« The Chinese Communist Party has infiltrated Britain | A former Gov. Cuomo aide claims he sexually harassed her for years »
December 14, 2020

An overview of the latest election fraud information

By Andrea Widburg

Rather than write myriad posts about updated election fraud information, this post provides an overview.  With the Supreme Court becoming an increasingly slender reed on which to rely, the information below is the new front in the battle against election fraud.

President Trump went on the offensive against state legislatures contemplating certifying votes despite significant evidence of fraud:

Negative votes.  This video explains election anomalies that could occur only if there was large-scale data manipulation:

 

There's a simple way to prove mail-in ballot fraud.  Jovan Hutton Pulitzer, who invented the platform for QR readers, contends that he can determine in a day whether millions of mail-in ballots are fraudulent.  Here's the video, followed by my effort to simplify what he said:

Pulitzer says his system will scan mandatorily saved ballot images and actual ballots to find clues that the ballots were not mailed out to voters or filled in and returned by voters.  Ballots that have been mailed have creases from being placed in envelopes.  Ballots that ran off printers and copy machines, rather than having humans enter their voting preferences, will lack the imprints of the human hand filling in the bubbles. 

There's already evidence strongly suggesting that, in Georgia, significant numbers of ballots used for the recount were so pristine that they never passed through the Post Office or through voters' hands:

These suspiciously immaculate ballots were likely "backfill" — that is, after the computers rigged the votes, paper ballots were delivered or printed on site to make up the necessary numbers.

Ben Turner, the founder of FraudSpotters, tried to debunk claims about Dominion machines and fraud, and realized fraud was possible:

Statistical analysis of past presidential races supports the view that in 2020, in counties where Dominion Machines were deployed, the voting outcomes were on average (nationwide) 1.5% higher for Joe Biden and 1.5% lower for Donald Trump after adjusting for other demographic and past voting preferences.

For Dominion to have switched the election from Trump to Biden, it would have had to have increased Biden outcomes (with a corresponding reduction in Trump outcomes) by 0.3% in Georgia, 0.6% in Arizona, 2.1% in Wisconsin, and 2.5% in Nevada. The apparent average of 1.5%  "Dominion Effect" is greater than the margin in Arizona and Georgia, and close to the margin for Wisconsin and Nevada. It is not hard to picture a scenario where the actual effect in Wisconsin and Nevada was greater than the national average and would have changed the current reported outcome in those two states.

Assuming the "Dominion Effect" is real, it is possible that an audit of these machines would overturn the election.

These results are scientifically valid and have a p-value of less than 1%, meaning the chances of this math occurring randomly are less than 1 in 100.

Turner included these images from VerifiedVoting to show the spread of Dominion voting machines across America:

Allegedly leaked information from the forensic analysis of Dominion voting machines points to fraud:

CDMedia has been informed by sources close to the investigation that cyber teams which examined Dominion Voting Systems machines in Antrim County, Michigan last weekend have found concrete proof of massive cyber election fraud.

  1. Dominion voting machines were connected to the internet.
  2. Illegal Votes are thought to have been shipped to Europe for 'adjudication'.

There is more coming on this story but essentially fake ballots in massive amounts were counted and 'approved' in Europe, in either Spain or Germany.

In an update, CDMedia said that further leaked information showed that "the error rate for ballot verification was set to 1000s of times the legal rate. Then, fake ballots were sent over the internet for 'adjudication' in Europe, either in Germany or Spain. The 'adjudication' was done in batches. 'The evidence of fraud was not where we were looking,' said our source. 'It was cleverly hidden in the error rate.'"

WARNING: The above information has not been corroborated and a Court order prevents any official statements about the forensic analysis.  However, if there is foreign interference, Sidney Powell says that triggers President Trump's 2018 Executive Order about overseas interference with American elections.

We know what the media will say about all of this: once the states certify the election on the legislatively set date of December 14, the election is over.  In the calendar race between those seeking to prove massive fraud and those seeking to benefit from massive fraud, the former lost.

This is an unacceptable standard.  To be functional, our Constitution cannot support a standard holding that a party that commits massive fraud and then denies its opponent access to information proving the fraud wins by virtue of reaching an arbitrary date without being caught.

Image: Fraud graphic by Nick Youngson. CC BY-SA 3.0.

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com