Trump probably won in 2020, so he should have little difficulty winning in 2024. However, will he be certified, or will the honor go to Joe, Michelle, or Pretty Boy? The problem here is the massive ballot harvesting schemes used by Democrats.

Let me be clear: Most Democrats do not believe they are cheating: They are simply “empowering.” In their minds, helping people to vote is a public service, even if it requires obtaining, completing, correcting, and transporting the ballots on the voter’s behalf. Democrats did that openly in Wisconsin during the 2020 election.

In no fewer than 206 Madison City parks, Democrats held “Democracy in the Park” events, advertised by Joe himself. Hundreds of special ballot drop boxes were strategically placed, and a couple hundred election “inspectors” helped thousands of fellow Democrats decipher the complexities of voting. Make a mistake? No worry, the inspector will fix it. Need a witness for your signature? The inspector can do that too. No ID? Just say you are afraid of COVID. In a hurry? Hand your ballot to the inspector. She will make sure the ballot is cast -- and for the right candidate!

Basically, Wisconsin election officials operated a massive ballot harvesting operation in plain sight, and strictly in Democrat areas. The Trump team went to court, but in a partisan, 4 to 3 ruling, the Wisconsin Supreme Court dismissed the case on the basis of “laches” (filed too late). It was a ridiculous ruling, but don’t take my word -- I am just an accountant. Instead, consider the angry words of the three dissenting justices:

Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler:

“LACHES DOES NOT AND SHOULD NOT BAR THIS CASE... Once again, the majority imposes its definition of laches, which is tailored to its judicial preferences rather than based on well-established legal principles...The respondents cannot demonstrate that laches bars a single one of these claims...” [emphasis as written].

Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley:

“How astonishing that four justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court must be reminded that it is THE LAW that constitutes ‘the rule book’ for any election...” [emphasis as written].

Justice Patience Drake Roggensack:

“Once again, four justices on this court cannot be bothered with addressing what the statutes require...”

In other swing states the ballot harvesting was just as real, but much less obvious. Experienced harvesters plied their craft with skill and stealth. A great example of harvesting prowess was reported by Jon Levine in the New York Post. The reporter interviewed a harvester who operated a team of workers for 20 years in three states: New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. Levine did not reveal the identity of the man (or woman), but he knows who it is, and Levine said it is a recognizable name in the world of politics.

The harvester told Levine that getting ballots “is easier than you think.” He and his associates would say they were from the county, and were picking up ballots as a public service. (I don’t think that would work in a Republican neighborhood, but there are places where people are accustomed to having the government do everything for them.) After the harvesters collected the ballots, they would steam them open, make sure the right candidates were selected, and distribute the ballots among several mail boxes.

There is only one way for Republicans to fight and win against this, and it’s called “canvassing.”

When the Cyber Ninjas started their audit of Maricopa County’s election, they planned to select a sample of voters, knock on doors, and ask a few basic questions: “Sir, the county voter rolls show that you were sent a mail-in ballot. Is that true?” That is called “canvassing,” and it would have effectively uncovered any harvesting operation.

Unfortunately, the canvassing never happened because of strong threats made by powerful Democrats, including Merrick Garland, Jaime Raskin, and Carolyn Maloney. They would not allow the Cyber Ninjas to talk with voters because it could -- somehow -- suppress the vote, even though the election had taken place months earlier. If you don’t understand how that works, watch the movie, Back to the Future.

It didn’t end there, however. A very good and large-scale canvassing operation was conducted by a private group of volunteers, led by a civic-minded resident of Maricopa County. I won’t reveal her name because she might not welcome the resultant “summer of love.”

Although the private canvassing was completed too late to be of use in the 2020 election, we can learn from the methodology employed, and the results that were obtained. Here are the steps followed by the Maricopa resident and her volunteers:

1. The voter database was obtained from the county. It is a list of all registered voters, and it shows who did and did not cast a mail-in ballot.
2. A large sample of addresses was selected from the population of people shown to have voted by mail.
3. Volunteers were recruited and trained in the procedures to use and the questions to ask.
4. Canvassing locations were assigned.
5. When a resident responded at the door the volunteers identified themselves as private citizens who were conducting voluntary election integrity research.
6. All residents received the same opening pitch: “We'd like to quickly go through each registered voter living at this address” and identify all potential voters living here.
7. Then, six questions were asked:
   1. What method did you use to vote?
   2. How many ballots did you receive in the mail for yourself?
   3. How many ballots did you receive for person(s) who do not live here?
   4. What did you do with any extra ballots received?
   5. How many registered voters are there supposed to be at this address?
   6. How many registered voters are there who voted in the November 2020 election?

When all data were received, the results were compiled and analyzed.

The Maricopa volunteers knocked on 11,708 doors and received responses from 4570 people. By any standards that is a massive survey. The results? Of those who had voted according to Maricopa, 5.7% said they did not vote. That number, which is just for Maricopa, is eight times Joe’s winning margin for the entire state. The canvass report stated that the accuracy was plus or minus 1.5% with 95% confidence.

To be useful, the results must qualify as lawsuit evidence:

1. Even though this sort of survey activity is legal in most areas, Democrats will furiously try to block any canvass activities, so lawyers must be assembled, ready, and familiar with election and solicitation laws for each community.
2. The survey must be completed within days after the election. Memories fade quickly, and people get confused if too much time elapses.
3. For each major county within a swing state, a bipartisan group of leaders should be selected. If possible, these leaders should be retired judges, lawyers, doctors, engineers, and accountants, and they should have unblemished credentials. They will select and supervise the volunteers.
4. The help of a professional statistician must be used, and he must select a sample large enough to achieve high confidence with a small margin of error. For most counties the required sample might range from 500 to 1,000.
5. Accurate records of all responses must be kept. If discrepancies are found, sworn affidavits should be obtained, if possible.

When done properly, the findings will be solid evidence that can be used in an election lawsuit. It won’t prove that a particular candidate won, but it can show that a new election must be held.

If you live in a swing state, please consider forwarding this article to any of your elected representatives who believe in election integrity.

Joe Fried is an Ohio-based CPA who has performed and reviewed hundreds of certified financial audits. He is the author of the book, Debunked? and a new book called, How Elections Are Stolen. It outlines 23 problems that must be fixed before the 2024 elections. More information can be found at https://joefriedcpa.substack.com/ (a permanently free subscription).

Image: justgrimes