I asked one simple question to people who work with fraud

I noticed yesterday that I was having lots of strangers show up to scream at me whenever I posted any information about election fraud, but they were all low information types just barfing up “fact checks” which was basically whatever the news had just told them, but none of them had the basic knowledge of how fraud works to even sorta discuss any of the actual data. So I got curious and posted the following on facebook:

One quick question, only answer if you have worked in auditing/stats/fraud/investigations/or other data analysis type fields. In your entire career, have you ever seen a case that threw up this many flags that DID NOT turn out to be fraud?

Again, flags are not proof. They are merely anomalies which would cause an auditor to check. Nor am I claiming this is a scientific poll (though I’d bet I’m still more accurate than Nate Silver!). There is of course a sampling bias as I know many of these people in meat space (and their resumes on this topic are killer) but it was also open to the public so anyone could comment and it got shared a hundred times.

The consensus thus far is overwhelming. No. Not only no but hell no. There have been a few hedging their bets (but they are still suspicious) and zero saying that there is nothing wrong (like in every single other thread, where I get screamed at by Dunning-Krugerands). I’m not claiming this is an accurate sampling of every professional of this type in America, but it is pretty telling.


Big Six accounting for four years. #4 global investment bank, running the antifraud unit, also for 4 years.



Worked in immigration fraud for many years and currently an Intel analyst at a different agency. Just the sheer number of statistical anomalies covered here and elsewhere raises so many red flags, it’s like all the coaches in the NFL started frantically tossing their challenge flags. Then there’s the poll worker shenanigans in Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania that tells me the Democratic city machines in those states were going “Fuuuck, he’s behind! Quick, find more Biden only ballots!”…..


No. 25 yrs investigating financial fraud and money laundering. Where there is smoke there is fire. When you have this many unconnected witnesses saying the same/similar things, that is very strong corroboration. Not evidence of made up stories.


I was a CPA for 45 years and never saw anything as suspicious as this election.


25 years of investigating white collar crime, primarily complex DoD contracting fraud. Something with this many allegations would absolutely deserve a very thorough preliminary investigation. The Hunter Biden situation would have already gotten an accepted referral to an AUSA for gj subpoenas for records.


18 years insurance work comp fraud investigator.

This many red flags. Id be able to retire on the billing


Investigation background.

No. Not a single time. The flags here show clear cut illegal activity being concealed by multiple sources. At this point I’d reach out to others I trust/know and begin a more broad based approach to the investigation including into as many of the secondary involved parties as possible.


Not much but in 3 years of AP/investigations; no.


I’m a workers comp investigator. I follow people committing fraud every single day. In my experience, when something seems this far off, its because it is.


I’ve had lots of red flags where I couldn’t prove in court either that there was fraud, or I could prove the fraud but not who committed it.

But there’s definitely enough to trigger a thorough investigation.


Certified Fraud Examiner since 1992 here. I have never seen such an oversupply of red flags. 3 or 4 might be explicable or coincidence, but dozens all pointing the same way? This would be too implausible for fiction, let alone a case study.


Insurance analysis here. And the answer is “No”.


Investigated a case at a casino with this many flags, approxamaty 60% of the leads turned up theft/fraud. There were some that were anomalies but they were able to be checked out via witness accounts.


I’ve assisted in some fraud investigations doing the digital forensics. These many red flags and you’d want to line the investigator’s chairs and desks with plastic.


In 28 years as a certified fraud examiner I’ve had many similar cases where I had multiple huge red flags but I couldn’t prove it in court. Fraud cases are hard to prove.


Former Army CID. Answer is a hard no. Smoke= Fire. This is damn near Napalm.


IT Forensics. I’ve never had to do a full blown fraud investigation that involved more than one individual at a time.

But if I was looking at a single computer, and saw this all, I would be telling my bosses that there’s some problems needing to be addressed.


(My credentials: Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. Former senior manager in the audit methodology and audit quality control department of a big 4 firm. I used to run the audit quality review programme for the whole of Europe for that firm. I’m also pretty much neutral as far as US politics is concerned – I’m not American, and I’m no fan of either Trump or Biden.)

In a financial statements audit situation, I would always tell people that discrepancies are much more likely to be errors than fraud. You’ll often get excitable young auditors convinced they have found some devious director-level fraud, when actually they’ve just found a cock-up by Doreen in the accounts department.


When you’re a financial statements auditor, you’re mostly looking for material errors – errors which are singularly large enough to change someone’s perception of the accounts. But you also bear in mind that smaller errors might add up to make a material difference. So what auditors do is they keep track of those smaller differences. This list is sometimes called a “scoresheet”, sometimes an “overs and unders schedule” and sometimes something else, but they are all the same thing.

On the scoresheet, the auditor records the double entry required to correct the difference, and the effect that the error has had on accounting profit. Typically you would expect some errors to increase profit and some to decrease profit, because that is the nature of errors. But if you get a situation where almost all of the ‘errors’ are in the same direction – for example, they almost all increase profit, and the directors have a clear incentive to overstate profit – then you start to think it looks suspicious.

As an auditor, you wouldn’t instantly shout “FRAUD!”, but you would investigate further. You’d look more carefully at areas of the accounts that previously you had considered lower risk. You’d maybe think about doing some computer-based auditing on routine transactions. If you were concerned that perhaps some sales invoices were fictitious, then something you might do (among many other possible tests) is see if the distribution of significant initial digits in the invoice numbers and / or the invoice values fitted the distribution suggested by Benford’s Law. Yes, _that_ Benford’s Law.

So if I was running an audit that had this many discrepancies, would I have concluded that this was because of fraud? No, at least not yet. But I definitely would want to investigate further. (And if the directors tried to prevent me from doing so, then I’d get even more suspicious…)


Fraud manager, banking and finance and a stint in credit reporting. I can’t recall a single case with the sheer number of red flags attached, probably because most organized bad actors take some pains to hide their tracks. Cases with multiple reporting parties and multiple data anomalies, always turn out to be fraud. The only question is how widespread it turns out to be when you start pulling on the threads (usually turns out to be long running and widespread).


No. In fact I would say that in about 34 years of this work it is my professional opinion that at this level it is mathematically more likely that our sun blinks out of existence as a result of every particle in it spontaneously “blinking” into another state than it is that fraud did not take place on the order of millions of votes.


Data Forensics.



Accountant/Small Fry Auditor/ MS in Fraud Investigations/ working on CPA licensure.

The example cases in my textbooks weren’t this level of ham fisted. Anyone with the sense that God gave a billy goat could see those. This is a flashing sign that can be seen from space.


Former military intelligence professional here (yes, we did investigations without any evidentiary standards to get in the way). I’m insulted at how sloppy with was carried out.

Information operations depend on not being noticed. They have to be part of what looks like the background noise to nudge people toward a conclusion. If the hand is seen, the magic is lost and the mark spots the trick.


Nope – bank auditor for 30 years – damn I am getting old


Fucking newb IT security chiming in with my .02 Cents (depreciated for lack of experience) IF I’M seeing shit thats fucky the experts must be having a field day.


I’ve been in infosec for over 10 years now (at least I’ve had my CISSP that long). It’s just standard practice to assume that any hole in information security will be exploited eventually. I can think of a number of ways to game the election system in the US without having to think hard. Or at all, really. Seems like there’s solid evidence to suggest each technique I’ve come up with was used somewhere.


Larry, about ten years of Engineering Failure Analysis/Materials, did vendor investigations/stats. It smells bad…


No. Patterns, Patterns. forensic analysis in cases where men try to mimic natural causes always reveals improbable elements. Even showing a pattern of trying to avoid patterns. But this is far more obvious than any case I’ve examined in the last 12 years of expert witness/ consulting work.


Insurance Fraud Special Investigator for 10 years (personal and commercial lines)… One possibly two red flags could be attributed to stupidity, mistakes, etc. This many, screams rampant fraud and intenent to commit a fraud. The statistical improbabilities are also a great indicator that something is wrong. The fact that the media completely dismisses any of these claims without any interest or investigation is sure curious. It should not matter what party you are for. If the there is an indication of wrongdoing shouldn’t everyone be outraged when the possibility of affecting the outcome of an election is at hand?


This many flags all in one direction? No. But I’ve seen places where it was just that screwed up that we THOUGHT they were stealing but once we dug in they were just that terrible. Ended up just closing the whole facility. It was easier rather than trying to fix all the incompetence.


Last case I investigated, there were only small red flags that were actually not things that jumped out. I knew at once something was very wrong. There is also gut feelings, which seem to be right more than wrong. Yeah, I getcha!


I teach financial accounting not fraud detection. That said, I still cover some of the basics in my classes. One thing that is not discussed much is the idea of controls. In any business, there are procedures (controls) to limit and detect fraud. In our elections, there are almost no controls. And, to directly answer your questions, no there are no textbook examples that with this much smoke without fire.


I used to run the front end for a RE investing team. You’d be amazed how much fraud there is therein.

We busted an entire drug smuggling operation – multiple players, multimillion$/year… on maybe 2% of the evidence in this case.


No and all of my very liberal friends who have done the grind is statistical analysis with me are silent…because they know this is all BS.


I’m a criminal atty and I’d tell my client to pray for a good plea bargain offer


Not accounting or fraud investigation, but significant amounts of research statistics. Not exactly the same, but once the p-values get out beyond the 0.0000000x range, it’s easy enough to point at something and say that fuckery has been happening.


Ex-military intel, prosecutor and trial attorney. I’m gonna be a bit contrarian, but just a bit.

What we have right now is a lot of data and data analysis. Certainly the data analysis is *a lot* of smoke. But I don’t feel good about there being a fire yet because, right now, the fishy data looks like magic. I want somebody to flip. I want somebody to indict. Where are those people? With this much information out in public, how is it that someone hasn’t lost his nerve and confessed his involvement?

So far, there is no explanation for *how* the fraud was accomplished, which is very useful to know when you’re trying to figure out who accomplished it.

So…my investigatory hackles are up, all right, but I won’t really feel confident until we have some information on *how* the large scale, result-flipping work must have been done.


Former Air Force OSI agent, practicing attorney. I have more respect for people who still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny than those who claim to believe there wasn’t massive amounts of vote fraud in the battleground states where Trump’s substantial leads suddenly evaporated after counting was paused.


Former auditor here – I actually can think of one time, but only because we didn’t/couldn’t find evidence the errors were intentional so it couldn’t be called fraud.

And it might not have had nearly this many red flags – it was 20 years ago when I was just starting my career


PhD in finance and major stat nerd here. And I do this stuff both professionally and for fun (nerd – Duh).

Here’s some stats goodness. When you have a binomial distribution (i.e. two outcomes, like vote for Biden or for Trump), it’s pretty easy to calculate probabilities of unusual outcomes.

Let ‘b” be the “true” probability of Biden getting a given vote (i.e. his normal or expected share of the vote), and ‘t’ be Trump’s probability. The standard error (think of it as the standard deviation of the deviation from the expected) is Square Root of “the sample size * b * t”.

Here’s an example: Take a sample of 1,000 voters and assume (let’s be generous) that Biden’s True percentage of the votes is 60%. That means you expect to see 600 Biden votes out of 1000, with a standard error of Square Root (1000 x 0.6 x 0.4) = 15.5 votes, or 1.55%.

So Biden getting 70% of the votes (a 10% deviation) on a sample of that size is something something like 6 standard deviations away from the expected 60%. And as the sample size increases, even smaller percentage deviations are highly unlikely.

When you look up the probability of a 6 standard deviation event occurring by chance in a states table, all the table says is “Here There Be Feckery” or, in probabilities, about 1 in 500 million.

Or, as Sir Pterry once said, “pull the other one – it’s got bells on it”.


Lawyer, and this election has taught me that I’ve clearly been underestimating the genius of the op party who used white out and a photocopier to falsify employee records for a compliance audit and the other op party that embezzled money by writing checks directly to their personal account.


I spent 17 years as a private investigator, and part of that time I spent investigating and building fraud cases on behalf insurance companies to submit to local law enforcement for prosecution. Just what is known in the media on voter fraud is more probable cause than I had in any of my cases which resulted in a conviction.


I used to work in welfare fraud for Fresno county and damn this is all very fishy I’ve also been a voting center captain which means I was in charge of a designated voting area and at the end of the night had to take the locked up ballots to the designated counting center. There are so many chances for fraud to happen it’s ludicrous to think it couldn’t happen


Investigations, and still in the game. You have one of my coins actually.

So once upon a time, we were looking at a guy that was throwing out flags, smoke signals, and hand gestures. We kept poking and poking at him, and couldn’t find what we were looking for. Finally reached out to some colleagues, turns out guy was deep into shenanigans, but on a different playing field than we were on*. That’s about as close as I’ve come to the question you asked.

*we ended up talking to the guy, and he ended up giving us a ton of information that was later used to bury him. He had no problem talking to us, felt safe because we weren’t directly asking about the stuff he was involved in. Apparently unaware that professionals often talk to each other across fields.


I have worked in corporate investigations for over 10 years, and only once when a server holding data got corrupt, showed 100,000,000,000,000 dollar loss for a store that earned no more then 15 million a year. Other then that no. Especially if you make a spreadsheet of pa voters. Only reveiwing 1/3 of mailed in votes, and look up same day mailed out, and received that same same day for over 8,000 votes, and 8,000 votes that were received before being mailed out. And about 20,000 more votes that were received after November 4th.


I’ve worked in insurance claims for 25 years. Over that entire time, I have been involved in exactly 1 group of related claims involving an organized fraud ring with NICB and local law enforcement involved as well. That type of fraud exists, but is relatively rare. The bigger issue in my industry is opportunistic fraud. Someone has an accident and sees it as a way to make a little extra by exaggerating things. Even that level of “soft” fraud is relatively rare compared to legitimate claims. Now, the election results…they smell like carefully orchestrated and organized fraud or a large concentration of opportunistic fraud situations to me. Everything has become so partisan now that it does not take that much of a stretch to see poll workers in battleground states putting their thumbs on the scales to favor their preferred candidate.


15 years with insurance and safety compliance. Some fraud. Lots of stats and analysis for a large multinational corporation with hundreds of locations. Used to catch people fairly often trying to cheat at injury statistics or workers comp claims.

Mistakes are generally random, or, they are caused by one error and replicated in a predictable way. Creating a consistent pattern that you can track, identify, trace,and fix, usually instantly.

Multiple inconsistencies all making a number bigger only in one column, that’s usually someone doing something who can’t hide it too well.

You can get away with it once. Or maybe, a little, once in a while. But I met a few fools who thought they figured out how to ice skate uphill. Like they were the smartest people ever.

It looked about as blatant and stupid as this.

When it gets this blatant it is usually “systemic” .

Real errors go both ways. I had to call a lot of people because they were being too hard on themselves and over reporting; ignorance & incompetence creates errors both ways.

When there were lots of “errors” that resulted in better stats in one location across all work cells… thats a problem in mgmt at the top of the location. Usually someone at the top of their little food chain was sending the message/ motivating their people to try to show initiative and hide things. But you can’t hide that very long. It shows up at the corporate level when things don’t jive.

What I am getting at is this variety of errors going all one way means it is systematic across the entire organization. Different errors all going one way means that it isn’t one state, one software company, one voting method… this is everyone in the organization getting the message to move the stats one way. And they did it sloppy and across the board because although the message was sent and received, it wasn’t *organized* from the top. It was handled from the local level. It was impossible to be slick and smart, the front line knew what the top level wanted as a result and no one knew how much it would take so it became super obvious…

The late night miracles? That was the front line folks scrambling to make magic happen when the usual methods weren’t sufficient.

Tl:dr its too many error types across too many locations with all the errors going one way to be unintended. It is way too widespread to be the usual background fraud that always happens. It was done too many ways on too many places to be locally driven. But it was so sloppily done that it wasn’t coordinated as a policy, but more as a goal because it relied on local initiative to implement.


I do a lot of statistical analysis and groupings at work. If i was given this data as a sample set. I’d throw it out and require the submitter to correct their data.


I need more specifics and details. But mail in ballots have a great potential of fraud. And given the emotional and media disgust for this great President, large volume of fraud would not surprise me.


No. When we found this many red flags, someone went away in handcuffs courtesy of the RI State Police. Including a Finance Director for a town.


And the thread is still going on. As of yet nobody has showed up to scream about how we’re all big stupid moron idiots who should shut up and listen to our betters in the totally unbiased news media, like in every other post I make about the election (It’s almost like the left has made social pressure compliance shaming into an art form or something). And nobody claiming to have an audit/fraud/investigation background has chimed in to gaslight everyone yet, probably because they realize they would get eaten.

Monster Hunter Bloodlines, AVAILABLE for Preorder
Election 2020: the more fuckery update

426 thoughts on “I asked one simple question to people who work with fraud”

  1. I don’t farcebook, but I can chime in here.

    Data analysis for over 12 years now, 10 years of that with a government contractor occasionally helping with DCMA and DCAA audits, on top of our monthly audits of our own teams.

    I have Never seen this many red flags. Never. This is worse than the time an upper management idiot made backdoor deals with the client that made the program overrun by more than $50M before work even got started.

  2. This thread is probably an excellent recruitment tool for forensic accountants and fraud investigators. I mean, it’s got to be dry work, but this makes it all seem sort of sexy.

    Sort of reminds me of my own job, which is very very different. (I’m a wildcat geologist.) Most of the data is indirect but you figure it out by looking at what amounts to shadows. Lots and lots of shadows.

    1. Especially when the shadows don’t move with the light and point in only one direction. You would have to be blind not to notice these shadows don’t look right. Starting to think that about half the country is blind.

          1. Event Horizon “Where we’re going, we won’t need eyes to see.”

            Though I really, really hope that’s not the case, as much as it feels like it.

          2. Eek. Now I’m thinking of all those muzzles permanently stitched onto people’s faces along with stitched up eye sockets.

            Nightmare time. Thanks. 😀

          1. Not entirely related but reminds me of a bible study long time ago and the passage was talking about “willingly ignorant” which the teacher translated as dumb on purpose.

  3. Dont worry guys, the news media have done their jobs and investigated THOROUGHLY by going to the people accused of fraud (the election officials in suspect counties) and asking them “did you see any evidence that you committed fraud?”

    you can put your mind at ease because ALL of them said no.
    so there you have it. No fraud at all, case closed.

  4. ” One thing that is not discussed much is the idea of controls. In any business, there are procedures (controls) to limit and detect fraud. In our elections, there are almost no controls”

    This is one strikes me as very important. If there’s any controls, I haven’t seen it outside of party monitors and the court process.

    1. That’s what bothers me the most, mass mailing ballots to all registered voters without any attempt to verify any information struck me as a bad idea. When you go to the poll, you have to tell them who you are, to get an absentee ballot, you have to request it. When places that sent out mass ballots also decided to remove signature requirements. . .Wow, that’s not going to make it easy to create a few thousand extra votes.

      There was enough going on during the 2018 elections that securing the integrity of the vote should have been on the top of the to do list. Instead, we had states removing as many safeguards as they thought they could get away with.

      1. Well, the Voting Rights Act mandates that voter rolls be kept updated to remove the dead and the otherwise departed. No law including “Thou shalt not commit adultery” has EVER been more ignored.

    2. aivanther in NG the lack of controls was a feature and I suspect NV is going to be able to skate on that. They didn’t have to actively fraud that hard because as one of the investigators mentioned already, the little people knew what the message was. In NV the damn ballots were thrown out in the trash by the residents who got them sent to the wrong address. We need a recount definitely and a cross check of voter rolls but the only people who are going to hang are going to be misguided useful idiots. (My SWAG)

  5. 25 years of law enforcement, everything from SACA, Technical Services, 8 of last 9 years of career in Insurance Fraud and Medicaid Fraud.

    Even though I retired almost 8 years ago, I really wouldn’t even need to knock off the rust and dust to see what a leaky bag of $#!+ this is.

  6. So your opinion is that Democrats somehow recruited dozens of local long-time Republican clerks in multiple states to commit mass voter fraud in 2020 to elect Joe Biden. What is the statistical probability that they managed to do that without once attempting to recruit someone who wouldn’t go along with it?

    The other question would be how was the fraud committed. I’m from Michigan so I will use that as my reference point. That Redstate analysis you linked in previous posts thought suspicious things were happening in Antrim County. So I will use that as an example. If they created fictitious physical absentee ballots and half of Joe Biden’s increase over Obama numbers are fake that is a thousand votes. So 1000 times they would have to create a fake ballot without the voter showing up to vote in person and with signature matches for the voter. The only way to do that would be to wait until after the polls close to scan them or use poll workers who would not check the signatures.

    To do that in Antrim County you would have to recruit not only the county clerk, who doesn’t run polling places, but also the township clerk’s who do run polling places. You would need to do that in multiple townships to avoid one township having 1000 extra votes for Biden compared to the other townships. That would be between 5 to 60 people if you have to recruit poll workers as well.

    If they just altered the electronic records then all the Trump campaign would have to do is request a count of the number of ballots without even reviewing who they voted for because the count would be off by 1000 which would be very quick because officially 18,000 people voted in Antrim County but the Trump campaign has not done that. Why would they not do that if they were sure that electronic fraud had occurred?

    1. Your first paragraph is a straw man.
      You make an assumption as to the methodology used. Flags don’t prove methodology, they’re just the intro saying that there is an anomoly.
      Your second paragraph, that is the question. However every professional quoted above would probably tell you the same thing. They would need to review the system and the process in place, examine the controls, and then see what gaps were exploited.
      However, there being a process to follow does not mean that the flags cease to exist. Your assumption is based upon the infallibility of one control out of a system with many controls which could be exploited.
      You citing Antrim is kinda funny, since it was a place they did confirm a 12,000 vote swing error, and that investigation was based upon an initial flag from one individual complaining about only 4 missing votes. That’s how flags work.
      Your last paragraph is making assumptions based on what others have and have not done since this information has come out, but from all available evidence they’ve been playing it close to the vest, and I know people who are currently working on it now.
      Also, I don’t know where this bizarre assumption that time sensitive lawsuits move at the same speed as auditing (which is a slow process), so if quickly filed lawsuits don’t have definitive proof of fraud in them, fraud didn’t happen.
      But thanks for the obfuscation/dismiss attempt. You put a lot more effort into that than most of them. 😀

      1. Or we could consult our peasant ancestors: “The fish rots from the head down”.

        Corrupt the Elections supervisor and it all flows downhill. Exhibit A: The crone of Broward County, FL.

        1. Or as some like to call it, South New York City.

          And, yes, Broward County IS that bad, or at least was, until Governor De Santis put his foot up a whole buncha people’s backsides.

          Funny, how putting a Republican in charge of elections in Broward pert near stopped all the the stupidity. Didn’t stop all, as there WERE some still-corrupt workers. That got caught and fired and arrested.

      2. Could you actually share a few examples of voter fraud that has been detected from audit or investigation from the past? Ones where hundreds of votes were manufactured or destroyed? If this is actually a thing that happens then it would be helpful for you to have concrete examples.

        1. The fact that several jurisdictions in critical states (Philadelphia and Detroit or two examples) routinely suffer from the same allegations and irregularities in national elections, and are controlled by the party that stands to benefit the most from the fraud, and you understand why no serious investigation is ever launched, let alone prosecuted.

          “We have done a thorough investigation into ourselves and found no significant wrongdoing.”

          1. That same argument could be levelled at any jurisdiction controlled by the other party. It’s avoiding the question. I would welcome some example of this massive and effective fraud committed by either party that was actually proven to the point that someone went to jail.

          2. @William

            “That same argument could be levelled at any jurisdiction controlled by the other party.”

            Could be, except it’s not. Also, in red states and jurisdictions, efforts to strengthen protections of the electoral process are public knowledge and well-publicized.

            “It’s avoiding the question.”

            Hardly. It’s addressing it. Lack of evidence does not mean lack of wrongdoing. Allegations are made, investigations happen. That’s how it works, except in the jurisdictions in question.

            “I would welcome some example of this massive and effective fraud committed by either party that was actually proven to the point that someone went to jail.”

            “Massive” is a loaded word here. As Larry and others have pointed out, this type of fraud does not need a large number of people to carry it out. Nor does it need to be widespread, since, once again, the fate of a national election can be pinpointed to a handful of major urban areas.

            As for prosecutions and people going to jail, there are hundreds, if not thousands of such cases:


    2. So what you’re saying is:

      1. if there was electoral fraud there would be whistleblowers and obvious statistical anomalies.
      2. There are no whistleblowers or obvious statistical anomalies
      3. Therefore there is no fraud
      3. Therefore we can ignore anyone who points to whistleblowers or obvious statistical anomalies. qed

      1. TimP
        Rudy has over 1000 affadavits for fraud over 200 in Wayne County alone .Two USPS carriers who saw or heard backdating ballots .A non partisan poll watcher in Georgia saw a 20000 vote addition to Biden and a 1000 vote subtraction to Trump????2 Whistleblowers from Dominion one who stated that they were privy to meetings where rigging elections in Foreign countries was discussed.

    3. The republican poll watchers were not allowed access to the polls in MI and PA. And as far as the Trump campaign requesting anything, that’s what the court cases are about because so far the requests for any transparency have met with great big stone walls. And to dig into the code that caused those “glitches” will require computer forensics from experts. But the fact that the machines were touching the internet while the polls were open. That should never have happened. And it happened after the machines were “certified”.

      1. There were updates after certification .One shut down a county in Georgia for several hours .
        The public statements from Dominion states that after all updates there must be recertification.
        Not done in Georgia

    4. “So your opinion is that Democrats somehow recruited dozens of local long-time Republican clerks in multiple states to commit mass voter fraud in 2020”

      Well, we’re prosecuting one in Texas now. Volunteer for a Republican Congressman, and caught on video confessing to have frauded 7000 votes. Evidence Trumps your theory.

      1. The think about these Leftist dingbats is that you can confront them with evidence, or even flat out PROOF, that their delusions are wrong, and they will simply ignore it as if you never spoke.

    5. Actually, you would not need to “recruit” anyone. No need to cry “conspiracy” when the observed behavior can adequately be explained by flocking behavior. The word “recruit” implies a conspiracy. As multiple commenters have observed this looks more like a DISorganized attempt to accomplish a goal set by some higher level in the organization. Mistakes and anomalies happen. But when all the mistakes/anomalies favor a single side then anybody with a mind the teenyest bit open is going to question the result. True, in the strictest sense of the word all the anomalies do not prove that fraud occurred but when so very many anomalies occur it causes anyone who has not already made up their mind. If the anomalies are NOT the result of intentional fraud, then what is the harm in investigating the anomalies? If you truly believe that no fraud has occurred then you should WELCOME all the investigations as a potential source of vindication. If the investigations fail to turn up any evidence usable in court then you can stand in the public square, wag your finger at the folks crying “foul” and say, “I told you there was no fraud!” One would think you would WELCOME such an opportunity. The mere fact that you work so hard to quash any/all such investigations leads me to suspect that, in your heart of hearts, you fekking well KNOW there was fraud but are too pleased with the outcome to want to allow any possibility of said outcome to be reversed.

    1. In other words “We accounted for all the votes. Of the 6000 that went to Biden, we counted 6000, and of the 700 that went to Trump, we counted 700.” I love/hate how this doesn’t even speak to the provenance or veracity of the ballots themselves–even if FB’s claim wasn’t a flat lie–but sounds legit on a quick pass.

      Although I think my favorite is the believe-me-I’m-a-journalists who claim that since there’s not already any evidence, there’s no reason for an investigation.

  7. I can’t chime in on FB, but I’m a retired CPA and former IT executive, and I can see more red flags popping up than you’d find on Tienanmen Square on the 1st of May. This is probably the most fracked, fraudulent and corrupt election any G7 country has ever experienced. Those who deny the overabundance of smoke above what feels suspiciously like a fire are either idiots or liars. Or since we’re talking about Democrats, both.

    1. You know… when you pass Italy in this s…tuff, you know you are in rare heights… or lows depending on your position.

  8. I could be wrong on this, but I don’t recall folks on the Democratic Party side screaming about voter fraud in 2016. If it was as close as they claim (with the “massive” popular vote) and Trump really did “steal” the election, then where were the outcries of voter fraud? It was if they didn’t want anyone looking into how things were done. They did of course scream and rant about the Electoral College and “Russian Influence” but the only thing that could have changed the outcome is proving voter fraud. And they didn’t even try.

    1. Um, the entire point of their Russian Influence gambit was to try and convince people it changed votes. And they’ve clung onto that for four f*cking years!!!!

      1. And the ridiculous thing about that claim was that it would never, in any foreseeable circumstance, be actionable. They were setting out from the get-go to undermine faith in the electoral process simply so that Trump could be touted as “illegitimate” for however long he was in office.

        Actually let me say that another way: Democrats’ deliberately and truly baselessly (as opposed to their present definition of “baselessly”) undermining faith in the electoral process in 2016 was only a tool for them. The goal was not ever to change the election outcome (the “Russian collusion” claim was never going to lead to that) but to make people believe that election outcomes are irrelevant to the legitimacy of the elected official.

        So in that sense, I guess it wasn’t ridiculous after all. Intentional in 2016 or not, it amounted to battlespace prep for 2020. No matter which way the election came out, they were going to claim legitimacy of their candidate and illegitimacy of Trump.

        This is why, even if the Trump campaign is ultimately unsuccessful in flipping the election (as I think it’s very likely, d*mn it), I want token l want them to pursue it to the bitter end. Otherwise “legitimacy” becomes defined by the loudest bullhorn and national elections are rendered as relevant to governance as the Royal Family.

    2. Well, hypothetically, they didn’t have their fraud machine in high gear in 2016 because “it was her turn” and screaming voter fraud and demanding an investigation would’ve turned up THEIR voter fraud along with any committed by the Republicans. So, they ranted and raved about something less likely to incriminate them (although that blew up in their faces, too) and planned to do better in 2020.

      An analogy: I live 30 minutes south of one of the largest reservoirs on the west coast (Lake Shasta). Every year, the Water Project has to guesstimate how much water they need to let out of the lake to make space for the winter rainfall and snowmelt that will be coming in between now and May. They almost always get it wrong, and the lake level is either way down in the summer or they have to open the spillway and dump water downstream on short notice.

      Same thing here: the Democrats have a vote fraud system in place, but they can’t read the future to know exactly how many ballots they’re going to need, so they have to guess. In 2016, they underestimated. In 2020, they increased their numbers, but underestimated AGAIN, and tried to do an emergency compensation. Technically it worked, but it did so in a pretty obvious fashion. And that’s what’s throwing up all the red flags.

      1. your analogy works perfectly too, when you look at how surprisingly hard Florida broke red, the big red leads in the swing states, and then the sudden middle of the night stopping of the process. Somebody had to hurry and open the flood gates.

        1. The “Fact”Checkers are hard at it about the counting pause.


          And when you really dig into that, you’ll find it’s not really a fact check, but a FactCheck™. There are so many issues with that piece that it would invoke Brandolini’s Law, but the most entertaining is the framing about “States” stopping the recounts.

          That’s how they skirt the issue, “The states never stopped counting! Totes false you guys!!”

        2. And part of the reason Florida broke red? Coronavirus. The lockdowns devastated everyone’s savings and businesses even before hurricanes hit. The mainstream press cheered Cuomo and booed DeSantis even though DeSantis’ “quarantine any elder care facility and try to let the rest of life go on” orders led to a death rate something like 10x less than NY.

          And this state lives on tourism.

          You better believe people were paying attention to Biden saying the lockdowns needed to come back good and hard.

          1. Yes, I mean, why would the eradication of one’s life work and savings be of concern to anyone at all, THERE IS A LOCKDOWN YOU MUST OBEY, PEON!

            (Sarcasm tag for the people who don’t know how to tell.)

            And of course they’ll spend the next four years blaming everything on Trump.

            They have such a convenient scapegoat now after all.

    3. They did scream voter suppression though. And Rep. Clyburn early in the evening of the third was spouting off about that until the vote count shutdown. Situational narrative switching!

    4. If I remember correctly, I think they very well might have tried in a couple states (Michigan was one) but when it started looking like they would find voter fraud, for the Democrats, they mysteriously lost interest.

    5. That is a mistaken belief. They chose not to continue to try. Candidate Jill Stein laid off her campaign debts by organizing a crowd-sourced private recount to prove that she – and Felonies Von Pantsuit – had been robbed.

      The privately-funded recounts were stopped cold when they discovered that yes, Miss Stein was cheated (as was everyone) since the recount had greater than 100% turnout for the Clinton crime syndicate.

      Those of us old enough to remember the Algor recounts can fondly recall how all these independent sources funded private recounts only to fold up their tents and not report their findings. I wonder why?

      1. As I’ve asked before: where did all the Russian hackers go? For years they were pumped up as the big menace to the next election and then . . . forgotten.

    6. The only ones calling Voter Fraud in 2016 were Republicans.

      Especially in the presidential race. The statistical anomalies of the votes from several big cities, LA and NYC to be precise, that allowed the Hildabeast to ‘win’ the popular vote,’ were quite notable.

      Republicans took it to Justice Department officials and to the Federal Election Commission, but, well, look who was in charge in 2016 of the whole shebang…

      1. For four years, every time some ninny has said to me, “Hillary won the popular vote.”, my answer has been, “What makes you think so?”

    7. Actually, they tried. When they did, all the evidence pointed out that their fraud just wasn’t enough. See Michigan recount where they couldn’t verify enough of the count with actual ballots in Detroit to conduct one.

    8. There were complaints from the Green Party in a number of states, in 2016. For example, over one third of precincts in Detroit counted more votes than they had registered voters, in some instances by more than 300%. Not 30%. 300%.

      The Deep State made the complaints and investigations go away, of course, but there were complaints of impropriety in 2016.

    9. Hillary demanded recounts in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in2016.

      Didn’t help her much, but they weren’t looking for fraud that they knew was there.

      This year, people are looking for all kinds of crap. I think they are going to find some.

    10. Reminder: Jill “green” Stein did start looking into fraud against her campaign in 2016 .. and got shut down *quick* once it became obvious she was unearthing (more like dusting off) *Dem* fraud.


      1. Yes indeed. I’m a little surprised this hasn’t gotten completely memory-holed yet.


        Here’s the tl;dr version: in Detroit in 2016 more than one third of Detroit precincts counted more votes than there were registered voters, in some instances by 300%. Not 30%. 300%. If you think Chicago has a serious problem with the dead rising from their graves to vote the straight Democrat ticket every Election Day, they’ve got nothing on Detroit. That town needs holy water by the railroad tank car load.

        Jill Stein from the Green Party cried foul and asked for an investigation. The Deep State, of course, made the complaint and the investigation quietly go away, but news stories can still be found from that time.

  9. (Disclaimer – I’m not any sort of CPA, auditor, etc.)

    It seems to me that there’s a couple possible outcomes from this:
    1. Biden gets to be Pres, because somehow, the questionable states still end up going to him. Somehow, he makes it the full 4yrs but declines a 2nd run.
    2. Biden gets to be Pres, same as above, except after 2yrs he either gets 25thed out, or the Dem Dark Mages that kept RBG going as long as they did are told to cease keeping him going. Harris ends up Pres, then runs in 2024 with the option of a 2nd term (10yrs of Dem rule, watch them drool in anticipation!)
    3. Trump does win, likely by some razor-thin margins. All hell breaks loose from the leftist patsies (BLM, Antifa, etc.) Dems and their patsies spend the next 4yrs the same as the last, “Not my President!” and “Russia!” and impeachment hearings that go nowhere.
    4. Trump does win, with resounding evidence of fuckery in the questionable states. Same as #3 otherwise, except the media clams up about the fuckery, saying nothing.
    5. Enough fuckery is uncovered that the election goes to the House and Senate, Trump gets a 2nd term, Senate maybe sticks Harris as VP.

    I suppose the other possibility would be Biden doesn’t even make it to Jan 20. I’m not well-versed enough in the Constitution and law to know what happens then.

    If I had to put money on this, I’m somewhat negative and would probably go with #2 then #3 as the most likely. Either way, the next 4yrs are going to suck, keep your powder dry and if you’re near a metro area (especially ones that went up previously,) an escape plan updated…

    1. Other option. 6. Biden wins. Half the country feels ripped off. Biden dies or gets 25thed. The wildly unpopular and unlikable Kamala Harris has a divided country. And what historically do rulers do to unite their people? Give them something to unite against by declaring a big ass war.
      But that’s getting super negative. 🙂

      1. Geez man, I wanted to keep at least a SMALL ray of sunshine!

        Now I’m trying to think where Harris could throw troops at, that wouldn’t piss off overseas cheerleaders.
        Certainly not China.
        Not sure they’d be able to gin up enough to convince people Russia is a threat worthy of war.
        Ditto most of the Middle East (much less the fact that the Dems base cheerleads FOR most of the countries they’d have to throw the troops against!)

        1. They could easily manage the Middle East. One of their first major plans is to put back the Iran deal. Get Iran refunded to do stuff, and stir pots in Syria and Saudi Arabia.

          Recall, the Saudi’s did kill Kashogi, so there’s a pretense. That would also have the benefit of dunking on Trump for not punishing the Saudi’s for it in the first place. It would be a good reason to back those rebels the Saudis are fighting against,and bingo: major humanitarian disaster in the Middle East that we just have to respond too.

        2. ‘Now I’m trying to think where Harris could throw troops at, that wouldn’t piss off overseas cheerleaders.’

          Any energy-producing state in the US. Climate change gun control could one of several ostensible excuses. Remember Beto is going to be the gun confiscator czar.

          And there are a surprising number of ‘Blue’ states that produce gas, oil, and coal. But they shouldn’t worry, Harris will teach the laid off workers in those states to code.

          1. She could always invade Canada. As long as she does it while we have a Liberal government in power, she won’t even get any resistance. Justin Trudeau will just wet his pants and apologize, and then complain to the UN that the invading troops didn’t buy him a new pair of pants.

        3. The point is to kill off our best young men, and increase the number of embittered cat ladies, while maiming or exiling (or both) any potential resistance. World War1 was an accident.

          Not too sure about the rest of them.

        4. 7% of Rs do not believe is was a free and fair election, as reported in Politico.

          This rancorous theft for Dementia Joe will grow.

          If R legislatures act, no candidate gets 270 by Dec 14, then the House (28R to 22D) decides the President.

          Which explains the Lefts hysterical rush to gaslight capitulation from the gullible.

          (“Patriots Kill Traitors” reads my T-shirt”)

      2. ‘Give them something to unite against by declaring a big ass war.’

        I don’t think Harris is much into uniting. Especially when she believes the losing half of the country is irredeemably evil. See my comment down this side thread for what she might do.

        1. Nah, they’ll just send Baron von Pantsuit back over there for another Reset™ and suddenly everything will be okie doke with Russia again. Like nothing ever happened.

          I’m available for high-end foreign policy consulting.

        2. The Dems actually like Russia. Reset button, more freedom after the election, get your 1980’s foreign policy back and all.

          The ONLY reason that Russia was put forward as a supporter of Trump was because the Left thinks that the Right hates Russia.

          It was an attempt to move the Right, who they all know is made up of irrational Russia haters.

      3. “Biden wins. Half the country feels ripped off. Biden dies or gets 25thed. The wildly unpopular and unlikable Kamala Harris has a divided country. ”

        And then she decides to confiscate guns, 401ks, etc. and kicks off that hot civil war. Larry, these people are more than arrogant enough for that.

        1. I sometimes think they WANT a civil war. It would utterly destroy the US as a world power.

          Back in the 1970s, Obama’s mentor Bill Ayers and the rest of the Weather Underground terrorists wrote a book in 1974 called “Prairie Fire” where they fantasized about overthrowing the US government, with the help of Soviet, Chinese, and Cuban troops, and sending 10% or more of the US’s population to “reeducation camps” for liquidation as “hard-core irreconcilables.” The purpose of all this was only half revolution for its own sake; they also wrote extensively about their desire to get the eeeeeeeevil Yankees off the world’s back, so that poor misunderstood Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Muammar Qaddafi, Robert Mugabe, and all the rest could manage their own “people’s revolutions” without American interference.

          They were at the time quite open about their willingness–nay, eagerness–to kill 25 million Americans, or more, for this. I don’t think much has changed since then on the Left. They’re a death-cult.

      4. I think in your scenario, Harris would be sorely disappointed. I don’t think that wagging the dog by involving the US in a “big ass war” would work to unite like it has historically. Too many of us are sick and tired of useless wars that go nowhere, accomplish nothing, and have no discernable end. That’s the reality of war now. War in this day and age is largely a pointless waste of time and resources. Sure, I suppose a truly worthy foe might rise, changing that assessment, but I wouldn’t count on it.

      5. There were updates after certification .One shut down a county in Georgia for several hours .
        The public statements from Dominion states that after all updates there must be recertification.
        Not done in Georgia

      1. Well, after all those Disney ‘Imagineers’ got replaced by H1Bers from India, they had to do something.

        I mean, the Trump animatron from the Hall of Presidents was more expressive and alive than RBG years before she finally broke down.

      1. Largely speaking, they’re not. But I think for a fair number of people, they’d still be preferred over #s 1-2 and Larry’s #6.

        But, one could argue in either of those cases, well, the left will have removed their mask, showing their true face to everyone. Squishy lefties will probably stay with them, die-hard lefties will continue to scream at the sky (and in some cases, continue to burn down their neighborhoods then wail about “OrangeManBad MADE us do this!”)

        But, people towards the center will (in some cases,) realize just how shitty the left is. Might make for interesting elections in the future (especially if the Trump administration starts pushing HARD for voter reform for Federal elections, watch who screams the loudest about it being bad to know who benefits most from the current situation (not that we really need to wait, just look at who screamed about it when it was brought up in the past.))

        1. Well, right away, if you try to stiffen Fed Election Law, you’ll hear New York and California (well, their Capital districts at least) scream about unfair and unjust and yada yada.

          Kind of like they do every time some national political player talks about Voter ID or something.

          It’s just, to support Grandpa Stinkfinger (as one blogger calls him) they had to so overcompensate that even your average ‘exceptional’ student (the type who wear helmets on not-long school busses) would notice something wrong.

          1. The thing about voter ID puzzles me so very much.

            Mexico has voter ID. So does the Philippines. What’s the ‘excuse’ Dems give? Poverty? Then those same people shouldn’t have drivers licenses or any other form of ID. Pull the other one, it has bells on.

          2. They claim poverty or similar… except to get a lot of things you need an ID. When Texas went to voter ID there were the usual whingeing about depriving poor of the right to vote, so the state setup mobile centers in poorer locations to process ID requests… and got very little business.

            Because they already had IDs.

            I do recall a sob story featuring one guy who somehow failed to get a valid ID somehow despite the above, but that was it.

          3. Requiring ID to vote is RRRAAACIIISSST!!!

            Don’t ask why, it just is.

            If you point out that it makes no sense, you must be a RRRAAACIIISSST!!! too!

        2. Maybe. The organized violence by Antifa/BLM since this spring has frightened a lot of people in the suburbs badly, and for many of them their first instinct is to hide or flee, not fight back.

          I live in a state with a universally hated Governor who first promised it would be “just two weeks to flatten the curve” eight months ago. She has persisted in keeping the entire state on house arrest even after the state Supreme Court struck all her emergency decrees down in early October, and neither court orders nor a supposed “right wing” plot to put her under citizens’ arrest and put her on trial, nor the fact that she is possibly the most hated woman in the state right now, give her a clue that she might have gone a it too far. There is a recall movement gathering signatures, but everybody I talk to who trash-talks her is absolutely terrified to sign a petition. “Antifa might get it and burn my house down and kill my kids.”

          Federal law is quite clear in defining campaigns of violence and intimidation that have political ends as terrorism, but the Deep State sympathizes with Antifa/BLM. They shield them and protect them, and won’t act against them. I believe there are legal terms for this, like “seditious conspiracy” and “misprision of treason,” but no one watches the watchmen, and so it’s all academic.

          Historically speaking this kind of thing never ends well. What is the over and under, currently, for civil war in the US within the next three to five years?

      1. Ernst Röhm and the rest of the SA were inconvenient because they were all columns of smoke all the way up to the clouds, flaming faggots ( whereas a majority of the remaining core Nazi party members were merely gays in the closet … Including Hitler (Eva Braun is such an obvious fag hag), and Air Marshall Herman Göering, who sat for several studio photos in full women’s get-up, including pearl necklaces and the like, and of course, full makeup (including not just lipstick, eye shadow and mascara, but also ear to ear and throat to forehead foundation and blush on his cheeks, etc.)

    2. I think that if Trump manages to make it, there will be a massive investigation, and the low level fraudsters will be pressured into revealing the threads leading up the chain of command. Fraud that isn’t as obvious as the Red Flags we are seeing, fraud in place before the Trump landslide made desperate measures ‘necessary’, will come out, making it harder to sell the ‘Trump stole it’ narrative. Maybe fraud that will call into question Democrat ‘victories’ that look solid now. The dependence of the Democrat power structure on systemic election fraud will get further exposed, damaging the position of the Washington Power Elite – not just the Democrats, but the remaining ‘Trump is no gentleman’ Republicans as well.

      With luck this can be used to fuel a powerful movement to put safeguards in place and enforce the weeding of the voter rolls (that the Fascist Left has so bitterly opposed for so long)

    3. If Biden dies before the 21st Harris is the President for the full four years, but can only run for one re-election.

  10. I’ve written software that reads in large volumes of data (on the order of millions of records) and had customers that required every last one to be correct. To get there I needed extensive logging and auditing to prove without a doubt to my customers nothing was missed or incorrectly read in.

    So when one of my customers would ask “Were there any problems?” I could definitively answer with a report showing how many records were read in at any one moment in time, how many a batch started with, how many it ended with, and if there was a problem exactly which specific one of the millions it was in.

    The fact that the election runners have not shut down this debate with that kind of a report is telling. It means they probably have no clue what their voting software did. And whether the numbers they have are valid or not. That alone warrants an investigation.

    That’s also not counting stories of whistleblowers coming forth from the software developer that wrote a lot of software used to track votes this election. If the claims turn out to be true this will be the culprit and someone needs to go to jail for it.

  11. Benford’s Law is not a hard law, more of an observation. It doesn’t work at all for detecting possible election fraud because voting district are constructed to have similar number of voters. The assumptions of this “law” are not met.

    See Matt Parker’s video (Stand-up Maths) about this issue:

    1. Heheheheh. Sweet. I’m sure all the CPAs, forensic accountants, investigators, and data analysts listed above who have been using it as an audit tool for years will immediately stop thanks to your helpful correction. 😀

      1. Benford’s Law is useful tool for pointing suspicious or rather unusual things (though it is not and it cannot be a proof of fraud on its own), when its assumptions are met; among others it requires that the numbers span multiple orders of magnitude.

        It works for account forensic – for investigating financial fraud. Please don’t put words in my mouth that I have not said. It doesn’t work for detecting election fraud.

        1. Except the US State Department disagrees with you, and they are still using it today as an audit tool to look at other nation’s elections. Again, not as final proof, but as an audit tool. Duh.

          And you are here quibbling over the use of one COMMONLY used audit tool, even though we’ve thrown up flags using a wide variety of other audit tools (and even the basic sniff test) and on the scorecard ALL of these benefit the same party. Which is something that if you didn’t find suspicious, you’ve got to be like the shittiest forensic accountant ever. 😀

    2. Also, I’ll be sure to pass this along to the State Department guy who used it as an audit tool for South and Central American elections.
      It is so nice the way you guys regurgitate links.

      1. Jakub is probably right. If the CPAs you mentioned use this tool blindly without understanding how and why it works, they are wrong.

        It is easy to see: if you measure all possible cans, Benford’s law will apply. If you only measure standard soda cans, it won’t.

        1. Yep. We use it because we are stupid and don’t know how to use it correctly, which is why we need randos on the internet to explain our jobs to us, and we only keep using it as an audit tool because for some baffling reason it still works even though we don’t know how to use it right. Go figure. 😀

          1. It usually works, except when it. Benford’s Law can be used as a possible red flag only if its assumptions can be met.

            Please point *factual* errors in the link I have provided, or the assumptions about Benford’s Law use for detecting election fraud.

          2. Oh, now we reach the point where he moves onto sea lioning, where the burden of his education is placed upon me, ergo I am now required to watch videos and write up a term paper complete with annotated bibliography top refute it… Which he will then ignore and just post another link. 😀 Because as you all know, I am required to drop whatever I am doing and instead comply with the educational demands of every dishonest internet rando who appears in my comments.
            This dude is classic.

        2. Because when you see Benford’s Law reflected in the voting results of every other state and county, I suppose the laws of statistics cease to exist in the contested areas.

        1. Heh. I called it. You guys totally work off a script. (at least you put the actual cite. The last guy just cut and pasted from their findings and pretended that they wrote it themselves)
          I’m not gonna bother to look, but I’m assuming it’s the same masters thesis from Georgetown. Yes. I clearly noted the date last week when you guys first scrounged that up (because lefty “debunking” consists of doing a google search and picking the first link that you feel helps you), and the fact that in the 9 years since that paper came out none of the actual professionals who do this for a living paid any attention to the opinion of some college students.
          Though I did see a fantastic shredding of this thesis by some actual statisticians and political scientists last week. Not my area of expertise but they laughed at their assumptions and methodology.

          But thank you for providing a perfect demonstration of the level of discourse I was talking about in the opening of this very blog post, and why I asked actual professionals their opinion instead. 🙂 (and unless you’re gonna suddenly pretend that you are a fraud guy, the consensus remains overwhelming)

          1. > I’m not gonna bother to look, but I’m assuming it’s the same masters thesis from Georgetown.

            Link, please?

          2. @Jakub Narebski

            “Link, please?”

            I’ll help ya. It is, in fact, the very same thesis that two other morons copy pasted the abstract from and into the first election thread Larry posted.

            But good job on including the link.

          3. > I’m not gonna bother to look, but I’m assuming it’s the same masters thesis from Georgetown.

            [I didn’t got a link to this master thesis from Georgetown.]

            No, it is not a master thesis. No, it is not from Georgetown University. If you bothered to take second to take a look you would notice it is multi-author paper by people from University of Oregon and California Institute of Technology.

            > Yes. I clearly noted the date last week when you guys first scrounged that up (because lefty “debunking” consists of doing a google search and picking the first link that you feel helps you),

            I’m not “you guys”.

            > and the fact that in the 9 years since that paper came out none of the actual professionals who do this for a living paid any attention to the opinion of some college students.

            Even if it were a master thesis written by a college student, it should be judged based on its merits, not on the fact that is a master thesis.

            In criminal forensics there were many techniques that with more examination and knowledge got discarded as dangerously inaccurate.

            > Though I did see a fantastic shredding of this thesis by some actual statisticians and political scientists last week. Not my area of expertise but they laughed at their assumptions and methodology.

            You probably don’t remembers the specific details of this critique, do you? Or provide any links? (Though I would not expect this from you).

          4. Here’s a link for you.

            “Comment on ‘Benford’s Law and the Detection of Election Fraud’, by Walter R. Mebane, Political Analysis, Volume 19, Issue 3, Summer 2011, pp. 269-272.

            Abstract: ““Benford’s Law and the Detection of Election Fraud” raises doubts about whether a test based on the mean of the second significant digit of vote counts equals 4.187 is useful as a test for the occurrence of election fraud.

            “The paper mistakenly associates such a test with Benford’s Law, considers a simulation exercise that has no apparent relevance for any actual election, applies the test to inappropriate levels of aggregation, and ignores existing analysis of recent elections in Russia.

            “If tests based on the second significant digit of precinct-level vote counts are diagnostic of election fraud, the tests need to use expectations that take into account the features of ordinary elections, such as strategic actions. Whether the tests are useful for detecting fraud remains an open question, but approaching this question requires an approach more nuanced and tied to careful analysis of real election data than one sees in the discussed paper.”

            — So there you go. Academics consider it an academically stupid or academically dishonest paper. One wonders whether it were funded by Dominion or Soros, or whether they got some poor group of idiots to volunteer to write propaganda.

    3. Yes. Similarly, the color of one’s stool is not an iron-clad issue but tends to be a decent clue-by-four about one’s internal situations.

    4. You’ve got the granularity wrong, cupcake. Voting districts have similar numbers of voters, but voting precincts do not, and neither do counties. And the incriminating data on this is all at the county and precinct level.

      1. According to Matt Parker (UK), this was the first dataset that was sent to him by someone who thought that Benford’s Law shows indication of possible election fraud in this dataset.

    5. I jumped on Matt Parker’s video because I like him.
      It was clear to me that he was advocating, not analyzing.
      He nitpicked ONE of the examples of its usage, and how there were perfectly reasonable explanations for what would otherwise be a red flag.
      What he did not do, was delve deeper. Like, say, combining small datasets and doing more Benford analysis. Or comparing other population data other than Chicago. Or mentioning other techniques that could be used to find fraud.
      It’s almost like he was told to make a video to cover up one of the (potentially false) red flags, which would undermine any other investigation.

      Why are you afraid of an investigation, troll?

      1. > Or mentioning other techniques that could be used to find fraud.

        The video was about math of Benford’s Law in a specific case.

        > It’s almost like he was told to make a video to cover up one of the (potentially false) red flags, which would undermine any other investigation.

        Nice coming up as a conspiracy theory nut. One datapoint against your idea…

        BTW. Matt Parker is from UK, not US.

        1. It’s kind of fun. Whenever people are talking about verifiable crazy statistical outliers, and hundreds of sworn affidavits from eye witnesses about impropriety, guys like this choose the very loaded language of “conspiracy theory nut”.
          Awesome. 😀
          I’m glad this dude showed up in these comments, because he’s providing a perfect example of what I talked about in the intro.

          1. This is my favorite argument of the whole issue. “Whoa, whoa, WHOA!” they say to me in a melodramatic (and sarcastic) voice. “You’re telling me that there’s some ‘conspiracy’? You want me to believe that one or more individuals entered into a secret agreement to further their mutual aims? What are you, crazy?”

            If you’ve ever actually, you know, left your house, what precisely is difficult to believe about the claim that 2 or more humans would work together to achieve a mutual aim, even when that “work” involved illegal acts? Human history is positively SODDEN with examples of private agreements designed to murder and get gain—but you find private agreements to just “get gain” impossible to believe?

            Anyone who espouses this at all, let alone finds it a compelling rebuttal, is too ignorant to waste any time on.

          2. > Whenever people are talking about verifiable crazy statistical outliers, and hundreds of sworn affidavits from eye witnesses about impropriety, guys like this choose the very loaded language of “conspiracy theory nut”.

            No, it is when person accuses somebody like Matt Parker (UK) of being a part of conspiracy, I quote: “It’s almost like he was told to make a video to cover up one of the (potentially false) red flags, which would undermine any other investigation.”. That seeing conspiracy everywhere I call coming up like “conspiracy theory nut”.

          3. @Jakub Narebski

            I’ll take your clinging to something that has squat to do with the subject you ostensibly came here to discuss as a reluctant admission that you’re fresh out of bullshit.

          4. It is known that American companies can make advertising agreements with UK bloggers, getting them to shill various entertainment properties. And sometimes they don’t even have to pay money, but rather provide perks like “early access”, or barter goods like licensed merch or vacation trips. “Influencers” make their living in this way.

            But US political activist groups and parties are totally unable to do the same thing. Because they broke their credit card-using hands.

            Okay. I totally believe that.

        2. Also, protip, when using audit tools, bringing up a potential issue with the use of one specific audit tool does not suddenly turn the other fifty flags found with other audit tools into “conspiracy theory” stuff. And you scrambling like that just makes it look to us actual auditor/investigatory types that you know you are full of shit and throwing out some obfuscation.

        3. Okay. Statistical analysis can be wrong. Yes. We all agree that even the best ‘guessing system’ can throw a few false positives or false negatives.

          But… it’s like, well, someone’s prejudices. That are formed by long interactions with those that end up forming the prejudices. Mostly right is what you get.

          Same with analytical tools. Per instance. But, (except for the analytical tools used to ‘prove’ Global Warming Climate Change) the tools can be, and have, been tested and proven to work 99.44% of the time (actually, even better, like nigh unto 99.9999999999% correctly. Still a probability of error but…

          So, to conclude, the tool may have been wrong in one place. But across the board nationwide? A tool that’s been successfully used for statistical purposes since the late 1930’s?

          Come on, man!

          Where there’s smoke, something’s burning. And we’re looking at a lot of smoke. Substantiated by lots of whistleblowers (ever notice whistleblowers are only ‘cool’ when they’re pushing a leftist agenda? Hmmmm…) and actual fact, like Dominion walking back lots of votes already from dems to the republicans who actually got the votes.

          Tool – Benford’s Law says ‘Fuckery sure do look like it’s occurring. Need to look for evidence.’

          And they are finding evidence. Bad ballots, hidden counting, anomalies across the board, votes already switching back.

          Smoke. Flames. Ash everywhere. Nah. There’s no fire here.

        4. The video assumes a priori that Chicago elections are not fraudulent. Which is fucking hilarious as those things are rigged down to the individual wards.

          1. No, it does not. It shows that the fact that the number of votes not following the Benford’s Law has different good explanation.

          2. @Jakub Narebski

            Since you’re not from the US, you can be forgiven for not knowing what is common knowledge in these parts. When Salon is reporting on the long and history of Chicago election fraud to present day, there’s a problem with the datasets.


            Or another bad dataset (of many):


            Why don’t you try less handwaving and more responding to the words that people are taking the time to direct your way?

          3. Kilo, quit thinking modern politics. Chi town elections have been rigged down to the individual wards since Daley Sr. It’s about power and those allowed to control it.

      2. > I jumped on Matt Parker’s video because I like him.
        It was clear to me that he was advocating, not analyzing.
        He nitpicked ONE of the examples of its usage, and how there were perfectly reasonable explanations for what would otherwise be a red flag.

        According to what Matt Parker (UK) said later, the example that he talks about in the mentioned video was simply the first dataset that was sent to him by someone who thought that Benford’s Law shows indication of possible election fraud in this dataset. It was picked by “one of yours”.

    6. I watched that video too, and while it made some good points, I had some problems with it.

      First, while it does say that Benford’s Law can be problematic in detecting election fraud, it’s also clear that it CAN be an indication of fraud. And it’s true; Benford’s Law is absolutely a better tool for finding accounting fraud than it is for finding election fraud. However, due to the nature of elections, detecting fraud can be difficult, and effective tools for noticing it are few and far between. Benford’s Law may not be the best, but you’ve got to make use of what you have.

      The main point of the video, that you need to look at the specifics of the numbers in question, and not just assume that all sets of data will follow Benford’s Law, is absolutely the truth, and is a good message to get out there. However, that leads me to my second, and far more damning complaint about that video; he only examines the data in Chicago, of all places.

      Chicago is not one of the areas in dispute, here. If your message is, “you need to look at the specifics of the data, not just make assumptions about generalities,” then why would you not look at the data in one of the actual disputed elections? Do Milwaukee, Detroit, Atlanta, and Philadelphia have similarly sized districts as Chicago, which would make Benford’s Law in ineffective tool for tracking their results? I don’t know, and neither would anyone who watched that video. And what about all of the many, many cities people have posted results from online that DO follow Benford’s Law, for both Biden AND Trump’s results? Why do those cities follow Benford’s Law, if it’s so uniquely terrible an indicator for election results? Sure, he does a good job of explaining why Chicago, specifically, does not follow the law in the case of Biden but does in the case of Trump, but what about all these other places?

      The video makes some good points, but I don’t think it’s as clear cut an argument as you seem to.

  12. Assuming this is fraud (Disclaimer: I think it is but I have no legal or auditing experience to speak of), then I am puzzled. It’s so blatant and in your face that it speaks of a group of people who are so arrogant that they never believed they’d get caught or if they did, nothing would happen to them.

    Even villains in the average Syfy network movies are smarter than that.

    1. Why would they worry? Voter fraud almost never gets investigated and it gets prosecuted even less. So you’ve got a total lack of fear, a feeling of moral superiority (they are doing the right thing stopping Orange Hitler) and the belief that the local system is on their side and will turn a blind eye (which is usually true).

      1. Not to mention the major media companies (social and otherwise) outright stating what truths are acceptable for public debate and not.

        I.E. If a tree falls in the woods, but Twitter bans it from being tweeted about, did it make a sound?

        1. Dude, when the Chairman of the Federal Election Commission said there was fuckery afoot, Big Tech fact checked him and said everything was safe.
          They aren’t even trying to hide it anymore.

          1. B-B-But he was a Trump appointee, and-and some other Chairperson said he was wrong! — Twitter Leftists

      2. So basically, they assumed that Trump was going to be a Good Boy and not fight what was obviously a mandate from Heaven. Which means that they really haven’t been paying attention for the past few years.

        1. The Left: The election has been called! Biden is President-Elect! Why won’t the President just concede?

          POTUS: Hi, Donald Trump. Have we met?

      3. Yes. From above, compare the US as surpassing Italy — the nation with a new government about every two years since WWII (save perhaps with the most recent Constitutional reforms).

        1. In Italy more than fraud it was vote trading. Some politician who could pull strings in public-controlled companies promised cushy jobs (or even non-jobs) to those voting for him, or to assign contracts to companies set up by the right people, or to put his electors at the top of the list for subsidies, or to look the other way when his electors meddled in shady deals.

          In the South it was done at an embarassingly open level, in the North leas brazenly.

      4. And when it DOES, the outcome is rarely if ever reversed because “they’ve already served x% of their term. And what about the laws / regs they were involved in passing?”

        Not upsetting the applecart is job one.

    2. We have numerous cities and even states that choose to openly flout federal drug and immigration laws. Nothing happens to them.

      Why would they find a sudden new respect for state and federal election law?

    3. To my shame when I was 18 i with a few confederates was a poker cheat. I still remember the heady evil joy of stacking the deck RIGHT UNDER THEIR NOSE!(keep an ear out for the characteristic sound of the slip-shuffle, folks!) ( parents, put your foot down when/if you smell “bad company”!)

      So the brazenness is easy to understand. They’re getting happy-pirate jollies from in- your-face cheating.

  13. Small timer here. Troubleshooter for small companies on the bleeding edge of profitability, did some all aspects quality control, too. Had to have a good nose for BS. Place was one late payment away from closing the doors in the 2008-2016 mess.

    There is no fecking way this *ain’t* something that NEEDS to be investigated, immediately if not sooner. This is conference with the owner of the company on Christmas day at three AM level shit. Even if it is your own cock-up, you gotta do it before someone else beats you to it.

  14. An interesting question is what happens if 6 months from now, after the inaguration, the proof comes out that Biden shouldn’t have won.

    1. I’ll answer that with Harry Reid’s comment regarding Mitt Romney’s taxes: ‘It worked, didn’t it?’

      There are literally trillions at stake, and a lot of people’s future wardrobes (i.e. orange pantsuits) riding on a Harris victory.

    2. Yes! In that scenario, I’d guess that there will be small scale private club of men attacks to eliminate CorruptoCrats, which will widen the polarisation of the country.

      But maybe not. Rs could still control the Senate. Plus, Ds House control is expected to be the slimmest seen sine WWII.

      Perhaps these checks will keep the excesses of the Deep State rule from being too inflammatory, in the new Oligarchic neo-Obama regime.

    3. If Biden wins he wins. I don’t care about Trump. What I do care about is not having millions of Americans feeling like the system is hopelessly rigged and that their votes will never count again, because that’s a recipe for disaster. 3rd world quality elections lead to 3rd world quality violence.

      1. When elections are rigged, Larry, it’s never just the elections that are rigged.

        It’s preferential treatment for cronies up and down the board. Rigged awarding of business contracts. Rigged media stories. Crimes by cronies that never get investigated, let alone prosecuted. Bogus, bankrupting investigations of those who will not buckle under to the regime. Even health care treatment denied to regime opponents.

        Rigged elections mean rules for thee and not for me — everywhere, at all times, in everything.

        Rigged elections do not succeed in a robust system. They succeed when the system has already been corrupted in all sorts of other avenues — financial, legal, corporate, media. You could say that successful rigged elections are indicative of end-stage corruption, when the cancer has metastasized to so many organs that the body politic just succumbs.

        That is what is distressing normal Americans. Our votes are a proxy of our ability to self-determine our lives in every way that matters. If they get away with stealing this election, it isn’t just our votes that will be trashed. It will be our rights, our freedom, our American heritage, our chances for a fair shot at anything going forward.

        And Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself.

  15. I’ve tried posting another & this thread to work for may co-workers, but spamhaus immediately flags it as ‘spam’. Big tech censoring again? However, when I send a ‘test message’ to work, it goes thru without a problem.

  16. 15+ years doing financial data analysis. Had one project that had less than .01% of the current fuckery and the Feds came hard after the perp. Evidence was so obvious, it showed up in the GL to a very junior colleague. Yeah, people are that dumb. And they get away with it in elections because nobody normally cares.

    Not only is there physical tampering on a mass scale with the election, there appears to be cyber fraud in more than one of the voting software system vendors. Not just Dominion, but others, too. Realize that many of these systems are outsourced by the government entity to be run by third parties and the actual software company may be owned by owners in other countries. Consider that for a second or two…

    1. Apparently Mr. Pelosi and Mr. Feinstein have interests in one of the vendors. Who needs another country when you can grow your corruption right here at home?

  17. If we tried to write something like this, we’d be laughed out of the writer’s groups! And I’m surprised there haven’t been more attacks on your experts, by the ‘internet experts’… That usually happens within the first ten comments. And yes, there are PLENTY of red flags.

      1. The writing in the last three Star Wars movies was better…

        Hell, the Star Wars Christmas Special was better written than these actual villains.

        1. “Hell, the Star Wars Christmas Special was better written than these actual villains.”

          Oh man. Now that IS cold! 😉

  18. The msm says President Trump has 217 votes and china Joe 290. Epoch Times website says Trump 232/ Biden 227. With 6 states being litigated. Anybody have any idea which is closer to reality?

    1. Decision Desk HQ has Biden 290 Trump 232 and Georgia undecided. Going to Epoch Times numbers from there, we have 10 Wisconsin, 16 Michigan, 20 Pennsylvania, 11 Arizona and 6 Nevada, which puts Biden back to 227. Epoch Times and Decision Desk HQ have called NC for Trump, which is 15 total.

    2. Epoch Times is more correct on their estimate, but technically nothing is official at this point in the process.

      (“Epic Times” seems to be more appropriate for what’s happening. )

    3. The reality is that no states electors have cast any votes, so those are projections, and until the various states have certified their elections, they will remain projections.

      Epoch times is closer to accurately representing the projections since you can’t call a state that’s close enough to go to a recount (Example: GA) or that’s being litigated (Example: PA)

      Anyone expecting someone declare victory or to concede under these circumstances is just engaging in partisan wankery.

        1. Yep. And why wouldn’t he? The guy who says he has the largest voter fraud organization in the country stands the most to benefit from the propaganda.

  19. Worked statistical analysis for AF for 20 years, and been doing stats for a hospital group for the past 15. Any process that had this many failures we would have grounded the fleet and been tearing apart planes to find out what was wrong.
    In the hospital, it only takes three hits for us to start an investigation for drug diversion. And those almost always are confirmed. If we had this many hits, well, there’s no way that person or group would be found innocent.

    One of the other commenters had it right. This election fraud was heavily encouraged by the leaders of the Democrat party, but not likely organized at all. It was most likely a grass roots systemic fraud mostly by frontline workers. As for the computer “glitches”; one is a coding error, two is a suspicious coincidence, three breaking in the same direction is fraud.

    1. ” This election fraud was heavily encouraged by the leaders of the Democrat party, but not likely organized at all.

      “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?”

      “Tony’s being a problem. Take Vito and Sammy and take care of him.”

  20. I firmly believe there is rampant, widespread fraud in this election, even in the uncontested states. Why? And why are the people involved not worried about being caught or held responsible? The Deep State and its minions have been running a coup for four long years already, undermining the current administration, and shitting on the citizens of this country, and absolutely no one has even had their hands slapped. Except General Flynn, who obviously didn’t do anything wrong, based on what’s happening with Biden’s fake administration. Unless we the People are willing to continue to agitate about this, and be as public as possible, they are going to get away with it, and they’ll laugh in their caviar and champagne at the little people while they do it. I am very afraid of what’s going to happen no matter which way this shakes out.

    1. 4 years? I’d be more willing to bet this has been going on for friggin’ decades; just at a less obvious level. When you figure that only about 1/10th of the reported crimes are ever prosecuted, and only about 1/7th are ever reported, the actual amount of fraud being conducted skyrockets. Part of that is because of the stupid notion that “nobody is ever actually harmed by the fraud”. Except most people never think about how screwing up jobs, or raising healthcare costs causes more damage in the long run than burning down a business or sticking a knife in someone’s back.

      1. Wiling to bet? The left’s own media has been pointing out instances of election fraud, always years after it happens, since well, Tammany Hall and Huey Long and before.

        And then the same media ‘conveniently’ loses the stories in the run-up to the next election.

        Or it’s so openly corrupted that it’s a national joke. Like Chicago’s dead voting. Or… Broward County before our new Governor kicked the evil out of it by firing a whole buncha people (not the least that cowardly sack of dog-squeeze Sheriff Israel, but he also booted the elections supervisor.)

        The reports of ‘computer glitches’ in 2004 was near universal. People in Texas reported watching the computer screen not accept their vote but marking the vote for the other guy… And it only got worse in 2008.

        The information is out there. It always has been. Just the level of cheat has been within a reasonable level and not so openly blatant. That was their mistake. Overreach and Smugness. They could have finessed the win to where cheating was suspected but hard to prove. But, no, they had to reach too far too fast and too openly.

  21. The ex-military contrarian posted, “So far, there is no explanation for *how* the fraud was accomplished, which is very useful to know when you’re trying to figure out who accomplished it.”

    I think there’s an answer with what’s come out about the Dominion voting machines used in many of the contested states. From this thread on Twitter: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1326715838850764802.html “Settings could theoretically have been changed during evening downtime on first night of voting. Much easier to change settings on hundreds of machines than to forge thousands of ballots. A couple of people could have done it quickly.” All those pauses in the middle of the night that stopped the count would add another red flag.

  22. Larry, you asked the right question of the right people. This thread is the steelshod tetsubo of. Truthification I was looking for. Thanks to all contributors!

  23. Larry,

    If the roles were reversed, every media organization would be trumpeting “Fraud Experts Say Election Raises Too Many Red Flags to Not Investigate”.

  24. Every successful lawsuit filed by Democrats before the election had the not so coincidental result of decreasing voting security.

    My question to those who deny there was any kind of hanky panky is, “If you genuinely think that Trump is a potential Hitler, why wouldn’t you cheat on a election to stop him?”

    1. Gregory, good question.

      But if reporter Lee Smith’s characterisation of the Trump presidency, in his latest book, as “The Permanent Coup”, well, how many of those have there been? We are into the fourth, at least.

  25. 6.5 Years working in the armored car industry, moving millions of dollars around every day. Everything sealed. Everything signed for on both ends. Cameras everywhere. Background checks on all employees. Lots and lots of safeguards, including everyone packing a pistol on their hip.

    If we think of these ballots as an envelope with $1 in it, you can bet it’d be tracked just as tightly as if it had $1000 in it. And if even one of these flags popped up in my branch or even in my region, holy hell would ensue.

    The level of fraud and abuse being seen around the nation is amazing, and only made worse by the number of people who are turning a willfully blind eye to it. 90% voter turnout in one county/precinct should cause everything in that AO to be shut down hard and fast, and a massive hunt ensue to find out what went wrong. That you don’t see it can only mean that there’s corruption from high to low.

    The way these tallying centers seem to operate, it’s like they were tailor-made to maximize theft, corruption, and everything else bad. Even the idea that ballots arrive in sealed boxes and have to be signed for is only good until you break that tight control and hand boxes out to the workers with no oversight and no serious way of tracking what they do after that. Letting just any ol’ civilian deal with them…. sheesh!

    1. @ Ferrum : When you put it in those terms, the lack of security for our ballots is staggering. The fact that an envelope with a measly 1 dollar in it would be tracked more closely than a ballot is an insult to all voters.

      Re: “just letting any ol’ civilian deal with them” (ballots) made me think: there’s a great way to use the National Guard – making them vote-counters.

  26. The only thing I disagree with you on is “This election fraud was heavily encouraged by the leaders of the Democrat party, but not likely organized at all. It was most likely a grass roots systemic fraud mostly by frontline workers.” This has been learned and taught , precinct to precinct, Dem State Head to Dem State Head for 70 years. I believe that it is shown to them on a powerpoint, illustrated in practice sessions. To me , that is organized.

    1. Taught, yes. Encouraged, yes. Perhaps I spoke imprecisely when I said not organized. In a business sense, most organization is a top down, hierarchical structure, with full management of subordinates; as in planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling.

      What we’ve seen is the planning, organizing, and selection of staff. Once “trained”, they’re released into the wild without further personal direction and control. That’s deliberate, to break the chain of responsibility. Old Jenny Nobody who’s been working the polls for the past decade can rightfully state that nobody told her to dump those Trump ballots in the dumpster, and the investigation ends at that point. And the same thing can be said for all the Jenny Nobodys in the state.

      Where’d they get their orders? They didn’t, beyond their original training, and the news media barraging them with their party’s attitude. Or maybe their own candidate being too candid and accidentally admitting they build the greatest fraud machine ever.

  27. Larry, 32 years in software development, delivery, and testing here, almost all of it accounting and e-commerce. I’m currently working for one of the Big 5 IT firms in those roles.

    Just looking at the voting tally software, I’ve got enough red flags to outfit the Zhukov era Soviet army.

    For starters, you do NOT send out a software update while a major end of cycle event is taking place. You note the errors and what caused them so you can tell how much you’re wrong by for correction, and then you put out the corrected figures with a clear warning that this may not be all of them, and you save the updates for after the event.

  28. I”m a CPA (20 yrs) and Certified Fraud Examiner. I think Trump won and there was definitely fraud. However, I have had red flags turn out to be innocent.

    Once, a Benford’s analysis on general ledger expenses showed the 5’s were way over represented. However, I work at a public university, and we do a lot of clinical trials. It turned out that there were hundreds and hundreds of $50 payments to trial participants.

    Larry and others have pointed out – the red flags don’t mean fraud. They mean “hey – look over here… Something doesn’t seem right” In this case, there is plenty that requires further investigation.

  29. And the ridiculous thing about that claim (of Russian collusion – sorry, this is my first comment here and I thought it would appear under the comment I was replying to) was that it would never, in any foreseeable circumstance, be actionable. They were setting out from the get-go to undermine faith in the electoral process simply so that Trump could be touted as “illegitimate” for however long he was in office.

    Actually let me say that another way: Democrats’ deliberately and truly baselessly (as opposed to their present definition of “baselessly”) undermining faith in the electoral process in 2016 was only a tool for them. The goal was not ever to change the election outcome (the “Russian collusion” claim was never going to lead to that) but to make people believe that election outcomes are irrelevant to the legitimacy of the elected official.

    So in that sense, I guess it wasn’t ridiculous after all. Intentional in 2016 or not, it amounted to battlespace prep for 2020. No matter which way the election came out, they were going to claim legitimacy of their candidate and illegitimacy of Trump.

    This is why, even if the Trump campaign is ultimately unsuccessful in flipping the election (as I think is very likely, d*mn it), l want them to pursue it to the bitter end. Otherwise “legitimacy” becomes defined by the loudest bullhorn and national elections are rendered as relevant to governance as the Royal Family.

  30. Watching this from the UK, and it seems as if I am basically watching a soft “colour revolution” play out.

    If the fact they ceased counting when it looked like Trump had insurmountable leads in the swing states didn’t make me suspicious, if the statistical anomalies which seemingly always favour one candidate didn’t make me suspicious, then the behaviour of the media and Twitter certainly would. “There’s no evidence of fraud!” “Unfortunately, we now have to cut away from this Trump campaign briefing, because they’re giving us evidence of fraud.”

    And what is all this “Office of the President-Elect” nonsense? It’s gaslighting.

    Crazy how many people here are just accepting it at face value. Of course postal votes break 70-30 for Biden in PA, just when and where he needs them, but not in Florida. And why did it take so long to count them? The excuse used was that they couldn’t be counted on the day, but here postal votes are taken to the central constituency/local authority count on the night, opened, and counted with all the other ballots. Surely the length of time counting these took is itself a huge red flag?

    What is the sense on the ground in the US? Are people really going to swallow this nonsense?

    1. You have to be familiar with the factors that influenced mail ballots. Trump was railing against mail ballots; hence his voters waited till election day in greater numbers and mail ballots went more heavily to Biden. Some states have used mail ballots (that are not absentee) for years, others have not. Some states require that the count of mail ballots not start till election day. Others do not have that restriction. And it doesn’t matter what the U.K. does, since all our elections are run by individual states.

      1. I would absolutely expect that more Biden voters used mail in ballots. But that doesn’t explain what happened. There’s more to it. There seem to be anomalies in states that are “battleground” states that don’t exist in other states.

        The idea there is that some “Trump” states would have mail in ballots that were heavily Biden, and “Biden” states which would have more Biden percentages, but that the distribution of votes counted should follow a similar curve, just shifted toward Biden or toward Trump by a little bit.

        No one disputes that mail in ballots would probably favor Biden.

        They dispute that the ballots when counted do not stay on the expected curve but jump weirdly toward Biden when they shouldn’t. And only or noticeably in contested states and not in states considered “safe” for either candidate.

  31. 38 years in IT, including stints doing forensic investigations of customer billing systems, corporate accounting and north American electrical grid access…
    No way in hell this wouldn’t trigger a bottom to top, top to bottom and side to side investigations. Sheer number of flags and the fact that the discrepancies overwhelming go in one direction and occur where they would have the most impact would have our dashboards flashing and audible alarms waking people up at 03:00.
    The likelihood that there is no fraud is on the order of drunk monkeys writing haiku with their feces in the jungle.

  32. Former program evaluator/data auditor for multi-million dollar health care projects funded through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, USAID, HP foundation, and other large philanthropic organizations in developing countries where fraud and mis-allocation of funding is commonplace. What I am seeing is not unlike what I routinely experienced in settings where there is no transparency, flagrant violation of existing law and program policies, lack of oversight, and bad management practices. Answer is NO.

  33. Retired Director of Internal Audit for a utility company here, and CPA. The first charts I saw, with a surge of Biden votes at 4 a.m. in MI & WI, would be a signal for me to investigate the source of that “surge”, as it did not comport with the ongoing trend. As an auditor I would insist on seeing the raw data or documents that created the anomalous “surge”.

  34. Let’s assume the red flags are legitimate indicators of potential election fraud. Thinking as an auditor, what would be your next steps to investigate how the fraud was accomplished and who committed it?

    1. There’s pretty standards steps for all of this. First thing you do is bring in an independent 3rd party (this is why CPA firms exist), you give them access to all the data and the ability to check all the controls in the system, and turn them loose. Then they’ve got procedures for all of this stuff. There’s whole textbooks answering your question.
      Trying to stop that process, or having the system’s people check the system in question rather than an independent 3rd party, is indicative of trying to hide something.
      In finance and business, we get audits constantly and randomly, which requires us to always have our shit together. But apparently in politics, you only get audits after something really stupid happens, and then there’s weeks of court cases demanding it while the guilty parties get to try and hide the evidence.

  35. One of the most important concepts in criminal forensics is fingerprinting. If you look at finger prints from an individual on a fingerprint card, and on a piece of evidence, they don’t look very much alike. That is why fingerprint identification calls for expertise. What a finger print expert (either a human, or a computer program) does is look for areas of similarity between the prints. When 7 – 12 areas have been found, the finger print is identified.

    Each of the “red flags” represents a point of similarity to the fingerprint of fraud. When you find enough of them, as have been found in this election, the fraud fingerprint has been positively identified.

  36. I am from across the pond and follow this farce mostly for entertainment and will not comment on the numbers. However, over here we think of a free and fair election as something satisfying some criteria:

    – An accurate and precise knowledge of who is eligible to vote (which several US states seems not to have, one deceased person or duplication through maiden names or whatnot means you have failed.)
    – An accurate and precise knowledge of who has voted (see previous point + voter ID is a must, vote by mail is an absolute no.)
    – A transparent and verifiable vote count (which among other things implies open source counting software. Also something several US states seems not to have)

    Failing this doesn’t mean that you are not ending up with the correct president, but if you do it’s by luck rather than design.

    This should probably be fixed.

    In the meantime, this show is better than Netflix for those of us with no skin in the game.

    1. No skin in the game? When we stop fracking and stop drilling on federal lands and return to massive importing to make up the difference what do you think is going to happen to energy costs in your country? When that shift puts more power back into russia and the middle east how long do you think it will take for that region to flare up? As an american I really like the idea of a president who has gotten us involved in no new wars frankly we cannot afford to be the world’s police anymore and it’s just good business.

      Welcome to the new global economy you are sitting in the same hot tub as the rest of us.

      Trump may be an egotistical philandering prick but he was actually shockingly effective as a president. It’s like lincoln said of Grant when told after shiloh he had to remove him for being a drunk “I can’t spare the man, he fights.”

  37. One of the indicators of election fraud is ballots were received before they were even sent. Impossible, right?

    My comment above shows it was posted November 13 at 3:10 p.m. As I type this now, it’s November 13 at 9:45 a.m. My comment appeared six hours before it was posted. Impossible, right?

    I’m in Minnesota and Yard Moose Mountain is in Utah so it’s not a time-zone thing. Unless . . . is your server in London?

    Could something like that account for the mailed ballot problem?

    1. Your excuse for some mail in ballots with miraculous same day delivery, some of which even traveled backwards in time for whole DAYS, in a system that is supposed to be secure, is that I never bothered to switch the WordPress setting off of GMT for the totally irrelevant comments of my blog? 😀
      Oh that’s a good one.
      But anyways, if there is that simple and honest a “mistake” as that for an explanation, then they should welcome an audit by independent 3rd party auditors. (as opposed to a Fed whose personal Twitter feed is all Orange Man Bad)

      1. I see my comment was misinterpreted. Sorry; clarification:

        We agree there are indicators of election fraud. We agree the fraud should be investigated. I assume that part of a fraud investigation is ruling out innocent error (if that’s a mistaken assumption, I’m confident you’ll correct me).

        What I’m wondering is . . . just as my comment appearing six hours before it was posted was due to a simple setting (GMT instead of Mountain) rather than fraudulent activity, is there a plausible innocent explanation for the mailed ballot issue? Is there a plausible innocent explanation for the vote counting software switching votes from T to B?

        I’m not saying there ARE plausible innocent explanations, I’m asking WHETHER there are plausible innocent explanations (much as you asked readers if they’d ever seen this many flags without fraud).

        I ask because it’s absolutely essential to eliminate those innocent possibilities lest we wind up like the Public Defender in My Cousin Vinnie:

        John Gibbons : Mr. Tipton, I see you wear glasses.

        Mr. Tipton : Yes I do.

        John Gibbons : Could you show those glasses to the court, please? Okay, now were you wearing them that day?

        Mr. Tipton : No.

        John Gibbons : Uh huh. You see? You were fifty feet away, you made a positive eyewitness identification and-and-and-and-and-and-and YET, you were not wearing your necessary, prescription eye glasses.

        Mr. Tipton : They’re reading glasses.

        1. 1. There are no US states that exist in two time zones at once. Not even Indiana. (Unless I’m wrong about Alaska.)

          2. Time zones do not let you receive and return a letter two days before it was mailed. Especially not when they were returned before the first day that absentee or mail ballots could legally be mailed to anyone, according to state law.

          1. Just a quibble, but by my count there are 13 states that exist in two time zones. Including Indiana. Unless I read your comment wrong.

            Carry on.

  38. Larry,

    I saw the analysis by Shiva which suggested vote switching at the precinct level in MI.

    I’ve done some work on this and there’s something I think you ought to see.

    Can you drop me a mail? thepedantgeneral at gmail dot com

  39. Former CFO of some large educational institutions. Came up doing the technical work before I got promoted. No, I have never seen anything like this.

    And you are absolutely correct about the method for detecting. I used to call it pulling on threads but it is the same thing as your Red Flags.

  40. I neither Facebook, nor do I tweet, so I’ll post my thoughts here.
    I’m a semi-retired lawyer teaching a law school clinic part time. I have over 30 years experience in corporate governance and securities law. My experience includes numerous investigations of fraud allegations and controls issues, and I also led the team that set up the Sarbanes-Oxley control testing and reporting systems for an S&P 500 company.

    I have never seen so many red flags ever, and that includes working as part of the defense team for a client that had several members of its executive team convicted of securities fraud involving false earnings reporting, among other things.

    The controls issue is what really gets me. The systems I’m hearing described seem to not just be poorly designed, but specifically designed to facilitate fraud. Not updating voter lists and then sending ballots to everyone on the list, knowing it’s out of date? Setting up drop boxes for ballots in malls with no security? Kicking out only one party’s observers? Partisan political actors in charge of counting? Any public company with a fraction of these weaknesses would be delisted. I’ll also note that the “glitchy” software used in so many states (a “glitch” that only affected races one way) was rejected by Texas for being too unreliable, so you have states and counties adopting a known flawed system. That is a huge red flag.

  41. Evidence is needed, not red flags. Trump’s lawsuits aren’t providing evidence.

    And do I have to point out that analysts can be just as partisan as the rest of us? The survey’s respondents were conservative followers of Larry. And I note that some of them made no secret of their leanings toward Trump, referring to Hunter Biden and “great president” to describe Trump.

    The complexity of the stories and theories attract people’s interest and stir up emotions. But this “clumsy” and yet diabolically successful conspiracy is just a mare’s nest.

    1. And some just don’t have any interest to stir up. They are perfectly happy to be Betas. Or more likely Deltas, judging by their impenetrably willful blindness.

        1. Do you know what the term “Release the Kraken” means?

          I’m not going to do your homework for you ..

          Look up the latest from Sidney Powell ..

        2. That’s what warrants are for. To get evidence due to reasonable speculation.

          It’s how much evidence is found.

          Speculative hypothesis backed up with enough circumstantial evidence or reasonable proof gets a warrant that finds the evidence.

          You don’t need a warrant if you already have the evidence.

          So, regarding the election frauds, Trump’s lawyers approach the courts to stop people touching them, then start searching for actual hard evidence.

    2. ”Evidence is needed, not red flags.”

      No shit. Pretty sure that’s the point Larry has made clear from the beginning.

      But have you been privy to the evidence that hasn’t been presented in cases that haven’t taken place yet?

      Because that would be a really neat trick.

      I also like that you focus on the outlier comments from Larry’s survey as if they prove your non-point. Taken with your complete inability to engage with the subject on any meaningful level, these little nuggets of yours strongly suggest you’re routinely full of shit.

    3. I see we have another ingnorant fool from the left (but I repeat myself). First, there have been several pieces of evidence of fraud submitted, the affidavits discussing ballots being marked in a Biden/Harris van and the numerous reported examples of the dead voting, just to name two items. Second, the point about red flags is that they are supposed to lead to an investigation to discover evidence, if any. Your remarkably unintelligent comment is like you complaining the police didn’t catch the guy who burgled your house knowing full well you never reported the crime.

    4. Donna does raise a question I’ve been wondering about. Have ANY Biden partisans come forward (here or elsewhere) and agreed with Larry about the red flags? Of the experts Larry quoted in this post, are there any whose leanings are even mildly anti-Trump? I’d like the answer to be yes; it would reassure me that we’re all not just experiencing confirmation bias.

  42. “Evidence is needed, not red flags. Trump’s lawsuits aren’t providing evidence.”

    If my analysis is correct, then Dr Shiva has pointed to just a handful of counties and within them you would need just a handful of precincts in which you need to do a top-to-bottom verification of every single ballot. I would reckon no more than 5,000 ballots need to audited by hand and you will have solid proof.

    It is a scandal of nation-destroying proportions that this is not already being done.

  43. There are interesting avenues for investigation in aĺl these flags: in each jurisdiction, how many ballots were printed? Where did they all go? How many boxes? Are the boxes and ballots *now* in the count-house real or counterfeit? Does the physical count of ballots match the digital reported count?

    1. “Does the physical count of ballots match the digital reported count?”

      This. Because it won’t. Then the whole lot will have to be recounted. And someone will want to get at the code in the machines. And it will HAVE to get reported at some stage.

      1. Nah, this presumes the evidence won’t have been tampered with or outright destroyed.

        If the past 12 years has taught us anything is that there are no consequences for federal employees or politicians whose dogs keep eating their evidence.

        1. But that is the point. To fudge the count digitally is easy; to suddenly have to *add* a chunk of physical ballots requires lots of pre-planning.

          1. The Philly mob boss is allegedly crowing about the huge score he made selling pallets of filled-in ballots to the Dems. Money is good, influence is better.

  44. It is now clear that the Dems have attacked at the two major weaknesses of the system; the number of voters, by way of the voting rolls and the number of votes by having no controls on ballot numbers.
    The voting rolls should be trashed and the system changed to a registration scheme, like other countries such as Mexico, India and Isreal. Then you know how many and that they are eligible to vote. You also know the max number of votes.
    The other problem needs to be approached differently. Ballots should not be printed *beforehand * but on demand at the poll
    Finally voting *must* go back to in person with limited advance polls and restricted Absentee baĺloting. I note that Isreal requires in person *in Isreal* voting. Absentee ballots are restricted to diplomats etc who are required to be away from home.

    1. About 20(ish) states allow election-day registration. This includes both blue and red states.

      The states do not tally and publish their updated voter registration numbers (ie the numbers that would include ED registrations) until 30-45 days after a general election.

      And yet, most states certify their election results in a much shorter time frame than that:


      Spot the problem here?

  45. And another thing: all ballots should be counted at the poll, so that the totals of voters, and votes can be matched. And discrepancies reconciled at the beginning or fenced to the smallest area.

  46. The administration and its allies have failed in 19 of 20 legal actions, and have convinced no credible authority that any of their claims could result in changing the outcome of the election. It might be time to let this one go.

      1. Trump’s legal team has gotten at least two favorable rulings and a court order in just PA since the election.

        Ruling #1 says to allow GOP observers up-close observation of ballot counting in Philly


        Order #1 says that mail-in ballots with questionable IDs be segregated


        Ruling #2 says PA Secretary of State Boockvar did not have the authority to extend the ballot deadline


  47. Hanlon’s Razor: Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
    This – doesn’t seem to be adequately explained by stupidity.
    In this case, it seems we have both – malice and stupidity to make it obvious.

    1. There is a progression:
      Heinlein’s Law: “Never ascribe to malice that which may be explained by stupidity.”
      Clarke’s Law : “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
      Grey’s Law: “Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. ”
      Newbury’s Corollary:
      “Any sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. ”
      An example of Grey’s Law is when you visit the DMV. You soon start thinking that they are screwing things up, *on purpose*, but in fact, the ‘workers’ are hired for their low IQ and high Dunning-Kruger affect.It just looks like they are doing it on purpose.
      The ballot shenanigans are an example of the corollary but fortunately are not quite sufficiently structured as to clearly be the action of “incompetents”. In fact, incompetence could not produce this result. This is advanced malice.

      1. “Grey’s Law: “Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. ””

        I saw exactly this at the post office the other day.

        I was trying to rent a post office box. First the counter woman demanded all sorts of documentation and proof of this and that, ID etc. Then when I asked what specific ID she wanted (and why that was necessary for a PO box, for f- sakes) she told me she couldn’t process my request, and told me to go away and come back later because there was no supervisor.

        It looked like she was screwing with me deliberately, but I’d never seen the woman before in my life. She was just incompetent and brazening it out until her boss got back to do it for her.

        So very irritating.

      2. Well reasoned, but there’s another Law that applies to this. Mencken’s Law.

        “Whenever A annoys or injures B, on the pretext of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel.”

        Since annoying or injuring B on the pretext pf saving or improving X pretty much describes the entire political platform of the Left for the last half century or more, we ENTER the election knowing that the Democrat Party is a pack of scoundrels.

        Now, add a bunch of electoral anomalies. Granted, we have no proof yet, but we will.

    2. Hanlon’s razor is an excuse for evil to masquerade as stupidity when caught red-handed.

      I have never once seen a “stupid” person get caught red-handed in an act of evil who was not ALSO evil.

  48. I have thought of a way to explain this to all those college graduates that don’t understand math.

    There were irregularities in multiple state elections. Force them to admit that. Dead people voting, ballot harvesting, votes stolen from registered voters, unverifiable votes.

    Somehow, all of those anomalies in the elections wound up benefiting ONE candidate, out of the six or seven running.

    The probability that multiple unrelated, random anomalies would all benefit the SAME candidate are similar to the odds of winning the lottery every week for five years.

    If the same person won the lottery every week for five years, would you believe they were just that lucky? Or was somebody passing them the numbers? You have no evidence, no proof, but you KNOW somebody’s been cheating.

    In the same way, we KNOW those anomalies are related. We may not have the details yet, but we’ve just seen a crooked election. We have to dig out those details if we want to have a future.

    If the Democrats have nothing to hide, why are they so desperate to hide it?

  49. IT guy here. (I’m european so I do not care that much.) In 2020 I have seen some normally seasonal time series going in unprecedented ways – as people’s behavior has changed, so any statistical anomalies MIGHT be ascribed to that.

    But – I do not believe that is relevant anymore. The sheer amount of suspicion of fraud is enough to damage the democratic process, regardless of actual fraud occurring. Therefore this should be investigated until there is no reasonable doubt. There will always be crazies claiming just another level of conspiracy, so the investigation would have to be open and bi-partisan, to convince as many people as possible (either R’s that there was no fraud, or D’s that there was fraud).

    I wonder is that even possible?

  50. Seems to be a pretty strong consensus here that the election has been or will be stolen. Assuming Donald Trump loses his court battles, what do you plan to do about it?

    1. Welcome Biden into office.

      Trump has been fulminating about fraud for 4 years or more. Taken together with his propensity for lying shamelessly, and the fact that his lawyers have embarrassed themselves in court (trying to claim that Republican observers were barred from vote counts, and then admitting that there actually were a “non-zero” number of Republican observers in the room) multiple times, I say “Put up or shut up.”

      They’ve got nothing.

      What I’m hearing here is “We think there is voter fraud, you honor, but we have no evidence to prove it. You should believe us anyway.”

      Not surprisingly, judges are having none of it.

      1. One observer confined to one corner of a stadium-sized room containing 80 vote counting tables where 240 Democrats count votes is a ‘non-zero’ number. Don’t insult us with lame excuses for arguments that would convince no one other than your fellow idiot Leftoids.

        There are too many ‘irregularities’ in those few critical cities, and ONLY in those cities, ALL of them benefiting ONE candidate, for them to not be related. As Larry put it, there’s statistically improbable, and then there’s ‘violates the fundamental principles of the universe’ improbable.

        Let me put this in a way you might be able to understand. If somebody won the lottery every week for five years straight, would you believe it was honest luck? I wouldn’t. There might not be any evidence, but everybody would KNOW that it’s impossible to win the lottery 261 times in a row without cheating. Even if the whole family, that has gotten obscenely rich off the winnings, swears that ‘there were no irregularities’.

        That’s where we are now. There was widespread fraud, because such a pattern of anomalies is not possible without widespread fraud. Why are you afraid to have people look for it?

        If the Democrats have nothing to hide, why are they so desperate to hide it?

    2. what do you plan to do about it?

      You first. That’s how we determine if this is an intellectually honest question, or just trolling.

      I don’t intend insult if you are sincere. But the level of provocation, taunting and trolling on this matter is off the charts. Therefore, verification required.

      1. ” But the level of provocation, taunting and trolling on this matter is off the charts. Therefore, verification required.”

        You missed the point of this thread. The whole point is that there are so many things that look off, that are red flags, that it’s a racing certainty that there is fraud. You’re quite right that it’s not providing evidence that will stand up in court, but that’s not what’s trying to do: it’s saying that the whole thing clearly and obviously stinks and that everything needs to be checked VERY VERY carefully.

        The current position of the mainstream media – in essence to say “nothing to see here, move along, it’s all fine” absolutely will not wash. The total reluctance to look at all the things that are really very very suspicious is itself very suspicious.

        However, we can all absolutely agree with your final line: verification required. The place where we differ is that commenters here think it is a total scandal that there are not already huge efforts to attempt to get that verification.

        It’s not trolling. I might even say that it is you that is trolling to suggest that all these red flags can simply be dismissed as trolling.

        1. I think you missed his point.

          Commenter Stephen Dugger had a whiff of agent-provocateur, so rentadonk was prodding him for more info to see where he’s coming from.

          But I could have misread it.

        2. Red Flags = requirement to investigate thoroughly to find evidence or not

          Evidence = requirement for court case

          Any inhibition to investigation is automatically an act of malice. Intent is irrelevant.

    3. If Biden successfully steals this election, there is no point pretending that we are a nation of laws any more. There is no point pretending that our votes matter any more. There is no point pretending there is a Constitution any more. There is no point pretending there is a unified country any more.

      Do the Democrats want a civil war? Because this is how you get a civil war.

      This is my hill to stand and die upon. I can do no other.

  51. No credentials as the many fine respondents but did some SIGINT traffic analysis for awhile. The short answer to your query is: No.

    I say that also with a tip of the hat to the huevos of the other people in their use of multiple methods, e.g., software-driven decrement/increment, mail-in, and of course the massive syringe of votes injected in the dark of night, into multiple states, with a 14-gauge needle in the span of about 5 seconds. Some keep focusing on mail-in ballots, some on “Alito-ballots” that should’ve been segrated (which the laughing smug PA AG indicates the sleeves for have already been destroyed). They need to focus on ALL of it.

    If those investigating do not – in the next 24 hours – judge-shop and get a piece of paper that allows them to snag some US Marshals and go down to physically seize some equipment & records, it will be just theater. But a few container-ships worth of Americans know what’s been done to them.

    1. “…a tip of the hat to the huevos of the other people in their use of multiple methods, e.g., software-driven decrement/increment, mail-in, and of course the massive syringe of votes injected in the dark of night, into multiple states, with a 14-gauge needle in the span of about 5 seconds.”

      This is utter speculation. And it is preposterous.

  52. “If the Democrats have nothing to hide, why are they so desperate to hide it?”

    Wow. Talk about a logically flawed question.

    Someone who depends on personal insults to make his case doesn’t have one.

    Here’s what actually happened: Trump won in 2016 because he got small majorities in swing states. Trump lost in 2020 because he pissed off a portion of the voters who voted for him previously. He didn’t have a large margin, and he squandered it. His loss is HIS fault.

    1. I was right; you are so mathematically ignorant you can’t even understand the issues. Even the lottery analogy flew right over your head. I suppose it’s not your fault that our ‘education’ institutions have been diligently teaching our children not to think for the last 30 years.

      Biden got fewer votes than Queen Hillary did in 2016 in EVERY CITY EXCEPT the few that are now under investigation. Cities that have histories of egregious Democrat election fraud stretching back decades, and in a couple of cases a century or more. It’s a pity you can’t understand the statistical principles used to uncover election fraud.

      Why did the Democrats violate state election laws, federal election laws, and court orders? Why are they still violating them? Why are they in such a rush to cover up this election? Why are you so afraid of this investigation? Are you as eager as they are to implement their Enemies Of The State lists?

      1. I didn’t address your lottery analogy because it was both vague and flimsy.

        I actually do understand a good bit of statistics, because I’ve worked in administering and tabulating surveys for years.

        1. HAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

          Yeah, so do I. Or maybe I don’t.
          I dunno, I can say anything here, and you’ve no way to know one way or another.

          Kind of like how the voting counts flipped overnight.

          IF you do have any real world experience with numbers, then you do in fact KNOW that this all is beyond sketchy. Your need to spout agitprop means only that you are a cadre, and thus no American interested in truth or this federal republic.

          Your abject refusal to address the statistical issues here statistically proves this.

          1. Yeah, ‘Donna’ is a troll. Probably some flabby wanker that never leaves mommy’s basement. A bit more entertaining than average for a few posts, but has clearly run out of material.

            Run along, little troll, you’re boring the adults.
            Dark Willow: “Bored now.”

          2. I can’t address statistical issues without the data. This should be obvious. I notice that some of the other statistical professionals who answered the original question were careful to say that some of the issues with the election should be *looked at*. Others hand-waved about red flags. Neither group drew conclusions from real data.

            I happen to agree that if there are places where the facts back up suspicion, they should be looked at. And I am sure that Trump’s campaign is doing so. If they find evidence, they should present it.

            One item that hasn’t yet been mentioned: Exit polls showed that nationally 7% of the voters who went for Trump in 2016 voted for Biden this year. And 8% of Republicans backed Biden. (Those 2 groups overlap.) That’s what happened to Trump’s margin.

            A few other comments: Rob Crawford assumes “corrupt districts” as a given in order to imply that the Biden votes in Democratic areas were illegitimate. Not good enough. You can’t draw meaningful conclusions this way.

            “Kind of like how the voting counts flipped overnight.” At least one news anchor cautioned that the numbers could change significantly because Pennsylvania had not started counting early votes yet. Early voters tended to be heavily leaning Democratic.

            KW Boyd: True, I can’t prove I’ve worked with surveys for years. Neither did the self-described professionals who answered Larry’s query prove that they were what they said. But yes, I have worked with surveys and analysis for years. That was in a past job. I now work for an actuarial firm. I am not an actuary.

            Imaginos: I have actually been civil in all my comments, which is more than can be said for you guys. And I have dealt with the facts.

        2. Trump got more votes than he did in 2016 everywhere in the entire country except those few battleground cities where Democrats are known to cheat regularly on elections. Where votes for Trump appear to have been shredded in the middle of the night, digitally or physically.

          Biden got fewer votes than Hillary did in 2016 everywhere in the entire country except those few battleground cities where Democrats are known to cheat regularly on elections. Where votes for Biden appear to have been artificially created in the middle of the night, digitally or physically.

          1. Yes. Logically, if Trump got more votes in precincts than he did in 2016, even if he lost the precinct, then he should have also gotten more votes in those battleground cities, even if he didn’t those cities. That he apparently did not, is another red flag that the registrations, ballots, and voting machines require an in depth investigation on their validity.

      2. Donna would have us believe Biden drew more votes than Obama — but only in the most corrupt metropolitan areas of swing states.

    2. ” Trump lost in 2020 because he pissed off a portion of the voters who voted for him previously.”

      You still haven’t shown any proof of this. There’s more evidence for election fraud than your claim.

      1. If there’s evidence, then where is it? If all that people are talking about is disgruntled Trump supporters making claims that aren’t true or are pure speculation, I don’t consider that to be cause to suspect fraud.

        Take the Pennsylvania case: Trump claimed that Republican observers were being kept out of the Philadelphia tally. When his lawyers arrived in court, they had to admit it wasn’t true. There was a “non-zero” number of Republican observers. That non-zero was 15-19 Republican observers. (The number changed as the observers came and went.)

        So if there are red flags that aren’t turning into more court cases, there is a reason for that. Trump’s lawyers are refusing to represent those cases, because they are deceptive or frivolous. Court cases require evidence. And “I heard someone say that someone told him that ballots are being… (whatever)” is not credible. It’s called hearsay and is not admissible.

        Another one I’ve heard is “There were more votes for down-ballot candidates than there were for Trump. Fraud!” Well, no. People split their ballots specifically to vote against him.

        As for some former Trump voters deciding to go for Biden, you only had to pay attention during the campaign. And then there were Republicans like Larry Hogan (governor of Maryland) who said he voted for Reagan. When you’re losing loyal members of the party, you’re losing the election.

          1. Yes, McChuck, it is rather easier to attack Donna than to address the actual (excellent) points Donna made. If the fraud is as omnipresent and obvious as people are claiming, the lawyers would be using it. Mostly they are not, and the bits they are are proving irrelevant.

        1. How many observers to how many stations?
          How many observers there at all times?
          Timing of ballot recording versus presence of observers?
          Chain of custody?
          If you’re not watching each polling area at least as well as the Postal Service watches workers in postal distribution centers; then you’re not doing it right and you’re going to get fraud.
          (And yes, it beat drawing unemployment, but talk about being in a goldfish bowl and and antagonistic, adverse work environment!)

        2. “If there’s evidence, then where is it?”

          It will be presented in court, not to Donna, stamping her feet in a blog post.

          “If all that people are talking about is disgruntled Trump supporters making claims that aren’t true or are pure speculation, I don’t consider that to be cause to suspect fraud.”

          Disbelieving a claim isn’t how you refute it. As has been pointed out on this blog in three separate posts now, that you have ostensibly read, there are numerous and varied indicators of fraud. What’s going on now is qualitatively no different than Hillary Clinton suing for recounts in two states back in the good ol’ days of 2016.

          But here you are, demanding everyone look the other way. What’s your problem with transparency?

          The Pennsylvania case is at least two-fold, and the stronger one is based on how the SC of PN and the PNSoS unilaterally decided to rewrite the law to allow for questionable ballots.

          “So if there are red flags that aren’t turning into more court cases, there is a reason for that.”

          Talk about speculation.

          “Well, no. People split their ballots specifically to vote against him.”

          For someone who rails against speculation, you sure are a fan of it. There is no data to support this claim, no matter how many times you choose to repeat it.

          “When you’re losing loyal members of the party, you’re losing the election.”

          You just can’t get enough speculation, can you? Anecdotes don’t cut it. Considering Trump’s favorability was greater among Republicans this time around, and that he picked up more black male and hispanic votes than last time, and got more votes than last time, while (as I keep pointing out to you) his favorability rating was on par with Obama’s, I’d like to see you back up your unsupported claim with something other than Donna’s wishcasting.

          1. As I mentioned above, exit polls showed that nationally 7% of the voters who went for Trump in 2016 voted for Biden this year. And 8% of Republicans backed Biden.

            That’s enough to lose swing states.

            As for your other comments, I did refer to some of the theories going around as speculative, vague, etc. But I didn’t say “look the other way.” Sure, investigate. But don’t give accusations the weight of actual fact (as many here do) until they’ve been investigated. Because some of them do raise serious doubt and even strain credibility.

          2. @Donna

            “As I mentioned above, exit polls showed that nationally 7% of the voters who went for Trump in 2016 voted for Biden this year. And 8% of Republicans backed Biden.

            That’s enough to lose swing states.”

            Exit polling is notoriously unreliable, but let’s go with your argument.

            Exit polling shows Trump gained the second highest (a close second) minority turnout since 1976. He had major gains among Latinos in FL and TX. He gained among suburban white women. These are the key Democrat demos and they’re also enough to swing an election. The only major demo that Trump lost voters in was white men, but his loss there was negligible.

            So no, your argument that “no one likes Trump” and that the bizarre anomalies are explained by this simply don’t hold any water.

  53. I don’t work with fraud, but I’m sure the 2004 state department did.


    Despite the hopes of the Ukrainian people and the international community that the Ukrainian authorities would heed those recommendations, the second round of voting featured even greater and more widespread fraud and abuse. Senator Lugar, in Ukraine as President Bush’s representative, who testified before you today, noted “a concerted and forceful program of election day fraud and abuse…with either the leadership or cooperation of the governmental authorities.” The OSCE/ODIHR’s report said that the election did not meet “a considerable number” of international standards, and that, as in the first round, state executive authorities and the Central Election Commission displayed a lack of will to conduct a genuinely democratic election process. ODIHR assessed the second round “less favorably” than the tainted October 31 first round vote. A U.S.-funded foreign NGO observer mission also described “a coordinated, systematic pattern of major violations leading to an outcome that does not reflect the will of the Ukrainian people.”

    The following are examples of the most egregious, widely observed and reported examples of election-day fraud on November 21:

    Illegal Use of Absentee Ballots: According to the respected NGO “Committee of Voters of Ukraine” (CVU), massive electoral fraud was committed through the illegal use of absentee voter certificates. For example, people were caught in Dnipropetrovsk and Sumy oblasts with their pockets stuffed with blank absentee ballots that they were using to vote at multiple polling stations.

    Opposition Observers Ejected: Observers from Our Ukraine and other opposition groups were expelled from most polling stations in eastern Ukraine on Election Day. For example, in Territorial Election Commission (TEC) district number 42 in Donetsk oblast, Our Ukraine observers were kicked out of all but a few polling stations.

    North Korean-Style Turnout in the East: Turnout in the pro-Yanukovych eastern oblasts was unnaturally high. In several electoral districts, turnout for the run-off round increased by 30 to 40 percent over the first round. In Luhansk oblast, the reported turnout rate hit nearly 96 percent — a number that, to quote the OSCE, even Stalinist North Korea would envy. A similar turnout rate was reported in Donetsk oblast, where 98 percent of the votes went to hometown candidate Prime Minister Yanukovych.

    Mobile Ballot Box Fraud: In the second round of the election, the number of voters who supposedly cast ballots at home using mobile ballot boxes was double that of the first round. Much of this voting occurred without observers being present and was massively fraudulent. In Mykolayiv oblast, for example, nearly 35 percent of the oblast’s voters purportedly cast their ballots “at home.”

    Computer Data Allegedly Altered To Favor Yanukovych: There were credible reports showing that that Yanukovych supporters gained illegal access to the Central Election Commission’s computer system and illegally altered vote tabulation data being transmitted by TECs to the CEC.

    Reports of Opposition Fraud: Yanykovych’s supporters allege that Yushchenko’s supporters stuffed ballot boxes in western Ukraine. But the reports and evidence of pro-Yanukovych fraud greatly outweighed those indicated for Yushchenko.

    This massive ballot-box stuffing, fake turnout figures, and other forms of fraud and abuse allowed the authorities to create a victory for their candidate that almost certainly would not have been possible in a free and fair election. The final figures announced by the Central Election Commission (CEC) gave Prime Minister Yanukovych with 49.46 percent of the vote over opposition candidate Yushchenko with 46.61 percent. It is impossible to know what the real numbers were, but a large-scale (20,000 respondents), nation-wide anonymous exit poll conducted by a consortium of three highly respected research organizations (partially funded by the United States Government) projected Yushchenko the winner with 53 percent versus 44 percent for Yanukovych. Other exit polls and parallel vote counts indicated a Yushchenko victory, although by lesser amounts.”

    1. ROFL looks like the road map they followed right there, all the way down to mobile ballot drop boxes, who thought that was anything but a magnet for fraud?

      When I woke up the day after election my thought just looking at the numbers and how they shifted over night after I went to bed when they stopped counting was “Wow they couldn’t do much more to convince me of fraud.”

      Day after day as more and more numbers come in and we have the opportunity to look at the hilarious discrepancy’s and voter turn out that ONLY exists exactly where Biden needs it to exist. The ludicrous swings in mail in ballots that again ONLY exist where biden needed them. The complete and utter denial that election fraud is even possible DESPITE a centuries long and dishonorable tradition of democrat election fraud that includes the previous theft of a presidential election its hard to imagine this being a legitimate election.

  54. Saw quite a few financial fraud schemes as fidelity underwriter covering depository institutions, investment banks and insurance companies—though many, many years ago. Most discovered schemes followed a pattern of finding a small process “crack”, exploiting it, then getting greedy and scaling to a point where it “popped” in a statistical analysis. Almost invariably, under closer exam there was no innocent explanation. In exec management have been privy to larger scale insurance fraud schemes and same pattern holds, though now the tools to uncover fraud rings are far more sophisticated and far more subtle “disturbances” in predicted data can be detected. But this one stinks to high heaven.

  55. I’m not a fraud investigator, but I would like to know how chaos effects investigations? Because the whole system in Pennsylvania and specifically Philadelphia was designed to confuse and blur and create chaos in the voting system. I live in Philadelphia in a zip code, ward and division that are historically black. I’m registered as independent. Turnout: I received mail starting in the late spring pushing mail in voting, how to request a ballot and “make a plan” to vote. Most of it was from a non-profit, likely funded by Soros types. Including non-profit mail saying they would be checking to see if I voted after the election. The mail increased and the democrat party mail and other democrat committee mail started over the summer and never stopped. Biden was always going to win here, but the strategy was to turn out historically high numbers of dependable democrat votes, and do it by mail.
    Mail and live voting: The PA Supreme Court rewrote the compromise election law passed by the legislature. It created conditions ripe for fraud with virtually no verification and three days after the election for votes to be received. It also allowed, at least in Philadelphia, for satellite offices to be opened for voter registration and the receipt of mail in ballots. The office at City Hall had a line of 40 -50 people at the door the three days that I went by. Don’t know about the other 6. People could also get a ballot, fill it out and turn it in. I wonder if this explains why records show some voters voted before they received their ballots? The Trump campaign demanded observers, but the election board said these were just offices not polling places, and won the argument.
    Poll watchers observing the count on election day were not allowed within 6 feet of the actual counting. Hard to verify post marks and stuff, plus the election board played games like moving the workers to tables farther down the hall away from the 6 ft barrier making it impossible to see. But they did have a streaming video of the count. I think one camera. Oh, and the minority commissioner who is a republican was in on it. No complaints and he defended it all.
    I can predict that all the ballots submitted after the polls closed ordered to be segregated will be sufficiently mixed in with all the other mail ballots and it will be very difficult to sort it all out. nd this is just the obvious stuff.
    In Pennsylvania the entire voting system was designed to fail and it will succeed spectacularly. I only hope that the chaos will not defeat a real investigation.

    1. To answer your question, if someone’s system is chaotic, confusing, and ripe with opportunities for fraud, it’s usually because they want it that way for a reason.

        1. Quite true.

          Sometimes that means the purpose of the system is what it doesn’t do. It is deliberately designed to fail at its ostensible objectives, because the real objective is to take up space so that nobody else can construct a system that will actually achieve those objectives.

          U.S. election ‘security’ appears to me to be such a system. There are a good many others, most of them in the public sector.

    2. Speaking of Pennsylvania, you may recall that this week, representatives of Dominion Voting Systems were summoned to speak with the Pennsylvania General Assembly in Harrisburg. This was to take place on Friday, November 20th. All the way up to that morning, Dominion representatives said they had nothing to hide and were happy to answer questions and clear up any doubt that everything was above board.

      Then Friday morning came and Dominion’s representatives were a no-show. All their offices in Pennsylvania have been closed. All Dominion employees in Pennsylvania appear to have fled the state. Hundreds of Dominion employees also just scrubbed their LinkedIn social media accounts, all within the space of a few hours, the same day. Their national offices aren’t responding to questions about the matter.



      Golly gosh, this isn’t the least bit suspicious. Refusing to answer questions from lawful authorities and fleeing the jurisdiction by the dark of night are exactly the actions I would expect of an organization where everything is above board, an organization with nothing to hide. Am I right, guys? Am I right?

      It’s been suggested on other forums that if someone were to write a novel with this stuff as important plot points, no publisher would touch it and every editor in the business worth his salt would laugh it off his desk as too far-fetched.

  56. I’m a cowboy. I’m 64. If we’re gathering cattle in community pasture and all of yer black baldies have charolais twins??? Somebody is a liar,,,and a cattle thief.

  57. Adults DO know. What amazes me is the audacity with which they did it. It’s so extreme and juvenile it’s obvious to the most casual observer yet look how little Barr and his commie DOJ buddies have done about it.

      1. Of course it sounds outlandish to you, because you have already made up your mind that there cannot possibly be any fraud.

        Remind us, again, why none of this should even be investigated?

        1. I didn’t say that there couldn’t possibly be fraud. In fact, I have never said that in any post here. I specifically said in another post that anything suspicious should be investigated.

          It sounds outlandish because with many observers present and election workers of both parties, it is not credible that the activity was not pointed out at the time.

          Anyway, Nemo’s post below has summarized how the accusations were brought, poorly supported, and dismissed by the judge.

          I will only add that everyone should realize that there are people out there whose purpose is to appeal to others’ emotions, prejudice, and animosity and to shut down rational discussion and evidence-sifting. They are willing to fabricate narratives and all they want is willing ears.

          And there are others who do not create the lies, but pass them on uncritically and help spread them.

          Our job is to use our minds and be skeptical of what isn’t plausible. Not to deny, but to verify with evidence.

          1. You’re aware that -another- thumb drive full of votes was “discovered” either yesterday or today in one of the contested races?

            You’re aware that chain-of-custody certification can’t be established for multiple districts using computer voting machines?

            You’re aware that one of the big kahunas at Dominion voting machine company is a bigtime Democrat supporter and hates Trump rather viciously?

            Where we are is this: If your husband comes home smelling of perfume and has lipstick on his collar one time, most likely it’s nothing.

            He comes home like that two times, you begin to wonder. But it’s still probably nothing.

            He comes home like that every Tuesday after “bowling night,” for months, and the perfume is always the same? Plus the blonde hairs, plus the hang-up phone calls, plus he’s acting shifty. That ain’t proof, but it ain’t “nothing.”

            This is how red flags work. Right now there are multiple flags flying high in multiple cities, more and bigger ones than what I said here. Time to hire a detective and catch lover-boy on camera.

            That’s what courts are for. That’s what they’re doing now. If as expected there are sufficient grounds to de-certify various results, there is a proper legal path to choosing the President already laid out in law. That path will be followed. Because that’s how grownups behave in a civilized nation.

          2. Phantom: When a small industry of seeding conspiracy theories seems to have sprung up, the *number* of red flags becomes considerably less compelling as an argument.

            It’s not a husband coming home smelling of perfume; it’s disgruntled job candidates who didn’t get the job saying your husband is a mass murderer, con man, shoplifter, jaywalker, and plagiarist. The only thing they have in common is an attempt to discredit.

            Yes, I agree that the law is the path for investigating and ruling on all questions of illegal activity.

          3. Here’s some more lipstick for you:


            This is a 9,626-vote error discovered by a monitor in the DeKalb County hand count. Let it be noted that the monitors found this “error” despite not being allowed near the counting as they are supposed to be.

            The error was 10,707 for Biden and 13 for Trump, certified correct by two (2) officials before the monitor objected.

            Let it also be noted that the “corrected” batch counted 1,081 for Biden and 13 for Trump. Which, I’m sorry, still seems extremely unlikely. Like dealing three royal flushes in a row level unlikely.

            Eleven hundred to thirteen? Come on.

            That is what I’m calling a red flag. When the “correction” is still five sigmas unlikely.

            The other red flag is that the monitors are being kept off to one side, they’re using binoculars to see what’s going on. That’s enough to decertify the result all on its own. It’s -illegal- to keep the monitors away from the count.

          4. Please don’t get your information from anonymous posters on the chans, or from Epoch Times, and their ilk.

            That’s where demagogues and the gullible each reinforce each other. And simple accuracy doesn’t matter.

            We can all do better than that.

          5. After this incredibly tiresome woman has unceasingly spammed the comments section for several days doing nothing but regurgitating narrative, her talking about demagogues, gullibility, and accuracy is amusing. 😀

          6. “Please don’t get your information from anonymous posters on the chans, or from Epoch Times, and their ilk.

            That’s where demagogues and the gullible each reinforce each other. And simple accuracy doesn’t matter.”

            After the complete debacle of things like the NYT winning a Pulitzer prize for getting the “Russia Collusion” story wrong for three years straight, or the media-wide polling debacle of 2020, or the entire media falsely calling Biden “President Elect” for a couple of weeks now….

            You don’t get to lecture others on accuracy in media and then be taken seriously.

            Every day I have to look at ANY media story from EVERY outlet and evaluate it on its merits. That’s what critical thinkers do. You’re doing the very thing you’re criticizing.

            Do better.

  58. First, my bona fides:

    Look at results.philadelphiavotes.com (some wards over 96% turnout) and correlate the turnout to the location of the warehouse on 3500 Scotts Lane where admin USB keys for the voting machines were stolen in late September.

    That said, a lot of people here need to dial it down. The ad hominems are inappropriate.

    1. Thanks for the philadelphia link – I was able to pull down the votes by ward-division – I ran a Benford analysis on it – funny how Trumps votes follow Benford’s law – yet Bidens pretty much breaks it…. hmmmm

  59. No credentials, just wondering where we go next.

    Too many indicia of fraud to ignore. Half the nation won’t accept a rubber-stamp of the purported results. Everybody should agree we must count every legitimate vote, no fraudulent votes. How do we do that?

    Step one: segregate challenged ballots (arrived late, back-dated, no signatures, no chain-of-custody) and litigate each of them. When we know which ballots are in and which are out, recount the legitimate ones.

    But not by machine. Democrat Senators accused the machines of vote switching last year. Republicans suspect the machines did it again this year. So don’t use the machines to count votes. Manual recount, eyeballs on paper, same as we did in the hanging chad fiasco 20 years ago.

    Yes, it’ll take forever and cost a fortune. Do you want an honest election or not?

  60. The GSA has clearly stated, as of Nov. 13, 2020 ..

    We are STILL counting the votes ..

    So, WHY is this taking so long?

    FRAUD much?


    “The GSA Administrator should determine the President-Elect based on the Constitution and past precedent, which both indicate there is not an apparent President-Elect.”

    “I strongly encourage you to do just that: follow the Constitution and past precedent, not the media, when making your determination of the President-Elect.”

  61. Republicans waited way too long to challenge the constitutionality of unsolicited mail in ballots ordered by the governor, despite the US Constitution being extremely clear a state’s executive has no authority to decide election law, once again proving the party establishment can seize defeat from the jaws of victory.

    “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

    (Emphasis on “Legislature thereof may direct”)

  62. The allegations Dug linked to were presented to the court in Constatino v. City of Detroit, which has been dismissed.

    The judge found that while the accusations were serious, they were not creditable. Among other things, at least one affiant did not attend the orientation session and so did not understand the process; the allegations of fraud were general – lacking date, location, and number of occurrences; multiple affiants did not mention the alleged misconduct at the time, but only after their candidate had lost. Conversely, affiants for the defense provided a convincing explanation for the alleged fraud, such as that signature verification was not done at the TCF center because it had been done at a different location earlier in the process.

    The entire opinion is embedded here:


    I also hope that everyone is as concerned with the allegations from the Republican Secretary of State where he named specific other Republican elected officials who are pressuring him to commit fraud.


    1. Part of the point of the recount was to check for cases of fraud. Certainly he should check all allegations, but it does appear he found one effort to fraudulently alter the vote count for sure, and unlike so many of the other allegations, is able to provide specifics. I think it is important to note that the accuser is also a Republican, as noted above, so the idea that this is some leftist scheme does not seem creditable. We should certainly take that every bit as seriously.

  63. I had been an auditor. This election seems no more fraudulent than the previous one. other than people claiming fraud, there are no more flags than usual. if someone was capable of organizing enough fraud for Biden to win the election, why would they simultaneously lose a bunch of congress seats and fail to win any important senate races?

    1. I mean, I don’t disagree with those points, but it’s weird to follow one comment with another, but using the identical name, lowercase ryan. I am not an auditor, but apparently lowercase ryan is?

    2. There could be any number of reasons.

      It could be that it takes longer to mark “Biden” as well as a handful of other downballot Democrats than it does to just mark “Biden,” and they had a very limited amount of time to generate thousands of new ballots, so every second counted. It could also be that they believed an exploit in the voting machines would be easier to pass off as a glitch if it only changed one number, rather than several. It could also be that, because they needed to talk to as few people as possible to ensure deniability, they weren’t able to specifically tell people to make sure they mark all the downballot Democrats, too. Or it could simply be that, while convincing confused elderly people to change their votes during ballot harvesting/curing, they felt it would be too obvious if they told them to change ALL their votes, and even the Alzheimer’s patients they claimed to be helping might start to think something was up. Or it could be for some reason I haven’t even thought of here.

      Whatever the reason, though, how can you hold up the fact that the Presidential vote was so greatly out of line with the downballot votes, defying all historical precedent, as anything other than a red flag, in and of itself? Whatever the reason, it’s a clear indication that SOMETHING abnormal is going on, and it’s worth looking into what that abnormality might be, even if it turns out to be something entirely benign.

      1. The simplest explanation, and the most likely, is just that a lot of normally Republican voters didn’t vote for Trump. Not everyone votes a straight ticket, esp. when one candidate has attracted the level of criticism that Trump has. I don’t know if it defies all historical precedent; other unpopular candidates may have achieved the same result.

        Cybersecurity (in Dept. of Homeland Security) says there is no evidence of fraud with the voting machines. Your theories of confusing elderly people seem dubious. I would want to see how that was done.

        I know that my mother in law, a staunch Republican in her 80s, voted for Biden. She wasn’t confused. She was disgusted with Trump’s behavior over the past 4 years.

        1. “The simplest explanation, and the most likely, is just that a lot of normally Republican voters didn’t vote for Trump.”

          Still here pushing that line, eh? Bob said you were smart, Donna. Smart people look at the evidence and draw conclusions from it. But you are not doing that. Instead, you are making stuff up.


          For a guy that nobody voted for, Trump had some pretty strong coat-tails in a lot of races that are being contested for cheating. Down-ballot, Republicans did extremely well and Democrats did not.

          That is one of those red flags we’ve been talking about. It is statistically unlikely. It does not happen that large percentages of voters favor the Republicans on the down-ballot and then choose the Dem presidential candidate. Some people do that, but most do not. It is a notable anomaly.

          Indeed, across most races this year we see that the down ballot follows the usual pattern. Republicans down ballot generally pick the Republican for President… except in the contested battleground cities which will decide the race. In those places, the pattern is broken.

          An intelligent and reasonable person goes looking for the place where the pattern is broken to find if things are being done honestly.

          Given this pattern is broken exactly where it would break if people were cheating, but nowhere else, the most likely explanation is cheating.

          For you to be right, the pattern would have to break in all the races.

        2. So what is your ‘simple explanation’ for Democrats threatening to murder the children of election officials who don’t go along with their attempts to paper over the blatant fraud? Why are Democrats still violating those election laws and court orders they find so inconvenient? If there is nothing to hide, what are they so busy trying to cover up? Why are they so desperate to prevent the truth from being known?

          The Democrats are raising hundreds of new red flags in their attempts to cover up the existing red flags. Their behavior only highlights their guilt.

        3. More speculation on your part, when the data say otherwise.

          Ticket splitting was less than it was in 2016.


          “At the same time, ticket splitting hit a near-historic low, as the political realignment of higher-income suburbanites moving toward the Democratic column and working-class whites drifting into the Republican column accelerated. Most of these voters simply cast straight-ballot tickets: 95 percent of Trump supporters voted for a Republican for the House, while 95 percent of Biden supporters voted for a Democrat, according to exit polling. (That’s up from 91 percent of Clinton voters backing a Democrat for the House and 93 percent of Trump voters backing a Republican in the 2016 election.)”

          1. Phantom, Imaginos, Gmmay: Just look at the evidence presented in court. The only case Trump won was to exclude a small number of votes in Pennsylvania for which an extension had been granted by the state supreme court. There was no fraud or indication that those ballots were solely votes for Biden.

            Another Pennsylvania suit alleging that Republican observers were excluded was just plain false, but the judge included an instruction to allow observers closer to the ballot counters.

            Other suits have presented no real evidence. The suit in Detroit presented affidavits, such as one person saying they were being stared at or another complaining that the PA system was too loud. What does that have to do with fraud? Nothing.

            That’s all. NO EVIDENCE of fraud. The dead voters claim was not true. The voters in question were checked. Some of the names on the list were dead and had NOT voted. Some were NOT dead and had voted properly or had not voted.

            I wasn’t referring to ticket splitting nationally, just in some precincts that were pointed to as suspicious that were heavily Democratic. Nothing improper was found in those votes.

            Georgia’s recount shows that the Dominion voting machines counted the votes correctly.

            Imaginos, you continue to assume Democratic evil as your starting point and arguing from there. I.e., “So what is your ‘simple explanation’ for Democrats threatening to murder the children of election officials who don’t go along with their attempts to paper over the blatant fraud?”

            There is no evidence of blatant fraud. Assuming fraud to start with makes your argument nonsense. You can’t get past that by just choosing to believe in fraud without evidence. You don’t even need to invoke Occam to see that the simple explanation is that more people voted for Biden in the states that gained him enough electoral votes.

            As for death threats, they are being received by both Republicans and Democrats. Could it be because emotionally charged but baseless claims of a stolen election are being promulgated?

          2. Still telling me my eyes are lying, eh Donna? Here’s some more for you:

            “In an extraordinary turnabout that foreshadows possible legal action, the two GOP members of Wayne County’s election board signed affidavits Wednesday night alleging they were bullied and misled into approving election results in Michigan’s largest metropolis and do not believe the votes should be certified until serious irregularities in Detroit votes are resolved.”

            You do realize that signed affidavits are considered -evidence- in a court of law, right? They are witness statements. Witness statements are evidence, and often decide court cases.

            There’s a lot more here than statistical sleight of hand with votes. There is now thuggery going on. People are getting threatened and beat on.

            That’s an awful lot of smoke for there to be no fire there, Donna.

            And I’m sorry, if there’s the two Republican members of the certification board swearing out a statement that they were threatened, that’s a fire all by itself. Threatening government employees is a felony. You go to jail for that. And it is more than enough to de-certify that election and guarantee -another- recount.

          3. @Donna

            “I wasn’t referring to ticket splitting nationally, just in some precincts that were pointed to as suspicious that were heavily Democratic.”

            Yes, you were speculating. And I provided evidence that shows your speculation to be unfounded.

            Unless you can provide some other evidence that contradicts those trends, or evidence which supports and explains your idea that ticket splitting occurred at drastically different levels in these specific precincts and why, then you’re just making things up as you go along.

            Until then, none of the voting data we have makes any sense.

  64. And in Wayne County, Michigan–Detroit, for those of you not familiar with the Mitten State–it was noted this afternoon that of the stations set up to count mail-in ballots, fewer than 30% had the ballot totals match both before and after the count. In over 70% of these stations, there were significant discrepancies.

    The two Republicans on the county election board this afternoon at first said they would not vote to certify the election results until the discrepancies could be explained, and it would have gone to the state legislature to appoint the state’s electors. Their tough stand lasted, as far as I can determine, about twenty-five minutes. The Democrats on the board called them “rayciss,” just like they always do when they’re caught with their hands in the cookie jar and they know both the facts and the law are against them and they have nothing else. And, of course, the Republicans folded like a cheap suit, just as they can always be depended upon to do when Democrats break out the R-word, assenting to put the official state stamp of approval on blatant, shameless, brazen, in-your-face Third World failed-state style ballot-box-stuffing that was caught in the act. They did get the Democrat members to promise they will permit “an investigation” at some unspecified time in the future, and they’re chalking that up as a victory.

    Lucy pulled the ball away from Charlie Brown again, in other words. Why does he keep falling for it? And why do we keep sending a boy to do a man’s job?

    1. Don’t forget the death threats made by those ‘peaceful protesters’ we’ve been watching all summer. Pretend you don’t see the blatant fraud, or die, and your family, and your little dog too.

      And the media says nothing. Because it would be RRRAAACIIISSST!!!

      1. More news has come out. Granted, my source for this is anonymous posters on the chans, so I am not prepared to vouch 100% for its authenticity.

        But it looks like there were threats made against them by the Democrats on the board and various other city politicians–recorded in a Zoom meeting–of doxxing, and of violence against their families. There are also lots of screenshots from social media of an online SJW mob that claims to be connected to Antifa threatening to doxx them, kidnap their kids, kill them, etc.

        So they rolled over and signed off on obvious fraud.

        And Antifa doxxed them anyway, even publishing pictures of their houses. They’d have been no worse off if they’d given the mob the one-finger salute and stuck to their principles and refused to certify obvious fraud. You’d think they’d learn, sooner or later.

        Isn’t intimidating election officials a crime? Wasn’t the FBI just crowing about stopping a “terrorist plot” by some supposed “extremist group” called “the Base,” in which they claim they caught a couple of idiots–maybe terrorists, maybe patsies–taking pictures of someone’s house, and charged them with everything from “felony hatecrime” to sinking the Lusitania, and the culprits are going away for twenty to life for taking pictures of a house from the street?

        I’d post links to screenshots, but just about everything that was posted contains the names and other personal information on the Republican election board members, and I’m not willing to participate in doxxing. If you know about the chans you know where to look and may even be already reading the same threads.

      2. Breaking news: at least one of the Republican election officials from Wayne County has signed an affidavit rescinding her certification vote. She testifies she voted under duress, because she and her children were threatened with violence. It also appears that state Attorney General Dana Nessel (a Democrat, of course) threatened to arrest her and charge her with “contempt” if she did not vote to certify the Detroit vote counts; it’s not clear that Dana Nessel has that statutory authority, not that little things like the law ever stopped a Democrat in Michigan from doing what they want, when they want, to whomever they want.


        A Democrat state representative from Dearbornistan, one Abraham Aiyash, threatened her children in a Zoom video and named the school they attend:


        According to the chans, he then went on an hour-long Facebook Live video in which he told his followers to find this woman’s children and “teach them a lesson” about “racism.” An SJW Twitter mob, additionally, doxxed both her and the other Republican from the city election board, publishing their addresses, pictures of their homes, the addresses of the schools their children attend, and making all manner of “that’s a nice house you’ve got there and I sure hope nobody burns it down, Nazi trash,” “it’d be a shame if somebody kidnapped a racist’s kids, lololololol” type remarks.

        Theoretically, intimidating a public official in the performance of his duties is all kinds of illegal. In the real world, we’re waiting to see whether the Deep State will continue to protect its own. If there are no consequences for these people, why should any other Republican volunteer to serve on the Wayne County elections board? Why should anyone stick his neck out? Why should anyone put his own safety and his children’s at risk to call out corruption and fraud in sham elections and keep propping up a failed, collapsing system by giving it any kind of veneer of respectability? It’d be nice if every one of the people publishing personal information about her and making threats woke up in Gitmo tomorrow. But that’s not the way to bet, in America in 2020.

  65. Every Rational person I speak with see’s

    Fraud clear as day.

    Coup Coup Plotters will use ignorance as their primary weapon against the sheep.

  66. you all: but there are all these statistical anomolies with the election data. how can you certify it until you examine and explain them all? dont you want to know the truth?

    the rest of america (ie the majority of america): uh, when did “examining and explaining statistical anamolies” become how we decide elections? oh, right, we’ve never had that requirement before. in the past, if you had evidence of fraud, you took it to court, and the court decided. but, now, we have to justify wining by presenting a corresponding statistical analysis. hmmm. ok, sure. lol.

    1. Dunno about “the majority of America”, but Virginia and Michigan are still dragging their feet about certification, with senators in the latter explicitly citing alleged fraud as reason to request an audit. Virginia meanwhile has a “COVID outbreak”… or something like that. Kinda like that mysterious water pipe leak in Atlanta during the election itself, that was big enough to stop the count, but apparently not big enough to warrant any actual plumbing service called on site.

      A few other contested states are due for certification this Friday or next Monday, I’m very curious to see if similar excuses will come up. In the meantime, does anyone know the punishment for knowingly certifying a fraudulent ballot count? Really, I want to know. For that matter, strangely enough, this was a popular search on Google a couple of weeks before the election, and especially in the now contested states… but I’m sure that’s also just a “statistical anomaly”.

      1. The article summarizes an opinion poll showing that 46% of voters think Trump should concede now, and an additional 32% think he should concede if he can’t prove fraud.

        Alarmingly, 12% think Trump should not concede under any circumstances. And 9% have no opinion.

        At this point, Trump has more than amply shown us that he doesn’t care about our democratic process, and whether he concedes or not is becoming irrelevant.

        1. I have a serious question for you, Donna.

          What makes you think that’s an honest opinion poll? By which I mean, that it reflects the actual opinions of the people polled?

          And then you said this:

          “At this point, Trump has more than amply shown us that he doesn’t care about our democratic process, and whether he concedes or not is becoming irrelevant.”

          Trump, like him or hate him, is FOLLOWING THE LAW. There is a process in place to deal with election fraud, and he is following that process. So I would like to know the specific things Trump has done since the election that show he doesn’t care about the democratic process.

          And by the way, how about those two Republicans on the Michigan election board mentioned above? Does all that look like respect for the democratic process? Or does it look more like Brownshirts beating people’s faces in with bats?

        2. @Donna

          Do you care to address that in context with the point I made, or did you feel that expressing Trump Derangement was more effective? Here, let me help you: he made a blanket statement about how Americans feel. I showed evidence that contradicted his stupid statement. You know, like stupidly saying “no one likes Trump”?

          Now, I’ll bite on your obvious trolling:

          Please explain precisely how Trump is or has subverted muh democratic process. Because there’s WAY more evidence to show how Bureaucrats and Democrats have been actively undermining a duly elected president for the past four years. And that should concern you way more than what some randos said on a poll.

          I’m old enough to remember when Gore had been declared winner and the matter wasn’t settled until well after where we are now, with far fewer irregularities.

          But here you are.

          1. I figure most people here are old enough to remember the Dems lobbying electors to betray their oaths and vote for the Democrat even though the Democrat lost, since that was only 4 years ago.

            And on a basis equivalent to a Football team arguing they should be awarded a win because they dominated yardage and time of possession, so it wasn’t fair the other team won by scoring more points…..

          2. If the past 75 years or so of history in the US have taught me anything, it’s that Democrats despise democracy. They only like it when they get what they want. When they don’t, they are constantly running to the courts, demanding that this new law the people voted for in a referendum be declared “unconstitutional,” that unelected judges consult the entrails and confabulate something new out of the “emanations and penumbras” as an end run around the will of the people. Their very name means the opposite of the word they’ve chosen. It’s straight out of Orwell.

          3. The troll has run out of material, and is reduced to repeating the same old bullshit. Time to exit the stage, pursued by deafening boos and raspberries from the audience.
            I used to live on a farm. I know what bullshit smells like.

  67. Larry, I’m not an investigator, but if you’d like a detailed inside look at the nuts and bolts of stealing an American election, check out Robert Caro’s “Means of Ascent” its a biography of Lyndon Johnson focusing on his efforts to become a Senator representing Texas. In short, LBJ won his first election, if narrowly, and had it stolen from him. He then lost, if narrowly, his second election and stole it from Coke Stevenson.

    Years later people involved in both frauds came forward and admitted what had happened, and how they’d done it. It was a fascinating if depressing book.

  68. Folks, have you noticed how this conversation looks? Donna has been patient and calm, responded to questions, referred to data and common sense. The opposing side much less in control of themselves.

    Just saying.

    Go Donna.


    1. Donna has done nothing but repeat talking points. She has blatantly ignored the data presented by other posters, the testimony of experts in the thread, and every counterargument presented against her position. She simply repeats the talking points as if she had never heard anything that anyone else was saying.

      It’s very easy to remain calm when you don’t see or hear anything that’s going on.

    2. I’m with Tom Simon here. For one, Donna’s arguments seem amount to parroting that there’s “no evidence”, contrary to the fact that a) sworn affidavits are legally considered evidence; and b) newly found batches of uncounted ballots also suggest either foul play or, at best, very sloppy operation. Both factors, among many others, warrant further investigation, which is all we’re talking about here. Nobody’s calling for immediate dismissal of the ballot or subverting the election process.

      On the contrary, investigations like this are very much an essential part of the election process, particularly for close races or sudden shifts – as in all the contested states. And when people are dismissive of mere skepticism (or oddly anxious and worried, for some reason), in light of – again – mounting legal evidence, then this says more about them, than it does about the skeptics.

      1. “there is no evidence” IS an argument. in fact, its the best argument, and, you will all find out, the WINNING argument here. its only a amatter of time before the clock runs out on this lunacy.

        as for your examples of evidence:
        – signed affidavits: ok, show them to us, and lets discuss each one in turn. most likely, they turn out to be the same bs that has been swilling around so far. but wait, Rudy is saying he cant show them to us. HAHAHAHAHA. of course. your supposedly awesome evidence, for some reason you cant show us. how convenient.

        -newly found batches of ballots. well, actually that works in our favor. that was the whole purpose of the audit, to make sure no mistakes were made. well, as is human nature, mistakes werer made. but we have uncovered them now, and corrected it. your request for investigation of this is thus redundant. the uncovered ballots WERE THE RESULT OF THE INVESTIGATION.

        1. If you had ever worked any kind of honest election, you would know that there are strict rules and procedures to maintain a chain of custody of all votes. They aren’t particularly complicated, because honest elections work better when everything is simple. The procedures are old and well-known.

          Given that premise, either you have confusing chains of custody because someone wants to facilitate fraud later in the chain, or you have confusing chains of custody because somebody is committing fraud early in the chain. There really isn’t any way that you can just have a mistake that loses votes.

          It is not normal to have votes in trashbags or beverage coolers. It is not normal to have thumbdrives of votes just kicking around somewhere. Unless there’s fraud.

        2. “… mistakes werer made. but we have uncovered them now, and corrected it. your request for investigation of this is thus redundant…”

          Translation: Even the most perfunctory checkup found irregularities, by the thousands per case, but there’s totally no reason to dig any deeper, no siree, no foul play here… Yeah, after four years of “Russian collusion”, I think you can stand a bit more scrutiny right now…. unless of course, you can’t.

          Similarly, I’d leave it to the court to decide whether or not the affidavits are evidence enough to warrant further investigation. If you’re so certain they’re devoid of substance, then surely you have nothing to worry about, right?

  69. @gmmay70

    You compared the Bush / Gore election in 2000 to this year’s election.  In that election, Bush won Florida by 537 votes or 0.009% of the total votes cast in that state (per wiki).  That’s close enough that a recount could change the outcome of the state and the election.

    The 2020 election didn’t come down to a single state, Trump would need to change the outcome in multiple states and none of them were nearly as close as Florida in 2000.

    PA – 59,594 votes
    GA – 12,781 votes (after audit) 14,152 votes (before audit)
    MI – 148,382 votes
    NV – 35,453 votes

    That is too large of a difference to be overturned by a recount, absent massive fraud or other systemic problems.  The President has alleged massive fraud publicly, but has completely failed to prove it in court.  There is a large difference between what the President and his lawyers allege to the media and what they’ve filed in court. That’s why their lawsuits keep getting dismissed.  


    Many people, myself included, hoped that in 2016, Republican electors would determine that Trump was unsuitable to be president and would select a different Republican to be president.  No one (sane) expected them to select a Democrat.  
    Preventing someone of bad character with dubious foreign entanglements from becoming president is exactly what the electoral college was designed to do.  We can (and likely do) disagree about if that describes President Trump, but doesn’t this section of The Federalist Papers, #68 sound like the allegations against Trump?

    “It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

    It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?


    The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, […]”


    There is no evidence that has held up in court.  There have been affidavits filed, but none have creditably alleged fraud or other problems that could change the outcome of the election.  That’s why the lawsuits have been dismissed.
    You also mentioned some problems which I believe was referring to the issues identified in the audit in Georgia.  There were problems found with 4 counties out of a 159 total counties in Georgia.  

    “There’s no indication of broader problems beyond three counties that didn’t load all votes from memory cards and one county that didn’t rescan all ballots after an optical scanner was replaced because of a technical issue, said Gabriel Sterling, Georgia’s voting system manager.

    Three of the four counties that had issues are Republican-leaning politically.” 

    [  https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-vote-discrepancies-reconciled-on-last-day-of-recount/NB7BD5L5F5F4NI43H2YSS6LMLA/ ] 

    The audit identified about 1,400 net votes for Trump that hadn’t been reported correctly or about 10% of the net votes for Biden.  That would have been more than enough votes to change the outcome of Florida in 2000, but not nearly close enough to change Georgia in 2020.  And even if Georgia had flipped to Trump, he still doesn’t have the electoral votes to win.  

    If there is credible evidence of Fraud, the Trump campaign should show it in court.  If they can’t do that, they should accept the outcome of the election.  

    1. That would have been more than enough votes to change the outcome of Florida in 2000, but not nearly close enough to change Georgia in 2020. And even if Georgia had flipped to Trump, he still doesn’t have the electoral votes to win.

      That’s… not the line of argument I’d recommend. It’s one thing to claim the ballots were lost accidentally, like the numerous computer “glitches” that have also been found. But saying they simply aren’t enough to flip the vote is like going “sure, your honor, I might’ve shot the guy, but a bunch of other people also shot him, so I’m not a guilty party here, no way”. If there’s enough evidence to suggest fraud, it’s not gonna get dismissed just because it would’ve been ineffective or unnecessary.

      1. @indiana404

        First, there is no evidence of fraud in Georgia. What you’re referring to as “claims” about “glitches” were human error – people missed a memory stick and didn’t send the vote totals from a memory stick to the State, as per the Republican Secretary of State. Generally, Trump’s attorneys have either not been claiming fraud or have retracted their accusations of fraud:

        “Despite President Trump’s oft-repeated false claim that he “won Pennsylvania by a lot” and that he is only losing the state to Joe Biden due to fraudulent ballots, Trump’s campaign lawyers have had to take a far different approach when they get before a judge.

        Indeed, Trump attorneys previously disavowed voter-fraud allegations before judges in three separate jurisdictions: two state courts in Pennsylvania and one county court in Arizona.”

        [ https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/trump-campaign-attorneys-admit-there-is-no-evidence-of-any-fraud-in-connection-with-challenged-ballots-in-bucks-county-pa/ ]

        >If there’s enough evidence to suggest fraud, it’s not gonna get dismissed just because it would’ve been ineffective or unnecessary.

        IANAL, but if a lawsuit doesn’t get past summary judgement, there is no trial to allow the evidence to be fully examined. The lawsuit might be dismissed due to lack of standing like this [ https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/trump-appointed-judge-rejects-lin-woods-creative-election-lawsuit-in-georgia/ ] in Georgia.

        Or it could be dismissed for mootness, because it wouldn’t impact the election, like happened in Arizona.

        “Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Daniel Kiley on Friday dismissed claims filed on behalf of Donald Trump’s campaign, the Republican National Committee and the Arizona Republican Party as moot, meaning further legal proceedings are pointless.

        The scope of the lawsuit had narrowed since Republican officials filed it Saturday, alleging “potentially thousands” of Arizona voters had been disenfranchised on Election Day.

        At that point, he said, plaintiffs sought only a reinspection of overvoted ballots in cases where the number of overvotes was greater than the margin of the winning candidate’s victory.

        The judge seemed amenable to considering the request, saying he would take it under advisement. County officials had estimated just 960 or so ballots cast were at issue.


        But after a six-hour hearing Thursday, Trump attorney Kory Langhofer narrowed that ask significantly.


        By Friday morning, Langhofer had filed a motion acknowledging the outcome of the lawsuit would have no impact on Arizona’s presidential results.”

        https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/13/trump-lawsuit-maricopa-county-presidential-votes-dismissed-moot/6277110002/ ]

  70. If I were a Democrat, I’d be worried by the allegations of fraud by voting machine in the Democratic primaries.

    See, your party leaders didn’t care who you wanted as a candidate. They were just using you as camouflage.

    1. Actually, that’s probably why they’re training so many Democrats to be thugs or Twitter thugs or Karens. Because they don’t need them as voters now. Warm bodies have no value; only thugs have value.

  71. Just because you can’t prove who or how a crime was committed does not mean it didn’t happen. In my opinion the current “red flags” constitute a dead body with lots of bullet holes. Just because you can’t find the weapon or place a suspect at the scene doesn’t mean the body isn’t still dead. We have plenty of “cold cases” that we know a crime occurred but can’t find enough “evidence” to prosecute. The democrats’ seems to be screaming that there is no evidence but don’t deny that there is a dead body full of holes. What’s wrong with having a doctor check to make sure the body is actually dead? or a full recount of votes to verify election integrity? Every illegitimate vote potentially disenfranchises a legitimate vote very much going against the will of the “people” the dems are screaming about.

  72. The head of Dominion’s US operations was supposed to appear before a few Congresscritters yesterday. Late Thursday night they backed out of the hearing.

    Now Dominion is closing their offices, shredding evidence, and their employees are scattering like cockroaches exposed to the light.

    No, no, nothing suspicious there, eh?
    My grandpa voted Republican until the day he died — but he’s been voting Democrat ever since.

  73. its gonna be tough for y’all true-Trumpers over the next four years. seeing and witnessing everything Biden does, knowing that he didnt actually win, that he cheated. every appointment, every budget, every legislative and executive action. and its already starting, with the cabinet appointments, planned executive actions, etc. it will all be against what you know to be the truth, that Trump won.

    wow, that is gonna suck really bad. it will be just a miserable 4 years for you.

    of course, if you just admitted what the vast majority of Americans know to be the truth, that Biden won (BY A LOT), then it wouldnt be so hard for you. you would have solace knowning that, well, your candidate gave it his best shot, but the other guy won. oh well, thats politics. and you would be able to move on.

    but no. i bet hardly any Trumpers here will be able to do that. you will all choose, using your own brains, to live the next four years in a hell of your own making.

    i love it. this really will be the gift that keeps on giving.

    1. Be careful what you wish for, because you will get it good and hard.

      It’s amazing that people exist who are stupid enough to believe there is no fraud in U.S. elections. Frankly, the next honest election you have in your country will be the first. It’s obvious that there is fraud – every single election. As another commenter said, Chicago elections have been fixed down to the ward level since Daley Sr., and that’s not the only place.

      ‘Oh,’ you say, ‘but it’s such minor fraud. It couldn’t possibly have determined the outcome, because Biden won fair and square.’ Oh, so if the outcome was already known, why bother with fraud? The whole point of electoral fraud is to decide the outcome of the election.

      But hey, you just go on marking your ballots for the Democratic candidate as if your vote made any difference or would even be counted honestly. You obviously are perfectly content to be a serf of a big-city Democratic political machine. In fact, you could save yourself the trouble and just let them cast your vote for you, since you obviously have no problem with fraud and don’t think there is any point in investigating it.

      You deserve slavery. It’s a pity you can’t get it without inflicting it on your countrymen.

    2. You really don’t understand any of us, do you? You can see us only as mirror images of your own twisted self, and are incapable of seeing anything else.

      You idolize your ruling elites. It matters not how they abuse their power, how many innocent people they silence, exclude, impoverish and outright kill through their idiotic public policy decisions, how much of our money they funnel into their own pockets, how flagrantly they pander to their fellow elitists, and sell us out to foreign oligarchs and communist dictators. They are your idols and they can do no wrong.

      You assume we are the same. You are full of shit.

      We do not idolize President Trump; we value what he has accomplished. The strong economy. The record low unemployment, particularly among ‘underprivileged’ minorities. The tax cuts which overwhelmingly benefited the middle class, leading to the first substantial middle-class income gains in 20 years. The first real reduction in ‘income inequality’ in 30 years. The drawdown of our foreign military deployments. Peace treaties in the Middle East that four previous Presidents never even got close to. Eliminating our dependence on Middle East oil producing countries that hate us. Breaking up communist Chinese spy rings and booting them out of our country. Reclaiming some of our manufacturing capability, which greedy fools destroyed in favor of cheap Chinese imports. Enforcing our territorial sovereignty.

      In nearly 50 years, Biden has done nothing remotely comparable. Too busy pandering and selling us out, and oh, incidentally, picking up millions upon millions of dollars from…somewhere.

      Now, tasting victory, Biden is doing exactly as expected. Their ‘transition team’ consists primarily of the most unscrupulous lobbyists in Washington, prominently featuring the infamous corruptocrat Stephen J. Ricchetti. A full breakdown of Ricchetti’s corruption would overburden our host’s servers; I’ll just summarize it as epic in scope and shameless in effrontery. The rest are ‘less crooked’ only by comparison.

      The truth is that Trump won this election (BY A LOT). A lot more than the Democrats were expecting. Enough to beat the fraud they had pre-loaded into the elections in a dozen big Democrat-ruled cities already notorious for election fraud. Enough that they had to stop counting votes for four hours while they frantically whipped up hundreds of thousands more phony ballots and rushed them to the counting centers in the dead of night. Enough to make their fraud so brazen it couldn’t be missed.

      Those that committed the fraud must be dragged out, kicking and screaming, into the light. The only question is whether enough people will look, and admit what they see. Whether our laws will be enforced, or subverted. Whether the shredder trucks were stopped before the Democrats disposed of too much evidence. Whether we can catch the principals of Dominion before they flee the country, and hold them to account.

      If we can’t, if they still pull this off, we will remember, but unlike wussy little Leftoid wankers, we won’t just sit around feeling sorry for ourselves. We will make plans, and contingency plans. We will decide what to do, and then do it. When the time is right.
      My grandpa voted Republican until the day he died — but he’s been voting Democrat ever since.

    3. yeah, not really, Jake. Something that is hard for those of your ilk to understand is that most people that oppose the terrible ideas of the left do so because we don’t value government the way you do. Lefty lives depend on government to make them feel better. The rest of us, go about or lives focusing on what we can control and will push back if the Harris Administration with Biden continue to overreach into our lives.

      It’s also clear you’re a paste eater, based on your comments alone you don’t understand how our government works. Enjoy your basement, (insert generic troll name) Jake, while the rest of us continue winning at life.

    1. Again I agree with Tom Simon – be very careful what you wish for.

      Speaking as a foreigner, it’s very telling that world leaders like Putin reacted with “let’s wait and see” to the announced election results. This isn’t an act of caution or uncertainty, but a very definite throwing of shade on the wannabe Biden administration. A less than subtle hint that, if he is ever inaugurated, he still won’t have the nation’s backing, imaginary phantom votes notwithstanding. And as the American president is far more important for foreign policy rather than domestic government, that’s not a situation you want to be in.

      For that matter, even domestically, any policy attempted by Biden’s (really the DNC’s) cronies will be rendered null and void, not by courts or local legislators, but by people just not following it. And I should know – this was standard practice in our socialist regimes, with orders being routinely “lost”, paperwork never being filed on time, and even the cops knowing better than to stir up trouble, 1984-style. And seeing how liberals’ plan for police is to not have any, that leaves the curious question as to how the Biden government is ever going to, well, govern.

      Really, if there’s one thing I’ve learned about Americans, it’s that when they don’t like something, they don’t just destroy or overturn it; but they make it obsolete altogether. When Americans didn’t like their monarch, they didn’t just get a new one; they rendered the very concept of monarchy redundant. When they fought the communist regimes of old, they didn’t win by force or subterfuge, but by openly offering a better way of life, enough so that millions of people would abandon communism wholesale.

      And now they’re dealing with a puppet politician, literally on life support, propped by an already top-heavy and infighting-ridden party and a crumbling mass media, and with nothing more than inner city thugs as their enforcers. And you call it a win. That ain’t a win, sonny… That’s a target rich environment.

  74. With this many people that have experience in investigation, why aren’t there more people doing more to help? There are time and resource limitations.

    There are plenty of pundits with large audiences. Reach out, find out how you can help. Dig into the the available data and root out those that are tied to any control positions. You can’t flip accomplices without some heat.

  75. Retired CPA and Certified Fraud Examiner here. But that is way overkill for what’s been going on. It’s something that would be obvious to a six year old child…which is probably why the lamestream media can’t figure it out (or don’t want to!)

  76. 35 years in tax, consulting, and financial statement and federal compliance auditing as a CPA including state and local government, non profits, publicly traded companies and private sector. NO

    Problem: Massive fraud; collusion; plausible deniability; cognitive dissonance.

    Solution: Forensic audit; RICO Act

  77. Common sense only, here:

    If they knew the voting was fair and fraud-free, the Democrats would be embracing Republican demands for recounts and investigations – the proven lack of fraud would make the Republicans look foolish, it would waste a lot of Republican money, it would disenchant a not-insignificant portion of the Republican base, and it would make it even more obvious that the Democrats won.

    With no downsides to the Democrats for that course of action, the fact they are fighting so hard to prevent it should be more then enough red flag by itself.

    As they say “When the enemy is shooting himself in the foot, don’t get in the way.” Yet here we are, with the Democrats making every possible attempt (including, apparently, some illegal ones) to prevent Republicans from making themselves look bad.

  78. Rudy Giuliani has been finding all sorts of…irregularities, yeah, that’s what they are, in the mail-in ballots. Ballots mailed in by dead people, folks who moved out of the state years ago, and some that never existed at all.

    Now he’s found that the state of Pennsylvania counted 2.6 million mail-in ballots — but they only sent out 1.8 million.

    The Democrats and news media pretend there’s nothing the least bit odd about getting 800,000 more mail-in ballots than were ever sent out. By how many votes was Biden losing on the night of November 3 when they suddenly stopped counting, again? About 800,000 wasn’t it? And then a few hours later, China Joe was suddenly ahead? Verrrry innnnteressssting…

    Wait, I know, the ballots were breeding in people’s mailboxes! The extra 44% are just the baby ballots! Nothing suspicious about that!
    I used to live on a farm. I know what bullshit smells like.

    1. There’s also the fact that there are only between 90 and 100 million registered eligible voters in the US. How many votes are we being told were cast? 140 million? More? It’s the cherry atop a Mount Everest of mathematical impossibilities we’re being told to sit down, shut up, and silently accept.

      Likewise, well, I can’t take credit for this observation, but: Leftists always project. ALWAYS. They just can’t help themselves. They’ve been complaining for four years now to anyone who will listen about this bizarre conspiracy theory they’ve confabulated, that the 2016 election was “stolen” by “Russian hackers.” If you haven’t been expecting them to try to steal this election, probably with highly illegal foreign help, you haven’t been paying attention.

      1. Census Bureau says there were ~157M registered voters in 2016, and ~153M in 2018. It will be interesting to see what the claimed number is for 2020.

  79. Really, a child’s perspective of this election would be that there is something wrong.

    The mental gymnastics to believe that Biden won by the numbers suggested is Olympic grade.

  80. I think the time for arguments about how obvious the fraud was has passed. There are witnesses, there are analytics. It can be diverting to separate the bad information from the good, but the question now is how hard the courts will try to do nothing and likewise the state legislatures. The system wants to bury it all.
    If it is believed that that can be gotten away with then it will be.

    1. The problem now is, what to do about it? They can prove the Democrats poisoned the soup, but it’s impossible to separate the poison out, or to just dump the soup down the toilet. The Democrats want us to go ahead and serve the poisoned soup to everybody.

      Not only that, we KNOW the Democrats are going to poison the soup again in the Georgia Senate election. They’ve already bought the poison; now they’re just waiting for the soup pot to go unwatched for a few seconds. What can be done about that?
      Did the Left drive them barking mad, or were they drawn to the Left because they were already batshit crazy?

  81. y’all are drinking BIG GULPS of the kool-aid on here.

    here is what reality looks like, as stated over the weekend by Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas for the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, APPOINTED BY TRUMP in 2017 (ie about as sympathetic an ear as he is going to get):

    “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations
    and then proof. We have neither here. ”

    if you dare to read the full thing, here it is:


    i have a feeling i know how some of you will respond. “oh, but thats not the awesome proof of fraud we are talking about.” oh really? after all this time, all these lawsuits, you are still holding back your awesome proof? yeah, sure. lol.

    1. There is plenty of evidence, “Jake”. The fact that you just swallow whatever the latest (D) press release says doesn’t change that.

      “Instead, it objects that Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State and some counties restricted poll watchers and let voters fix technical defects in their mail-in ballots. It offers nothing more.”

      Well, other then both things being violations of state law. But I guess that is no big deal, since I am sure that the (D) AG will charge the (D) election personnel with a crime. Right?

      The NAACP actually admitted to the ballot fraud in their own filing in that case. I’m sure the press releases you are puking out skipped that little tidbit.

      1. yes, “bm7437,” there is SOME evidence. our boy Rudy has continuously alluded to various affidavits, etc.

        however, in a court of law, you have to allege SUFFICIENT evidence to support your claims. thats just how our system of justice works. that has not been done here. not by a long shot.

        and you seem to have not really read the opinion. because it summarizes how the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has already ruled that the poll watcher issues and fixing of defects ARE NOT VIOLATIONS OF PENNSYLVANIA STATE LAW, and the opinion itself indicates that they are also NOT VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW.

        1. Who mentioned “federal law”?

          “And they are charged with ensuring that elections are “honestly, efficiently, and uniformly conducted.” §2642(g).”

          “But the Election Code says nothing about what should happen if a county notices these errors before election day. Some counties stay silent and do not count the ballots; others contact the voters and give them a chance to correct their errors.”

          So much for “honestly, efficiently, and uniformly conducted.”

          I guess you really do get to make stuff up as you go along, but only when it is a (D).

          Yeah, the (D) dominated PA SC ruling that everything (D)s did was OK was a real shocker.

          1. well, if counties didnt feel like giving the absentee voters a chance to correct their ballots, then that is their problem. that doesnt invalidate the counties that did. (actually, if i was an absentee voter in those counties that didnt encourage defect corrrection, i would be pretty mad at my local elected officials. in fact, i would vote against them in the next election.)

            and “uniformly conducted” had always encompassed different jurisdictions having different flavors. thats what a federal system of states is supposed to feature, in fact. it is the same with counties within a state.

            and that is not how “uniformly conducted” is even applied here. within the counties that encouraged defect correction, they did it for ALL voters, whether democrat or republican. that is uniformly conducted.

            again, if you read the opinion, you would know that that is why any equal protection claim fails here as well. there is no allegation that repulican vs democrat voters were treated differently within any county.

      2. I would advise against playing with the troll. We don’t know where it’s been.

        We don’t WANT to know where it’s been.
        Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!

  82. aw, come on, Imaginos. no more profantiy laced tirades from you? dissapointing.

    as long as we are at it, here’s the National Review, probably the most venerable conserative publication in existence, agreeing that the whole fraud thing is a sham:


    you know what the actual fraud here is? its the fraud that TRUMP is pulling on YOU ALL. you dont for a second think that Trump actually believes any of this fraud nonesense, do you? believe me, he doesnt. he’s not that stupid. its just another tool to him. YOU ALL are just another tool to him. i would almost feel bad for you, but you all seem to want so much to be used in this way, that, whatever, have at it.

    but make no mistake, Trump is doing to YOU what he has done to everyone in his life. he is SCREWING you for his own gain.

  83. So we’re just going to ignore Christopher Krebs and the entire security apparatus assembled to protect our elections. Trump appointee and the national security experts who are part of Trump’s administration, all of whom, ALL OF WHOM say this is the most secure election ever. That’s right up there with listening to an radiologist about how to handle a worldwide pandemic. At what point do we stop playing ridiculous games and actually listen to people who are experts in their field, who’ve dedicated their lives to keep our elections safe, to keep our nation safe. Enough with this ridiculous pandering to a total narcissistic moron who’s in this for one thing: to enrich and aggrandize himself. And if any of you are stupid enough to donate to Trump’s “cause” to battle fraud, please read the fine print. He’s raised 150+million, and he can use it for his travel expenses, personal expenses, etc. Follow the money. Trump keeps repeating it’s fraud so the gullible keep donating to him. It seems unfathomable how many normally reasonable human beings are buying into this snake-oil salesman’s con just because he claims he’s against the Dems (a group he’s spent MILLIONS supporting over the course of his life). That’s all this is–if he thought he’d get rich claiming the world is flat, he would. And a significant portion of Republicans would believe him out of tribalism. It’s pathetic. Every single friggin expert in the field, from Trump’s own administration and appointees, to Trump-appointed judges, to numerous Trump-supporting Republican officials in states all across this land who all say these widespread fraud claims are completely baseless. But that’s just not enough. Wake up! History is not going to be kind to this Trump hysteria.

    1. Yes, yes, we know. DC lawyer angling for new job declares fealty to anything (D)s say. Shocker…

      But tell us all again how there isn’t a hint of wrongdoing anywhere.

  84. And the 59 cybersecurity experts that agreed with that one lawyer (whose job prior to joining Trump admin was head of Microsoft Cybersecurity Policy, btw)? And the Republican state officials across the USA, You know, the lifelong Republicans who are being stalked and threatened by right-wing nutjobs.

    A bunch of pathetic special snowflakes that can’t simply admit Trump got his ass kicked by 8 million votes. They hand counted every paper ballot in Georgia, verified and certified by Republican Gov and Sec of State (a self-admitted Trump supporter who’s now in fear for his life and his family’s because of morons buying into Trump’s ridiculous lies.) But that’s not good enough. Suck it up, buttercup. He lost, and his pathetic attempts at claiming otherwise are only revealing the stupidity of those who are clinging to the same false hopes and outright lies …

    Never said there wasn’t a hint of wrongdoing. But that’s a very distant cry from widespread fraud, there hasn’t been a single shred of evidence that there was anything even approaching a meaningful fraction of enough votes to effect a single state’s outcome, much less overcoming Biden’s enormous lead in both electoral and popular vote. Of course, don’t take my word for it. Just ask the Trump appointed judges. And ask the Republican state officials who oversaw the election. And the cybersecurity experts. Oh wait, maybe you check with the idiots over a Qanon instead… The first step in overcoming your butthurt–oops, I mean grief–is learning to accept it.

  85. As found above:

    “There is none so blind as those who refuse to see.”

    Right about now, this has taken literal proportions, given the videos directly showing unobserved ballot counting, using previously hidden ballots from suitcases rather than the official boxes, in the dead of night, in a building otherwise vacated under the false pretense of a water leak…

    Y’know, even the actual socialist regimes back in the day didn’t have that kind of gall. Even they had to at least make it look like everything was going by the book. And even that wasn’t believed wholesale, not even by their supporters.
    Looking at what passes for fact-checking to the left, I’m thinking – forget “1984”, there are Monty Python skits with more credible writing, more believable declamations of patently ridiculous explanations.

    The funny thing is, I suspect it’s intended. There seems to be a progression of arguments for fraud, going from allegations, even if by sworn affidavit, to circumstantial evidence and red flags, to ever harder proof. And as the left is summarily dismissing all of that with the exact same tone, it actually makes them look more and more ridiculous. I can only imagine the reee-ing and gnashing of teeth that would ensue if more smoking guns are presented, like hacked voting machines, or forged ballots per the watermark theory… then again, in a few weeks, I might not have to.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *