden and 5,968 votes for Trump.[64]

What Happened in Wisconsin

A vote update in Wisconsin at 3:42 AM on November 4 added 143,379 votes for Biden and 25,163 votes for Trump.[65]

At least 26,673 people used mail-in ballots to vote illegally in Wisconsin after they had moved out of the state.[66]

Postal subcontractor Nathan Pease has testified that he was told by two separate postal workers, on two separate occasions, that the USPS in Wisconsin was preparing to backdate more than 100,000 late-arriving ballots on the morning of November 4, to make it look like they had arrived prior to the statutory deadline.[67]

According to election data in Wisconsin, approximately 49,000 people voted for a Republican House candidate down ballot but purportedly chose not to vote for Trump at the top of the ticket.[68]

State data show a voter-turnout rate in Wisconsin of 88%, an implausibly high number.[69]

James Troupis, the lead attorney for the Trump campaign in Wisconsin, testified as follows to the U.S. Senate on December 16 vis-à-vis the many scores of thousands of illegally cast ballots that had been approved and counted in that state:

“In Wisconsin, we just completed a recount…. Uniquely, we are able to examine actual envelopes that contain the ballots that are submitted by absentee voters. This allowed us to identify by person, by address, by ward. It’s not conspiracy. The real names are in the record. And here’s what we found. We found that there were incomplete and altered certificates. These are the certificates on the front of the envelopes that have to be exactly done correctly under our law. If not, those results may not be counted [in the election]. How many of those? More than 3,000 of those identified by person were nonetheless counted, even though they are clearly invalid under the law.

“A second category, initials of clerks are placed on all of those envelopes. Why? Because the clerk identifies it having been properly received and identification is provided. That’s the check in advance of the election. What did we find? More than 2,000 of those ballots in Dane and Milwaukee County had no initials at all. But nonetheless, they got counted.

“We also have special laws in Wisconsin with regard to voting in advance. We do not allow advanced voting. We allow in-person and other voting as absentee. So, anything before election day is under our absentee rules. What did the city of Madison do? They created a system where people could arrive at a park, hand in their ballots in envelopes five weeks before the election. They also created boxes. No controls at all. Just boxes on corners that you could throw the ballot in. No attempt at all. And our statutes explicitly say there are only two ways to submit an absentee ballot. In person or delivery to the clerk’s office. That’s it. Nothing else is allowed. And yet have the city of Madison, we had … 17,271 ballots in this category that we identify. There are tens of thousands more because they co-mingled the ballots afterwards so we couldn’t identify each one that may have been properly cast.

“Then we have an interesting category called ‘indefinitely confined.’ These are people who [cannot vote in person because of their] age, physical illness or infirmity, or [disability]. So, they don’t have to provide any identification. Among those claiming this status is one of the electors for Joe Biden, who said, ‘I can’t get to the polls.’ We have poll workers who claimed it. We have people who went to protests, people who had weddings, people who had vacations, all claimed this status. ‘I can’t get to the polls.’ So, they were able to vote without identification. There were 28,395 people we explicitly identified [in this category].

“Finally, there are other categories in which as much as 170,000 other ballots were submitted without any application. In fact, they considered the certification envelope the application, though a separate application is required by law. Three million people properly voted in the state of Wisconsin. More than 200,000 identified during this recount did not. But those votes got counted, and our statute says they should not have been.”[70]

What Happened in Nevada

In Nevada, 42,284 people are on record as having voted twice in 2020. Moreover, ballots were cast in the names of approximately 20,000 individuals without a Nevada mailing address; 2,468 people who had moved to another state and thus were ineligible to vote in Nevada; 1,500 people who were dead; almost 4,000 non-citizens; and nearly 30,000 people who falsely listed non-residential, vacant, or non-existent addresses as their home addresses.[71]

On December 16, Trump campaign attorney Jesse Banal testified to the U.S. Senate: “All in all, our experts identified 130,000 unique instances of voter fraud in Nevada. But the actual number is almost certainly higher. Our data scientists made these calculations not by estimations or statistical sampling, but by analyzing and comparing the list of actual voters with other lists, most of which are publicly available.”[72]

Also in his Senate testimony, Banal explained how this widespread fraud had initially come to pass in Nevada:

“On August 3rd, 2020 after a rushed special session, Nevada legislators made drastic changes to the state’s election law by adopting a bill known as AB-4. The vulnerabilities of this statute were obvious. It provided for universal mail voting without sufficient safeguards to authenticate voters or ensure the fundamental requirement that only one ballot was sent to each legally qualified voter. This was aggravated by election officials’ failure to clean known deficiencies in their voter rolls. Because of AB-4, the number of mail ballots rocketed from about 70,000 in 2016 to over 690,000 this year. The election was inevitably riddled with fraud, and our hotline never stopped ringing.”[73]

Data scientist Dorothy Morgan reports that in the Third Congressional District of Nevada alone, there were 13,372 incomplete and fraudulent voter registrations submitted in 2020, as compared to a mere 68 in 2016. Many of these phony registrations listed casinos or temporary RV parks as the voters’ “home or mailing addresses.” Fully 74% of the fraudulent registrations of 2020 took place between July and September.[74]

What Happened in Multiple Battleground States

In a study headed by Matt Braynard, the former data-and-strategy director for President Trump’s 2016 election campaign, researchers made phone calls to many thousands of registered Republican voters in Pennsylvania who, according to state data, had received mail-in ballots for the 2020 election. Of the 1,706 voters whom the researchers were able to contact, nearly one-third said they had never actually requested a ballot. Among the remaining 1,137 voters who said that they had in fact requested a ballot, were 453 (42%) who both: (a) reported that they had mailed their ballots back, and (b) were unaware of the fact that those ballots were never recorded as “received” or “counted” by the state. If the foregoing percentages are representative of what happened to the overall total of 165,412 Republican-requested mail-in ballots that were never tabulated by vote-counters, the implications are obviously enormous.[75]

In other states, Braynard found that the percentage of Republicans who likewise had requested ballots that were never subsequently recorded as having been “received” or “counted” by the state were: 50% in Arizona, 44% in Georgia, nearly 33% in Michigan, and 20% in Wisconsin.[76]

Braynard found 17,877 early or absentee ballots that were cast in Georgia in the names of people who had filed out-of-state move notices and thus were not eligible to vote in Georgia. The same was true of 7,426 ballots in Pennsylvania, 6,254 ballots in Wisconsin, 5,145 ballots in Nevada, 5,084 ballots in Arizona, and 1,688 ballots in Michigan.[77]

Records show that in Pennsylvania, some 98,000 people voted only for Joe Biden and did not vote for anyone further down the ticket. The corresponding numbers in other key states were approximately: 80,000 to 90,000 in Georgia, 42,000 in Arizona, 63,000 in Wisconsin, and 69,000 to 115,000 in Michigan.[78]

At least 19,997 people used mail-in ballots to vote illegally in Arizona after they had moved out of the state.[79]

According to an analysis by the research group Just Facts, it is likely that 234,570 noncitizen votes benefited Biden across seven closely contested battleground states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.[80] Previous research has found that 81% of noncitizens who vote, cast their ballots for Democrats.[81]

Prior to the election, a Pew Research Center survey reported that in those states where a Senate seat was up for grabs in 2020, “overwhelming shares of voters” who planned to back either Trump or Biden said that they also would be “supporting the same-party candidate for Senate.” Consistent with those survey results, in traditionally red and blue non-battleground states alike, the total number of votes garnered by Biden was only slightly higher than the number of votes received by the Democrat Senate candidates who were also on the ballot. Similarly, the total number of votes won by Trump was only a little bit higher than the number of votes received by the Republican Senate candidates who were also on the ballot.[82]

But in the battleground states, inexplicably, the gap between Biden and the Democrat Senate candidates was far greater than the gap between Trump and the Republican Senate candidates. In Michigan, for example, Biden received 69,093 more votes than did Democrat Senate candidate Gary Peters, while Trump received only 7,131 more votes than Republican Senate candidate John James. And in Georgia, Biden received 95,801 more votes than did Democrat Senate candidate Jon Osoff, while Trump received only 818 more votes than Republican Senate candidate David Perdue. This means that in battleground states, a large number of Democrats seem to have voted for Biden while mysteriously choosing to ignore the highly important Senate races.[83]

Rigged & Corrupted Voting Machines

According to witness and expert statements contained in a lawsuit released by former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell and her legal team: (a) agents of malicious actors such as China and Iran accessed the software used by the Dominion voting machines “in order to monitor and manipulate elections”; (b) an affiant who was part of a national security detail to former Venezuelan socialist dictator Hugo Chavez, said that the software used by Dominion was designed specifically to enable the Venezuelan government to rig elections without getting caught; (c) that allegation was corroborated by another witness who “was in an official position related to elections and witnessed manipulations of petitions to prevent a removal of President Chavez”; (d) another affiant who was the cousin of the former chief executive of Smartmatic, the company that developed the Dominion software, said that that executive was determined “to ensure the election for Chavez in the 2004 Referendum in Venezuela”; (e) Princeton computer-science professor and election-security expert Andrew Appel testified that the vote tallies calculated by the Dominion machines can be manipulated by imputing a malicious code in just “7 minutes alone with [the voting machine] and a screwdriver”; and (f) Finnish computer programmer and election-security expert Hari Hursti testified that the Dominion voting machines can easily be hacked because they are connected to the Internet, a fact which he described as “a grave security implication.”[84]

One particularly noteworthy affiant describes himself as a former “electronic intelligence analyst under 305th Military Intelligence” with “experience gathering SAM missile system electronic intelligence” and “extensive experience as a white hat hacker used by some of the top election specialists in the world.” After conducting extensive forensic reviews, this witness concluded that “the Dominion software was accessed by agents acting on behalf of China and Iran in order to monitor and manipulate elections, including the most recent US general election in 2020.” He denounced Dominion for its “complete failure” to provide “basic cyber security.”[85]

A separate complaint in Georgia concurred that “by using servers and employees connected with rogue actors and hostile foreign influences combined with numerous easily discoverable leaked credentials, Dominion neglectfully allowed foreign adversaries to access data and intentionally provided access to their infrastructure in order to monitor and manipulate elections, including the most recent one in 2020.”[86]

Ben Turner, who heads Fraud Spotters, a consultancy specializing in detecting insurance fraud, conducted a county-by-county analysis of how the adoption of Dominion Voting Systems machines by those counties between the 2008 and 2020 presidential races may have affected election results in those places. After controlling for a host of key variables like race, population, immigration rate, and education, Turner found that in presidential races, the use of Dominion machines was associated with a 1.55 percentage point decrease in the Republican vote and a 1.55 percentage point increase in the Democratic vote.[87]

Another longtime data analyst found that Biden in 2020 had performed above the prediction line in 78% of counties that used either Dominion or HART InterCivic voting machines, consistently receiving 5.6% more votes than expected. The analyst called this “a dramatic red flag.”[88]

After conducting a forensic audit of Dominion voting machines, Russell Ramsland Jr., co-founder of Allied Security Operations Group, said in a report: “We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results. The system intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors. The electronic ballots are then transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit trail.”[89] Ramsland added that the machines’ “own logs … show very clearly that the RCV [Ranked-Choice Voting] algorithm was enacted. It shows very clearly that the error messages were massive. It [shows] very clearly that races were flipped.”[90]

Conclusion

Democrats and leftists have long maintained that occurrences of voter fraud and election fraud are so rare as to be nearly nonexistent, and that such occurrences should therefore not be used as pretexts for implementing allegedly unnecessary measures like voter ID requirements, signature-verification procedures, and voter-roll updates. But as the evidence presented in this article plainly attests, the amount of fraud that took place in the 2020 presidential election alone, was nothing short of monstrous.

Why, then, has one court after another refused to even listen to testimony regarding these many abominations? In some cases, of course, the courts are controlled by hardline leftists firmly committed to ignoring any evidence that might call Joe Biden’s “victory” into question. But in many other cases, fear has played a major role. Noting, for instance, that “the court system has been deeply intimidated by the left,” former judge James Troupis, representing the Trump campaign in Wisconsin, recently told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee:

“One of the reasons I was called [to represent the Trump campaign was] because virtually every major law firm in this country and in this city refused to represent the president. Not because of the lack of merit in his claims—we’ve certainly demonstrated that there’s merit—but because of the cancel culture. Because of the environment that has been created by the left that has intimidated lawyers so that they can’t be here. They’re not here, from the giant law firms, precisely because they were ordered by their management committees and others that, ‘You cannot take those cases. The reasons you cannot take those cases is because our clients, or the Democrat party, or the incoming administration will remember that and they will hold it against you.’”[91]

In a similar vein, Mark Levin observes: “[T]he judiciary has collapsed. They saw the [Black Lives Matter & Antifa] riots, they saw the threats against individual senators. They saw how these violent mobsters would find your home, harass your children, and they want none of it. They want none of it. And so they’d just as soon burn their copy of the Constitution, and that’s what they did.”[92]

The great scholar Dennis Prager has written that “the rarest of all the positive human traits” is courage.[93] That observation seems particularly profound at this moment in time, as America stares directly into the abyss of a fanatical tyranny that has candidly and openly vowed to engulf it. Right now, not tomorrow, is the time for ordinary men and women to reach deep inside themselves, summon up a measure of courage that they may never have realized they possess, and do some extraordinary things. If fear can destroy a civilization, courage can save it.   

Memorandum: How The 2020 Election Could Have Been Stolen

 The American Conservative 5 Jan 2021

A political scientist examines the evidence and concludes that widespread fraud took place.

As a citizen who is also a political scientist, I have tried to do due diligence to assess what happened in the recent election. Who won what and at what level and what does it mean? And what about the charges of vote fraud? People keep asking me what I think, and I decided to write down the conclusions I have reached to date and on what grounds. Because charges of vote fraud have called the outcome of the presidential election into question, I have paid particular attention to them.

This memorandum is not written to persuade. It merely records my findings and reflections. Few people are really open to persuasion in any case—not just on political subjects but on any subject about which they care and on which they have adopted certain views. Diehard partisans for a certain outlook will refuse to have their beliefs questioned, and so will many others. They will be no less dismissive of a document challenging their opinions if it is full of footnotes and appendixes. Such a document will, indeed, make them resist it even more. As for the relatively few people who are truly open-minded, they will not find another person’s observations dispositive. They will, as they should, want to consider the evidence on a contested matter for themselves.

I hope that I am not deceiving myself when I say that I have not reached my conclusions regarding the 2020 election because of partisanship. I am a close student of politics, but have never belonged to a political party. If I have a bias, I suppose it is that of one who is largely alienated from both of the American parties and who believes that both of the presidential candidates in 2020 have major flaws.

It should be obvious that the issue of the legitimacy of the election is too touchy and inflamed for my view of what happened to settle it for anyone. There are numerous legal challenges to the vote in a number of states. Those charging fraud have had just a few weeks to prepare their cases, and much of the supporting material is hard to understand for those who are not political scientists, computer geeks, or statisticians. Whatever the veracity of the allegations, there is a large and growing amount of material to consider—this despite the media mantra that the charges are “baseless” or “unsupported.”

It is widely recognized that especially in their coverage of matters related to Donald Trump, the mainstream media long ago abandoned any pretense of impartiality. It is nevertheless remarkable that the media have not investigated even the more plausible-looking of the allegations of vote fraud. It did not take me long to realize that the charges were far more serious and credible than the American public had been told. In fact, this memorandum reviews the election with special reference to the allegations of fraud. I had barely begun looking into them when I noticed that, very shortly after the election, European experts on American elections, some of whom also had advanced expertise in statistics, had published articles or given interviews in which they claimed to have seen clear evidence that the election was “rigged”! In Sweden of all places, an expert on American elections published a series of articles showing that Biden’s win in the swing states simply could not be explained without assuming major fraud. Since Donald Trump is even more disdained by the media in Europe than he is here, I was surprised to hear a few European commentators refer to the presidential election as if its fraudulence should be obvious to all. I became even more curious about puzzling aspects of the election, but was still skeptical. You can find support for virtually any point of view on the Internet.

This summary of my views of the election will for the most part be confined to political-sciency observations. Although electronic ballot stuffing may be the most important of the fraud allegations, I will, because of a lack of proficiency in statistics and computer science, not go into depth on the vote anomalies that experts in these fields regard as by themselves sufficient proof of fraud.

General Trends in the Election

I will begin by offering some observations that may be elementary to a political scientist, but that, despite their large and obvious significance, have not received the kind of public attention that should have been automatic and plentiful.

First of all, the historical record indicates that when a sitting president increases his vote totals relative to his original election, he is reelected. President Trump did increase his vote, not by hundreds of thousands of votes, but by over 10 million (not counting votes of which his supporters claim that he was robbed). Trump’s support among Hispanics, a group often described as hostile to him, expanded to 32 percent, even more among Hispanic men. His support among blacks increased this year by 50 percent.

Another basic fact: certain American states almost always go with the winner. Florida and Ohio are at the top of that list, partly because they reflect the demographic composition of the U.S. as a whole. If you add Iowa, you can predict with high confidence that the winner of those three states will also be the winner of the presidential election. Trump not only carried these states, he won them very comfortably, Ohio and Iowa by about 8 percent, Florida by over 3 percent. In 1960, the outcome in these states was not the same as in the general election. What presidential election was that? Nixon-Kennedy. That is the election that was almost certainly stolen for JFK in Illinois (Cook County) and Texas. That is the election that produced the anomaly of someone winning the presidency without carrying Ohio. After 1960, winning the presidency only while carrying Ohio again became the norm. In 2020, however, Biden somehow managed without Ohio.

Let me next be a little more granular. There is another measure of who is the winner in a presidential election that is even more persuasive. This measure indicates that there was something very strange, even inexplicable, about the outcome of this year’s presidential election in the swing states. There are numerous bellwether counties across the United States that almost always vote for the winner in the national election. There are counties that voted for the winner in the presidential elections from 1980 to 2016. In 2020, with rare exceptions, these counties suddenly reversed course. They did not vote for the person regarded as the winner, but for Donald Trump. Nineteen counties have been identified whose vote is viewed as a particularly good predictor of the outcome in the presidential election. They are virtually certain to go with the winner. It has been assumed that if a candidate carries 15 to 16 of those 19 counties, he is also bound to be the winner of the presidency.

How, then, did the 2020 election turn out in those bellwether counties? Trump won no fewer than 18 of the 19! Even more telling, he improved his performance in these counties. A county having been on the list of voting for the winner of presidential elections for a very long time does not by itself make the outcome there more predictive, but a few examples of such counties are striking. Valencia County in New Mexico has mirrored the outcome of every presidential election since 1952. In that county, Trump won by 10 percent in 2020. Indiana’s Vigo County voted for every president except two since 1882. This year, Trump carried that county by 15 percent. Westmoreland County in Virginia has failed only twice since 1928 to vote for the winner of the presidential election. Trump carried that county by 16 percent. These are but specific illustrations of a trend in the competitive counties that favored Trump about as emphatically and overwhelmingly as was possible.

Given Trump’s nationwide surge, it is not surprising that, contrary to media predictions of “a blue wave,” the Republicans actually gained 13 seats in the House of Representatives. Not a single Republican incumbent House member lost—not a single one! Although far more Republicans than Democrats were up for reelection in the Senate, they were able to defend their hold on that body. (Run-offs for two Senate seats in Georgia are, as of this writing, have yet to be held.) Republicans generally did very well down-ballot. They captured both houses in the New Hampshire legislature.

Biden Had a Huge Money Advantage

It is relevant that the successes for Trump and his party took place despite unexampled, almost unbelievable levels of spending on the part of the pro-Biden, anti-Trump cause. The Democrats vastly outspent Republicans. Michael Bloomberg all by himself spent something like $5 per voter in Florida. Another example is the staggering amounts spent by billionaires, notably Big Tech executives. Much of it has been referred to as “dark money” because it largely bypassed campaign finance laws. One example is Mark Zuckerberg’s pouring some $500 million into the election to boost the Biden vote. He did so in part by donating about $350 million to the Center for Technology and Civic Life, which worked to induce voter participation in carefully selected parts of states and municipalities. This included offering election authorities money for putting voting drop-boxes in certain areas. It has been widely charged that these efforts were not just blatantly partisan but violated laws forbidding some ways of inducing people to go to the polls.

It can also be argued that by censuring information detrimental to Biden during the campaign, the social media giants offered him a huge in-kind contribution. It is hard to put a monetary value on the virtually unbounded support for Biden in the mainstream media, but it obviously gave him an enormous advantage.

Still an Uphill Struggle

Biden’s tremendous financial advantage is bound to have helped him, but we can tell now that he was nevertheless fighting an uphill battle. He had to overcome a Trump surge. Consider some important and very striking indications of how Biden did. An astonishing example of his meeting strong resistance is that he won fewer American counties than any previous modern American president-elect. Obama won 873 counties in 2008. Biden barely captured 500 in 2020! (Trump won about 2,550 counties.) The record of a winner? His percentage of the vote per state did not even match that of Hillary Clinton. Democrats are ordinarily dependent on the black vote being 85 to 90 percent in their favor to win a presidential election. Biden was not very close to that percentage. He received a much lower percentage of black votes than Obama and an even lower percentage than Hillary Clinton. Among black men he did not reach 80 percent, for Democrats a worrisomely low number. The Democrats’ share of the Hispanic vote was also down. Not only did Biden not have any coattails, he dragged his party down in congressional and state elections. Winners of the presidency routinely pick up seats for their party. Biden lost 13 seats.

The Magic Touch

You might have thought that for Biden to win the election, he would have had to equal or surpass Hillary Clinton’s vote percentages around the country. But in general, the opposite was the case. He underperformed in the bigger cities, Democratic strongholds that are crucial to Democratic victories in presidential and other elections.

When you consider all of these patterns, one feature of the presidential election stands out as remarkable—as very difficult to explain. That feature casts grave doubt on Biden’s supposed election victory. What raises disturbing questions is the paradoxical exception to Biden’s weak national performance. For some reason, in just a few states, the reported Biden vote ran counter to the national trends just described. And where was this wholly aberrant pattern? Why, in the battleground states, which Trump had won in 2016. They are the states that Biden now simply had to win to capture the presidency. In those states, Biden somehow dramatically reversed his substandard trend in the rest of the country! As mentioned before, Biden could win only one of the 19 battleground counties around the U.S., but he supposedly won all of the battleground states! How could he possibly accomplish this feat? By performing very much better in the bigger cities in the battleground states than in the bigger cities elsewhere.

Biden, the elderly, almost passive, candidate who generated no discernible popular enthusiasm—in this respect the very opposite of Trump—somehow got his numbers in Philadelphia, Detroit, Atlanta, Milwaukee, and other cities in the swing states up sufficiently to “win” the corresponding states, in Georgia by a very small margin. The turnout in these Democratic cities was by the standards of history and as compared to cities outside of the battleground states very high. There are charges that in many precincts in heavily Democratic counties in Michigan, the number of votes cast exceeded the number of registered voters. In Pennsylvania, at least one truck with already completed ballots is alleged to have been brought in from New York. In the same state, laws for how to vote and review ballots were simply set aside by local officials. In previous years, a substantial percentage of mail-in ballots had been invalidated for obvious errors. This year, when new and partly improvised voting procedures had brought in a vastly larger number of mail-in ballots, many of them deposited in drop boxes, almost none of them were invalidated in Democrat strongholds.

In the large states of Florida and Texas, with many large cities, the vote count was completed on Election Night. Not so in cities in the swing states. There, on the evening of Election Day, counting was suddenly stopped. Election observers and most others were sent home. CCTV captured what happened then at a voting place in a convention center in central Atlanta, Georgia. A few election workers stayed behind, pulled out suitcases with ballots from under a covered table and, without the legally required election observers, fed them into the voting machines into the early morning. A large number of sworn affidavits testify to local officials in the cities flagrantly violating election laws and indiscriminately accepting votes that had been challenged. There were charges of ballots being inserted into voting machines more than once. Among the many examples of “traditional” vote fraud and “irregularities” in city political machines was that dead people, non-citizens, and non-residents voted. Many votes were not cast by the people who had actually registered.

After official vote counting had been suspended, tabulations of votes took place that have astounded statisticians and computer experts. These experts have not been able to explain them except as a result of fraud. The issue here was electronic “ballot stuffing.” Votes recorded showed a uniform pattern in several states, such as giving a set percentage of votes to Biden and Trump. Some batches of electronically recorded votes were all or virtually all for Biden.

There were also various “glitches,” explained as “human errors,” some of which were electronically “corrected.” People familiar with election fraud in foreign countries have pointed to the sudden suspension of vote counting and “glitches” as characteristic of computer-generated fraud. The voting machines used in the battleground states have been shown to be rather easily manipulated, e.g., by inserting algorithms to continuously shift votes from one candidate to another. It is surely relevant that in this election, the aggregated election data were connected to the internet and even to servers abroad. That there are methods for manipulating elections through electronic voting is well known to experts, not least in the intelligence field.

The Question of Plausibility

Because I lack specialized knowhow, I will not try to assess what European and American experts on American elections and statistics have claimed are utterly implausible electronic vote tabulations in the battleground states. The signs of manipulation abound, and recorded vote anomalies are said to be so glaring as to be statistically inexplicable except as the result of fraud. In Pennsylvania, one big batch of some 550,000 votes is reported to have been 99.4 percent for Biden, a figure that is beyond preposterous even if you assume it to consist solely of votes from Democratic strongholds. There were similar reports elsewhere, as in Fulton County, Georgia.

This startlingly lopsided addition of votes occurred after the departure of poll watchers. Another example of statistically inexplicable tabulation is that a series of precisely equal amounts of votes went to the same candidate. Although Trump did very well in the rest of the country, improving on his 2016 performance, none of these anomalous batches of votes worked in his favor. Experts who have compared the Dominion voting machines in the battleground states to machines of a different kind in other states have asserted that, on average, the Dominion machines routinely shifted 2 to 3 percent of the votes from Trump to Biden. Data scientists and statisticians claim that in many places, Trump votes just disappeared, or batches were switched from the Trump column to the Biden column. In DeKalb County, Georgia, one batch of over 12,000 votes was switched to Biden.

People technically proficient in these matters have speculated that some of the most easily detectable anomalies are due to fraudsters having become desperate upon noticing an even stronger Trump vote than they had expected. To make up for this development, they had to improvise. They took risks, became careless, and could not easily hide the traces of their actions.

What emerges, then, is not merely a picture of local scofflaws stuffing ballots the old-fashioned way and ignoring legal requirements, but of organized manipulation on a large scale. The problems pertain to different aspects of the voting. One was how the voting system was built and could be used, one was how the receipt and counting of ballots was conducted, and yet another, probably the most important, was how votes were digitally recorded. It was that last aspect that revealed the just-mentioned anomalies. Yet the problematic features in each part of the overall process all worked to the same end—reversing the national electoral trends favoring Trump.

It should be noted that the possibility of fraudulent use of the Dominion voting system used in the swing states and many other states had been raised long before this election. In fact, this system has been criticized by DEMOCRATS as being highly manipulable, susceptible to engineering outcomes. Senators Ron Wyden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren are among the prominent Democrats on record as criticizing the fraud potential of this voting system.

Yet in this election, in which the hated Trump was on the ballot, we are supposed to believe with the mainstream media that this system operated with high integrity and that there is nothing to see here?

How could the notion of widespread vote fraud look farfetched to many? A partial explanation is that the vast majority of people are simply unaware of the many strange, suspicious aspects of the election that have been summarized here. The mainstream media have chosen to not report on them. Probably the most important explanation is that most people are more intensely partisan than they will admit even to themselves. Many are simply unwilling to face and accept that the Donald Trump they so despise might actually have done it again, received the support of the American people. No, no, that is just an unacceptable possibility! Electoral fraud must be a groundless “conspiracy theory.”

The defensive use of the term “conspiracy theory” is telling. Contrary to common belief, the fact that something is a conspiracy theory does not by definition refute it. The question for any open-minded person is: is the alleged conspiracy actual or imaginary? Most people have no problem accepting the idea of a “conspiracy” in the case of, say, organized crime. During the Cold War, there was no problem with believing in the “communist conspiracy.” The evidence for both conspiracies was overwhelming. Over the last few years, we have lived through deep, protracted, intense hostility to Donald Trump. Attempts to cripple or get rid of him have evinced considerable ruthlessness, and they have obviously involved much elaborate collusion. Considering these circumstances, why would a conspiracy to commit election fraud in 2020 appear implausible?

Political scientists and well-informed journalists know that, for generations, political “machines” in America’s bigger cities, virtually all of them one-party enclaves, have been more or less prone to voting “irregularities.” Many Democrats concede this fact, partly because it can affect Democratic primaries. Fraud could be used against some of them or against candidates they prefer. Now take into account the deep hostility to Trump. Is it far-fetched to think that many who consider Trump a great evil persuaded themselves that getting rid of him by almost any means was appropriate, even morally heroic? As for ways of ensuring the desired outcome today, add to the old practices of the city machines the opportunities for fraud introduced by computer software and hacking. Consider at the same time the state of our culture, including the complicity of city leaders in the street riots and crime waves of recent months. Given all of these circumstances, is it not more plausible to expect vote fraud in the 2020 election than not to do so?

People who are naïve about American politics and/or have not weighed these factors may find it hard to believe that hundreds of people might collude in major fraud. But to repeat, large-scale collusion in many aspects of life is nothing new or unusual. “Traditional” American vote fraud has been a political version of organized crime, the latter, too, involving hundreds of people operating in different states. Indeed, traditional vote fraud has sometimes involved cooperation with organizations like the Mafia. An example: as a former bootlegger, the father of JFK, Joseph Kennedy, had good contacts in the mob, and in 1960, he got Sam Giancana, the Chicago Mafia boss, to fix the Democratic primary in West Virginia for JFK, a Catholic who was running in a heavily Protestant state. The expected winner, Hubert Humphrey, was incredulous. Reliable operatives can organize efforts locally without even knowing who are pulling the strings. Today computers, software programs, and hacking are facilitating compartmentalization and greatly limiting the number of individuals required to achieve large objectives. There is of course a risk that whistleblowers will expose some part of the fraud, as is beginning to happen.

Because the vote in the battleground states is what decided the 2020 election, I will not try to assess charges of fraud in other states—which is not to imply that there was none.

The Courts 

But have not the courts refused to give credence to charges of vote fraud? First of all, those making the charges have had to do so on the basis of just a few weeks of gathering data and affidavits and on the basis of electronic evidence and statistics hard to explain to laymen. They have also had to present their cases in largely unfriendly or hostile venues. The court system is no exception to the fading of America’s traditional culture and rule of law. For decades, American law schools have undermined that tradition by teaching law as a vehicle for implementing social justice and other “progressive” causes. Especially in the big cities, but also in the general court system and in the federal courts, highly partisan views are ubiquitous. Nobody familiar, for example, with Bruce Frohnen’s view of the current court system will expect much by way of devotion to law and impartiality in the older sense.

Some Republican-sponsored judges may blur this picture, but they, too, are operating in and are influenced by this judicial environment. They fear being attacked in the media and being shunned by their peers. Specifically, who wants to become known as taking seriously charges made by “Trump partisans”? Timid judges can avoid controversy and unwanted media attention by choosing not to “interfere” in the “political process.” Probably an even more important reason for the reluctance of courts to hear cases about electoral fraud in this presidential election is that the attitudes toward Trump of the vast majority of judges range from discomfort to sheer hostility. Most of them would like for this crude bully, this disrupter of the system to which they belong, to be simply gone. Would they like to hear charges of election fraud and thus seem to help Trump continue his sledgehammer attack on “the swamp” and “the deep state”? Not hardly, as John Wayne might say.

Resistance to Evidence

I have always been a close student of epistemology—of why people believe what they believe—and I argue that only rather unusual individuals, persons with a sensitive, active conscience and strong character, are likely to resist the ever-present inclination to look away from evidence that suggests they may be wrong. On the basis of all of what I have learnt in the last several weeks, I do not hesitate to say that those who are flatly dismissing the charges of voter fraud in this year’s election are not the open-minded observers that they might imagine themselves to be. Consciously or subconsciously, they are anti-Trump partisans or reflexively partisan Democrats, unless, like most people, they are merely timid souls fearing the consequences of offending others.

I hasten to add that being willing to look at the evidence of fraud does not, by itself, make a person a Trump sympathizer. Do many Trump supporters who charge fraud have an inclination to jump to preconceived conclusions? Of course they do—it goes without saying. But that has little to do with what actually happened in the election. The evidence and the indicia are what they are, whatever the motives of those who brought them to our attention.

Final Thoughts

Those who are partisans by temperament will assume that any charges of vote fraud in the 2020 election must spring from partisan motives. They will find it hard to believe that someone might simply want to find out what actually happened in the election, that a political scientist or responsible citizen will want to understand what the election tells us about the state of his country. What motivated me to study the election and write down my observations was not a preference for one of the two presidential candidates. It was these three things: (1) a desire to know what happened in the election; a political scientist has certain obligations; (2) a suspicion, derived in part from studies of trends in American politics, that in the 2020 election something went egregiously, disturbingly wrong; and (3) the media’s absurdly one-sided treatment of the candidates and their blacking out the charges of fraud.

There is still much to learn about this year’s election. Open-minded people have to examine the evidence of fraud for themselves, that is, do what, from the beginning, Trump haters in both parties refused to do. I am embarrassed that sophisticated Europeans should have offered real and incisive analyses of suspicious features of the election while the American mainstream media simply turned a blind eye. Their facile dismissal of vote fraud and their running interference for one of the candidates is a striking example of the kind of lack of civic responsibility that one associates not with a constitutional republic but with a banana republic. Coming on top of years of more and more blatant partisanship, the conduct of the media during the 2020 campaign and after the election illustrates that the old spirit of America constitutionalism, the rule of law, and dispassionate, respectful public debate are fading away. Instead of countering the ever-growing cynicism, demagoguery, and corruption of politicians, the media are aligning themselves with and facilitating the efforts of one side in the current battle.

What I have found to date regarding the election makes it impossible for me to accept the media version of the election outcome. It is the opposite of implausible to think that Joe Biden “won” this election because of fraud. He “won” in the battleground states by small margins. Just exactly what is the case will not be known until the charges have been thoroughly investigated. My review of the evidence is far from exhaustive, and I cannot categorically exclude the possibility that the fraud was insufficient to steal the election for Mr. Biden or the possibility that the charges will in the end turn out to have been exaggerated. Yet what I have found to date gives me no choice but to conclude that in the 2020 election, there was major and organized vote fraud and that it probably stole the election.

Those who simply assume the legitimacy of Biden’s victory are willfully ignoring too many paradoxes and strange but convenient coincidences, too many vote analyses, and too much sworn testimony. Some “mainstream” American commentators are grudgingly and belatedly conceding that, yes, well, there is always “some fraud.” But they add that there is nothing unusual about this election. My comment: if, indeed, there is nothing unusual about the election, then election observers from some international body ought to have been called in long ago. I’m afraid that what I have discovered confirms my general view that America keeps sliding into lawlessness.

The possibility that the election was fraudulent is by itself frightening—ominous. Whether or not major fraud actually took place, this year’s election will among millions and millions of Americans who already distrust the established order further undermine faith in its legitimacy. Also, the “winner” that this system produced this year will be perceived as corrupt, frail, and mentally challenged. Biden had to be literally dragged over the finish line. Because the American media have actively concealed who Biden is, it will be a while before the American people as a whole find out. When they do, it is likely to add to the anger over what is already viewed as a stolen election.

That Biden is the very embodiment of the old establishment helps explain why he is being treated with tolerance by establishment Republicans. Biden is for them in some ways much less of a threat than Trump. As for world leaders, many of them intensely dislike President Trump, but, whatever they say publicly, they are likely to regard the election of the physically and mentally challenged and otherwise greatly compromised Biden as a sign that the United States is losing its vitality and creativity. And, they will all wonder, who are the people behind the scenes who are making the real decisions?

I feel the need to add one thing. In our deteriorating society, ruthless operatives will take full advantage of all the “nice” Americans who think of themselves as civilized defenders of the best of America—the “nice” people who will (nobly they think) not lower themselves to that other level of demagoguery and shenanigans. They will tell themselves that America passes through ups and downs in cycles and that in time the country always returns to balance and normalcy. I find that view as superficial as it is common. In our current historical situation, in which the decline of traditional standards continues apace, the ruthless will rather easily outmaneuver the nice, which is why the young of today had better prepare for rough times.