Fact Check: Does the Navarro Report Prove Evidence of Vote Fraud? (Yes)

Executive Summary

The main stream media and social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook have been lying to the public stating there is no evidence of fraud, massive or otherwise, in the 2020 election.  White House advisor Dr. Peter Navarro produced a landmark report documenting 25 types of fraud tactics across six categories of fraudulent activities. Since the main stream media has been busy sneering at reports of fraud and pretending there is no evidence of fraud, there has been no serious attempt to review the claims in the Navarro report. And since the Trump team and supporters have been stating that there are many documented cases of voter fraud and other types of election tampering, this examination seeks to validate the claims of the Navarro Report by seeking evidence of his claims. The approach is  similar to the way scientists try to replicate the results of another researcher by trying to replicate the experiment.

Since some evidences are well know because of viral reporting (such as completed ballots driven from New York to Pennsylvania) they are reported in both this, and the Navarro report. But many of the evidences presented here will be distinct from those presented by the Navarro report.

Having found evidence for each fraud tactic the Navarro report identifies, this examination finds the Navarro report accurate and agrees with all of the claims of fraud in the report as listed in the following chart. Additionally, while this analysis is in overall agreement with the Navarro report, the following conclusions from the report are of critical importance and warrant special attention, and thus are highlighted for this summary:

  • The weight of evidence and patterns of irregularities are such that it is irresponsible for anyone – especially the mainstream media – to claim there is “no evidence” of fraud or irregularities
  • The ballots in question because of the identified election irregularities are more than sufficient to swing the outcome in favor of President Trump should even a relatively small portion of these ballots be ruled illegal.
  • The anti-Trump media and censoring social media are complicit in shielding the American public from the truth.
  • Those journalists, pundits, and political leaders now participating in what has become a Biden Whitewash should acknowledge the six dimensions of election irregularities and conduct the appropriate investigations to determine the truth about the 2020 election. If this is not done before Inauguration Day, we risk putting into power an illegitimate and illegal president lacking the support of a large segment of the American people.
  • If these election irregularities are not fully investigated prior to Inauguration Day and thereby effectively allowed to stand, this nation runs the very real risk of never being able to have a fair presidential election again – with the down-ballot Senate races scheduled for January 5 in Georgia an initial test case of this looming risk.

This analysis concludes with suggestions for securing future elections. To facilitate review, following is a chart detailing each type of fraud claim, with a link to jump to that section.

Initial Claim Trump Lead at Midnight
The Six Dimensions

Dimension

Fraud tactic

 Outright Voter Fraud Bribery
Fake Ballot Manufacturing and Destruction of Legally Cast Real Ballots Destruction of ballots:
Indefinitely Confined Voter Abuses
Ineligible Voters and Voters Who Voted in Multiple States
Dead Voters and Ghost Voters
Counting Ballots Multiple Times
Ballot Mishandling No Voter I.D. Check
Signature Matching Abuses
“Naked Ballots” Lacking Outer Envelope
Broken Chain of Custody & Unauthorized Ballot Handling or Movements
Ballots Accepted Without Postmarks and Backdating of Ballots
Contestable Process Fouls Abuses of Poll Watchers and Observers
Mail-In Ballot and Absentee Ballot Rules Violated Contrary to State Law
Voters Not Properly Registered Allowed to Vote
Illegal Campaigning at Poll Locations
Ballots Cured by Poll Workers or Voters Contrary to Law
Equal Protection Clause Violations Higher Standards of Certification & I.D. Verification Applied to In-Person Voters
Different Standards of Ballot Curing
Differential and Partisan Poll Watcher Treatment
2020 Election Voting Machine Irregularities Large-Scale Voting Machine Inaccuracies
Inexplicable Vote Switching and Vote Surges In Favor of Biden
Statistical Anomalies in the Six Battleground States Dramatic Changes in Mail-in and Absentee Ballot Rejection Rates from Previous Elections
Excessively High Voter Turnout (at times exceeding 100%)
Statistically Improbable Vote Totals Based on Party Registration and Historical Patterns
Unusual Vote Surges
Final Thoughts and recommendations
(From this analysis, not the Navarro Report)

Fact Check – Process overview
Question:

Does the Navarro Report (The Immaculate Deception: Six Key Dimensions of Election Irregularities)  (Archive) (Part 2 Archive) (Part 3 Archive) prove there is evidence of vote and election fraud in the 2020 presidential election?

Background:

The Navarro report on election fraud in the 2020 election has been described as “a powerful overview of the entire fraud landscape, across states and types of irregularities..” and a “must read and share”

More importantly, the report itself claims:

  • The weight of evidence and patterns of irregularities are such that it is irresponsible for anyone – especially the mainstream media – to claim there is “no evidence” of fraud or irregularities.
  • The ballots in question because of the identified election irregularities are more than sufficient to swing the outcome in favor of President Trump should even a relatively small portion of these ballots be ruled illegal.

These are quite significant claims. If true, it is further evidence that the main stream media (MSM) and many politicians have been lying repeatedly about whether evidence of fraud exists in the 2020 election. More importantly, the Navarro report claims the fraud is significant enough to change the MSM presumptive winner and make it clear that what President Trump has been saying all along is true: that he clearly won the election.

These claims are worthy of review and checking for accuracy, and thus this fact check.

Please note: if evidence for even one of the Navarro report’s 25 claims is found, that will demonstrate that the MSM and politicians have been incorrect in their claims of “no evidence of fraud.” If evidence of all 25 claims is found by this investigation, which is being conducted by an independent researcher using reports and evidence readily available to the public, that is a strong indictment against the main stream media that not only have they not fairly investigated any of the claims, but further they have been willfully and deliberately suppressing evidence and lying about the prevalence of voter fraud (as previously pointed out regarding Twitter here)

Is the question above true?  Yes.

The Navarro report has painted a clear and accurate picture of widespread, premeditated, carefully planned and orchestrated voter and election fraud in order to steal the 2020 election from President Donald Trump.

And since the evidence is so overwhelming as this review demonstrates, any news organization or social media platform still denying there is any evidence of voter fraud and election fraud in the 2020 election clearly has an agenda and is not interested in the truth. Such an organization should not be trusted regarding either the 2020 election, or to report any news item fairly. Such organizations should be viewed strictly as speakers for the the left wing, socialist and democrat talking points (which are typically all aligned) because that is essentially what they are. If you’re looking for an accurate, uncensored reporting of the news, you’ll need to look elsewhere.

Degree of Certainty:

100% Certain

Review Process:

The Navarro report details 25 types of fraud tactics spread across six areas or dimensions. Each type (or tactic as referred to in this report) is well documented with foot notes referencing support for the claim. For this fact check, since the fraud is claimed to be wide spread, we will not rely primarily on Navarro’s references. This check will rely on fraud already being reported on in various outlets – that are honest enough to do such reporting. That means many of the supporting examples will be different from what the Navarro Report lists. That’s a bonus. Unique instances of fraud outlined in this report separate from those included in the Navarro report add further supporting evidence for the claimed fraud. Of course some egregious, well reported examples of fraud will be duplicated: such as the fraud in Georgia at the State Farm Arena where large containers of completed ballots that had been previously hidden underneath tables were counted in the dead of night after observers will told to go home. Such frauds are so blatant they cannot be missed, and should not be over looked and thus are included in both reports. But it is expected a good portion of examples cited will be separate from the examples cited in the Navarro report.

Presentation of Echoes and References

To facilitate review of the types of fraud found in the Navarro report with the evidence presented here, evidences will be listed immediately after the claim, instead of in a separate section or footnoted. As usual evidence types will be echoes (video or audio testimony), or links to articles, social media posts or reports with the indicated evidence so you can easily review yourself – and not rely on the unsubstantiated word of fact checkers with an undeclared agenda and clear bias. (See the About section for the Echocheck.org declaration on bias.)

Navarro Report Claims – and Evidences in support of those claims

Foundational Claim:

I. Introduction

Trump was ahead by huge margins at Midnight. But due to continued counting past election day in key, democrat controlled states, that status changed. People awoke weeks later to Biden having a slim lead as illustrated in the Navarro report table below:

“At midnight on the evening of November 3, and as illustrated in Table 1, President Trump was ahead by more than 110,000 votes in Wisconsin and more than 290,000 votes in Michigan. In Georgia, his lead was a whopping 356,945; and he led in Pennsylvania by more than half a million votes. By December 7, however, these wide Trump leads would turn into razor thin Biden leads – 11,779 votes in Georgia, 20,682 votes in Wisconsin, 81,660 votes in Pennsylvania, and 154,188 votes in Michigan.” (p.4)

Navarro Table 1
Table 1

Is this a valid claim concerning the Trump lead? Are these numbers accurate?

Following are the numbers as reported in both the Navarro report, and by other sources:
Sources:
Danielle D’Souza Gill
(Tweet 11/23/20 (Archive))
President Trump Statement -12/23/20 (On why he’s pursuing legal and constitutional options)
YouTube  Archive
Fox News Reporting Election Night (11/3/20) (Snap shots of status are linked, you can calculate the lead depicted below from the linked picture.)

Trump Lead In>
Source:
Georgia Pennsylvania Michigan Wisconsin
Navarro 356,945 555,189 293,052 112,022
D’Souza Gill 311,010 682,637 306,767 127,270
Trump Video 356,000 < 700,000 293,000 112,000
Fox News 319,472 558,495 306,858 113,602
(Fox News count % complete) 77% reporting 55% reporting 52% reporting 71% reporting

This chart allows for two checks:

Check the Navarro report against other sources, and check over all trends from all sources. In both cases, Navarro’s number check out favorably, the difference between his number and other sources vary only by a few percentage points, except in Pennsylvania where the numbers vary widely, and even there Navarro has the most conservative (i.e. the lowest) number.

And more importantly, you can see that all sources are showing the same thing that Navarro reported. When polls closed and most of the country went to bed, Trump had a commanding, insurmountable lead, ( “absolutely impossible for Joe Biden to overcome” as the President put it in his 12/23/20 video YouTube  Archive).

The claim that at midnight on election night, Trump had massive leads, is confirmed


With the Primary Claim established, we move on to the evidences that the Navarro report provides of fraud to steal the election, which is divided into 6 areas:

II. Six Dimensions of Election Irregularities across Six Battleground States

The Navarro report provides this chart (the featured image above) as a quick overview of the categories of fraud, and where they’re found. Of the six categories of fraud listed, all six battle ground states are found to have at least five of the six. Two – Georgia and Nevada – have wide spread evidence of all six. Michigan and Wisconsin have all six, with one category showing some evidence instead of wide spread. The categories the Navarro report groups the fraud tactics into are:

  • Outright Voter Fraud
  • Ballot Mishandling
  • Contestable Process Fouls
  • Equal Protection Claus Violations
  • Voting Machine Irregularities

For each category, specific types of fraud (or tactics) are listed. This fact check will examine each specific tactic listed. As noted above the goal will be to find evidence of the type of fraud listed to verify the claim. Since the primary goal of this fact check is to verify or falsify the claim of “no evidence of voter fraud” which has been widely spread by the main stream media, social media outlets and democrats. Recall – main stream media sources are claiming there is absolutely no evidence – so one instance is sufficient to refute that claim. So for the purposes of this fact check the goal is not to find each type of listed fraud in each state it’s listed in. It’s merely to identify one or more instances of the claim. Thus a claim by Navarro of a specific type of fraud will be considered verified if evidence of it being executed in at least one location can identified.

There are 25 different types of fraud tactics listed.  Finding any fraction of the 25 different types of fraud is sufficient to prove wide spread fraud. Spoiler alert: all 25 types of fraud were identified. That is more than sufficient to verify Navarro’s claim that it is “irresponsible” to claim no evidence of fraud. This review will take it further: those claiming “no evidence of fraud” are either outright lying, are complicit in the fraud, or are willfully ignorant of the evidence.

Next, on to the evidence.

III. Outright Voter Fraud

“Outright voter fraud ranges from the large-scale manufacturing of fake ballots, bribery, and dead voters to ballots cast by ineligible voters such as felons and illegal aliens, ballots counted multiple times, and illegal out-of-state voters.” …

Types of Outright Fraud:

Bribery

“In a voter fraud context, bribery refers to the corrupt solicitation, acceptance, or transfer of value in exchange for official action, such as voter registration or voting for a preferred candidate.” …

A clear example of bribery concerns the Nevada election where they gave away gift cards and other items of value in exchange for votes:

Washington Examiner article:
Pro-Biden effort offered Native Americans $25-$500 Visa gift cards and jewelry to vote

YouTube Video:

Bribes for Votes in Nevada (Archive)

 Bribery Confirmed

♦♦♦

Fake Ballot Manufacturing and Destruction of Legally Cast Real Ballots

Fake ballot manufacturing involves the fraudulent production of ballots on behalf of a candidate; and one of the most disturbing examples of possible fake ballot manufacturing involves a truck driver who has alleged in a sworn affidavit that he picked up large crates of ballots in New York and delivered them to a polling location in Pennsylvania.” …

Fake Ballot Manufacturing
The example in the report is likely a reference to the below truck driver. Notice the driver claims the ballots were completed. Why were completed ballots shipped from New York to Pennsylvania? If they were legit, they should have been counted in NY. Did the election criminals need to make sure they had enough ballots to over come Trumps huge lead in PA? (The Navarro report has the PA lead at over 555,000.)

You tube video:

Above: USPS Contractor drove thousands of completed ballots from NY to PA (archive)

The Navarro report also points to the surveillance video at the State Farm arena in Georgia where poll workers sent observers home claiming they’re done for the night. (A claimed stoppage of the vote stop.) But a few stay behind and pullout containers hidden under the table and begin counting them without partisan observation. Some ballots are counted multiple times. (Another type of ballot manufacturing.)


Above: Workers in Georgia secretly scan in ballots from containers hidden under tables
after sending observers home.

Another example: As President Trump points out in the below tweet, Pennsylvania legislators, after reviewing their own election data, determined there were more than 205,000 votes than there were voters. This led them to state PA’s certification was in error.  For further detail, see: “PA Lawmakers: These Numbers Just Don’t Add Up & Certification Of PA’s Results Was In Error” by Lindsey Michelle, The Freedom times, Dec 28, 200

The Heart of the Steal

As Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani points out, a central part of the steal was the mail ballot fraud that was executed in all six of the key swing states. That illegal operation clearly netted millions of illegal and invalid votes for Biden.

“I asked, you might note, all your witnesses…to estimate the number of ballots, that went through, mail ballots that went through without any observation by a republican. Because that’s completely illegal. That’s the central part of their conspiracy, because they did that in every other state. They did it in
Pennsylvania. They did it in Michigan. They did it in Nevada. They did it in Wisconsin. And they did it in Georgia.”
Rudy Giuliani – Arizona State Legislative hearing 11/30/20 (video)

 

Destruction of ballots:

Whether cast electronically or with paper, when a ballot goes missing it can be considered destroyed.

The best estimate shows an unusual 7.81% drop in Trump’s percentage of the absentee ballots for Fulton County alone of 11,350 votes, or over 80% of Biden’s vote lead in Georgia.

In other words, President Trump lost, or had about 11,350 votes destroyed in Fulton county alone.

Ballot manufacturing and destruction confirmed

♦♦♦

Indefinitely Confined Voter Abuses

Indefinitely confined voters are those voters unable to vote in person because of old age or some disability. There are two types of possible abuses associated with such indefinitely confined voters.” …

The Navarro report identifies two types here:
Type: 1: “hijacking their identities and votes.”
So stealing their identity or ballot – similar to what happened to Jill Stoke who states her mail-in ballot was stolen:Jill Stoke – mail-in ballot was stolen.
Twitter Link  Article: Trump campaign asking court to stop ‘improper’ votes in Nevada

Type 2: This is essentially fraud: claiming to be indefinitely confined when you’re not. In Wisconsin that’s alleged to have been committed by 20,000 people.

WisGOP: Some indefinitely confined voters are not indefinitely confined

Indefinitely Confined Voter Abuses confirmed

♦♦♦

Ineligible Voters and Voters Who Voted in Multiple States

Ineligible voters include felons deemed ineligible, underage citizens, nonregistered voters, illegal aliens, illegal out-of-state voters, and voters illegally using a post office box as an address. …

There are many reports of this type of fraud:

  • Sean Hannity reported  that prior to the election, there were 50,000 double voters, and 350,000 (based on this Washington Times article) dead people still on the rolls. How many of those dead people “voted” since their names were never removed?
    350,000 Dead people on voter rolls  “Hannity”  11/6/2020
  • Laura Ingraham reports on thousands who moved, and cast illegal ballots in the place of their former residence.
    Laura Ingraham on invalid votes from people who moved. “Ingraham Angle” 11/5/2020

Summary:
The analysis was performed on a data set provided by Matt Braynard and his firm, Election Data Services

  • Estimate of ballots requested in the name of a registered Republican by someone other than that person: 40,875 to 53,909
  • Estimate of Republic ballots that the requester returned but were not counted: 48,522 to 44,892

Ineligible Voters and Voters Who Voted in Multiple States confirmed

♦♦♦

Dead Voters and Ghost Voters

“According to widespread evidence, there was a surprising number of ballots cast across several key battleground states by deceased voters, sparking one wag to quip, in reference to a classic Bruce Willis movie, this was the “Sixth Sense” election – I see dead people voting.” …

In the section above, Hannity reported on 350,000 dead people on the rolls. Below Tucker Carlson points to a Pew study that claims 2 million dead people on the rolls. He also provides a scrolling list of deceased people who voted.


Tucker Carson – lists numerous dead people listed as voting

Below, Elizabeth Preate Havey, Chair, Montgomery County Republican Committee, testifies at the election fraud hearing in Pennsylvania on 11/25/20 that in Montgomery County, at least 188 dead people voted. Others are listed with the associated video clips below.


Elizabeth Preate Havey – at least 188 dead people voted in PA


Chris Schornak testified to 229 deceased voters in Michigan.
See also Life News article here.

Corey Lewandowski provides a concrete example of a vote from a deceased person.
Twitter link  Archive

In passing Laura Ingraham reports on thousands of dead people voting in Clark County NV, in testimony listed below under poll watcher abuses.

If you’d like to do further reading on dead people voting, check the following articles:

For a balanced view on all manner of vote fraud – including dead people voting, and an indication that this is a longtime, ongoing problem (the article was published in 2017), see William Briggs’ article:
Illegal Voting 
By William Briggs, The Stream.org, January 30, 2017

Dead Voters and Ghost Voters – Confirmed

♦♦♦

Counting Ballots Multiple Times

Counting ballots multiple times occurs most egregiously when batches of ballots are repeatedly rescanned and re-tabulated in electronic voting machines. It can also happen when the same person votes multiple times within the same day. …

Take another look at the Georgia video from the State Farm Arena counting center (below). Further analysis shows that poll work Ruby Freeman scanned ballots (the ones that were hidden under the table) multiple times. Does anyone believe Ruby was the only one there doing multiple scans?


Ruby counts ballots multiple times during GA late night vote count after observers are told to go home.
Ballots were pulled out of containers hidden under tables. OAN News 12/23/20

Here is the testimony of Dominion contractor Melissa Carone who was hired apparently to assist with machines during counting. She testifies ballots were counted 8 – 10 times by one person. She states it happened countless times, (and implies multiple people were doing it.)


Dominion contractor witnessed ballots counted multiple times
Posted on Twitter here.

Counting Ballots Multiple Times confirmed

♦♦♦

IV. Ballot Mishandling

Ballot mishandling represents the second major dimension of alleged election irregularities in the 2020 presidential election. …

 

No Voter I.D. Check

It is critical for the integrity of any election for poll workers to properly verify a voter’s identity and registration when that voter comes in to cast an in-person ballot. However, there is at least some evidence of a lack of adequate voter ID check across several of the battleground states. …

Allowing (and apparently encouraging in some cases) people to vote without verifying identification certainly occurred as Just the News reporter Sophie Mann reports in this article and narrates in the below video.  While that type of fraud certainly happens, it dwarfs in comparison to a related type of fraud – no signature verification of mail in ballots. Col Phil Waldren testified (below) in the Arizona hearing that there were 1.9 million unverified ballots. Rudy Giuliani concluded (below) that unverified mail in ballots (many manufactured as testified above by the truck driver) was a central part of the conspiracy to steal the election and defraud President Trump. Giuliani counts up 769,000 illegal ballots.


Above: Reporter Sophie Man reports on many types of voter fraud including
in-person voting with no verification. Archive


Above: Col Phil Waldren testifies to 1.9 Million unverified ballots (all illegal) – Arizona Hearing 11/30/20


Above: Rudy Giuliani sums testimonies of witnesses to unverified ballots – 769,903 (all illegal)
and indicates unverified, illegal ballots was a central part of the conspiracy to steal the election.

No Voter I.D. Check – Verified

♦♦♦

Signature Matching Abuses

“It is equally critical that ballot counters legally verify mail-in and absentee ballots by checking if the signatures on the outer envelopes match the voters’ registration records.”

In Georgia, contrary to state law, the Secretary of State entered into a Consent Decree with the Democrat Party that weakened signature matching to just one verification instead of two. This illegal weakening of the signature match test has called into question more than 1.2 million mail-in ballots cast in Georgia. …

Signature matching abuses are a type of failure to verify voter ID. So the comments highlighted above by Col Phil Waldren and Mayor Rudy Guiliani apply here as well.  Additionally, President Trump specifically addresses the illegality of the Georgia Consent Decree in the tweet below. Breitbart confirms the president is correct in the below noted article.


Breitbart confirms the president is correct in this article:
Fact Check: Trump Is Right, AP Wrong, About Georgia Signature Matching 

Signature Matching Abuses – confirmed

♦♦♦

“Naked Ballots” Lacking Outer Envelope

A naked ballot is a mail-in or absentee ballot lacking an outer envelope with the voter’s signature on it. It is illegal to accept the naked ballot as the outer envelope provides the only way to verify a voter’s identity.

The illegal acceptance of naked ballots appears to be particularly acute in Pennsylvania as a result of ill-advised “guidance” issued by the Secretary of State – a registered Democrat – that such naked ballots be counted. …

Hollywood did a PSA on how to return a mail in ballot which included a demonstration of what a naked ballot is:


PSA demonstrating naked ballots – proper ballot submission

In Pennsylvania, it is illegal to count naked ballots. While such naked ballot counting occurred, as testified to by Gloria Lee Snover, Chairman, North Hampton County Republican committee during the Pennsylvania hearing on 11/25/20 (below) there’s a related, much bigger issue. That’s the issue of counting pristine mail in ballots. Legal mail in ballots were sent to the voter by mail, and returned by mail. Thus they were folded – both to be mailed and to be returned. Those folds are easily detectable. Yet Susan Voyles testified to, and signed an affidavit stating she witnessed “pristine”, unfolded, identical ballots being counted in Georgia. How did unfolded ballots arrive? Apart from being identical, they were clearly not mailed, and thus clearly naked and illegal.


Above: Gloria Lee Snover testifies about illegal naked ballots being counted in PA.


Above: Susan Voyles testifies about “pristine”, identical, unfolded
mail in ballots during at Atlanta Georgia hearing 12/3/20 (Legit mail in ballots are folded.)

“Naked Ballots” Lacking Outer Envelope – confirmed

♦♦♦

Broken Chain of Custody & Unauthorized Ballot Handling or Movements

The maintenance of a proper chain of custody for ballots cast is the linchpin of fair elections. Chain of custody is broken when a ballot is fraudulently transferred, controlled, or moved without adequate supervision or oversight.

While chain of custody issues can apply to all ballots, the risk of a broken chain of custody is obviously higher for mail-in and absentee ballots. This is because the ballots have to go through more hands. …

Chain of custody issues are a serious and significant issue in election fraud. Everyone from election officials to the public at large should know where each and every ballot came from. If there’s no chain of custody, there’s no proof the ballot is legal. Navarro points to hundreds of illegally placed drop boxes. A valid chain of custody would prevent not only those, but also prevent ballot production such as what was caught on tape at the State Farm Arena in Georga, the illegal shipping of completed ballots between states, and the ballot dumps with no chain of custody documents as testified to by Shane Trejo in Michigan:


Shane Tejo: Ballot dump – ballots have no chain of custody MI 12/1/20

This is not an isolated incident as the Navarro report points out in Table 2. Attorney David Shestakas also points to chain of custody issues in the 11/25/20 Pennsylvania hearing:


Attorney David Shestakas – chain of custody issues – PA Hearing

Here is the problem as reported by in the Georgia Star News, and featured in a political ad:

DeKalb County Cannot Find Chain of Custody Records for Absentee Ballots Deposited in Drop Boxes: ‘It Has Not Been Determined If Responsive Records to Your Request Exist’ 


Ad highlighting lack of chain of custody documents In DeKalb County, GA

Broken Chain of Custody & Unauthorized Ballot Handling or Movements – Confirmed

♦♦♦

Ballots Accepted Without Postmarks and Backdating of Ballots

Across all of the battleground states, it is against state law for poll workers to count either mail-in or absentee ballots that lack postmarks. It is also illegal to backdate ballots so that they may be considered as having met the election deadline for the receipt and counting of such ballots. There is some evidence of these irregularities in several of the battleground states. …

  • Hannity shares a widely viewed Project Veritas video of a Michigan USPS whistle-blower stating he was instructed to place ballots found after the 11/3/20 election date in a special bin so they could be back dated by hand stamping them with the election date.


Project Veritas’ James O’keefe speaks with USPS whistle-blower about back-dated ballots

It’s been widely claimed that he recanted that statement and affidavit. The whistle-blower, later identified as Richard Hopkins, denies he recanted his claim in this video: (archive)


USPS whistle blower denies retracting claims

  • Below, another testimony of back dated ballots, this one in Wisconsin – 100K ballots: (archive)


Ethan Pease, a whistle-blower who worked as a USPS subcontractor during the election, says USPS sent carriers to look for 100k outstanding ballots on Nov. 4th, USPS backdated them, and had them delivered to election officials.(WI)
As related to Lou Dobbs  Archive

  • Also recall the report above from Michigan by Sophie Mann regarding lack of voting ID; that report started with the issue of backed dated ballots.

Ballots without postmarks were certainly sent to counting centers. Were those ballots without postmarks actually? The problem with verifying that claim is that the testimony of dozens of poll watchers is that they were denied access to actually see the ballots, and so had no meaningful access and could not do their job. Following is a typical testimony from attorney Justin C Kweder at the Philadelphia hearing 11/25/20. Not only is it illegal to deny such access, but the fact that the battleground states consistently, and often times belligerently did so is strong evidence that they were processing illegal ballots. Testimony of naked ballots, coupled with the chain of custody issues and a refusal to allow access to view the ballots (below) is strong evidence that ballots without postmarks – and other illegalities – were accepted.


  Above: Justin C Kweder – Hundreds of thousand of unobserved ballots processed in Pennsylvania (all illegal)


Above Adam Lexalt – 400,000 unobserved ballots were processed in Nevada (all illegal)

Ballots Accepted Without Postmarks and Backdating of Ballots – verified

♦♦♦

V. Contestable Process Fouls

Contestable process fouls represent the third dimension of election irregularities in the 2020 presidential election. The various forms such process fouls can take are illustrated in Table 5 across the six battleground states. …

Abuses of Poll Watchers and Observers

Central to the fairness and integrity of any election is the processes by which observers monitor the receipt, opening, and counting of the ballots. You can see in the Table 5 that poll watcher and observer abuses were present across all six battleground states. …

In the section above, denial of access to view ballots was already testified to by Justin Kweder and Adam Lexalt, which is a type of abuse – given observers have a legal right to observe the process. Following is an instance in Philly where a poll watcher was denied access to even enter the facility.


Poll watcher denied access to even enter a Philadelphia counting facility.
Hannity 11/5/20

This denial of access was apparently not accidental. Below Corey Lewandowski points to a plan to keep republican observers out – because they had a prepared “hit list” of people (republicans) they intended to keep out – and he was on it.


Corey Llewandowski – name appears on pre-prepared list to deny access

Beyond denials of access and the ability to observe the counting, there were many instances of intimidation, and hostility.  Some examples follow.


Bill Carzon to Michigan Senate hearing 12/2/20 : Intimidation and hostility


Hima Kolanagireddy to Michigan Senate hearing 12/2/20:
Agitators, Intimidation, and hostile environment

While there are a number of other examples, let me leave this topic with the testimony of Olivia Jane Winter in Pennsylvania. Though a democrat, she testified to seeing or experiencing Intimidation, Electioneering, Harassment, Double Voting, and Incorrect Mail In Ballot Remittance.


Olivia Jane Winter: Intimidation, Electioneering, Harassment

Abuse of Poll watchers and observers – confirmed

♦♦♦

Mail-In Ballot and Absentee Ballot Rules Violated Contrary to State Law

In Georgia, more than 300,000 individuals were permitted to vote who had applied for an absentee ballot more than 180 days prior to the Election Day. This is a clear violation of state law.

In both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Democrat election officials acted unilaterally to accept both mail-in and absentee ballots after Election Day. State Republicans have argued this is contrary to state law.

In Pennsylvania, absentee and mail-in ballots were accepted up to three days after Election Day. On November 7th, in anticipation of a legal challenge, the United States Supreme Court ordered that the approximately 10,000 absentee and mail-in ballots that had arrived past November 3rd be separated from ballots that had arrived on Election Day. This direction notwithstanding, a poll watcher reported on November 7th that, in Delaware County, ballots received the previous night were not being separated from ballots received on Election Day, contrary to state law. …

These issues deal with whether the battle ground states followed their own election laws.  They did not, which is the basis of the law suit Texas put before the Supreme court, which the high court (in a move this writer can only describe as cowardly) refused to hear. Nevertheless the issues are clear, and 18  state Attorney Generals signed on, confirming their belief in the validity. (They are from the states of: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia.)

Sean Hannity lays out the issues well, and also points out a number of types of fraud present in the 2020 election (which the high court has refused to address).


Sean Hannity explains the Texas Supreme court case – and how laws were broken
12/9/20 – Update – SCOTUS refused to hear the case.

  Mail-In Ballot and Absentee Ballot Rules Violated Contrary to State Law – confirmed

♦♦♦

Voters Not Properly Registered Allowed to Vote

One of the jobs of poll workers is to ensure that in-person voters are legally registered and are who they say they are. Across at least three of the six battleground states – Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin – this job may not have been effectively done.

In Wisconsin, for example, officials refused to allow poll watchers to challenge the qualifications of people applying to vote or require proof of such persons’ qualifications. In Georgia, more than 2,000 individuals appear to have voted who were not listed in the State’s records as having been registered to vote. …

  • Following is the testimony of Col Waldren and Representative Kelly Townsend at the Arizona hearing on 11/30/20. In it, Rudy Giuliani concludes  “There is no question in any reasonable person’s mind, that the vote totals contain large numbers of illegal votes from people who are not citizens of the united states.” He encouraged the state legislature to take over the conduct of the election from the election officials because the election was “…conducted irresponsibly and unfairly.” Representative Townsend outlines the process illegal aliens can use to vote in federal elections.


Col. Waldren- In Arizona 300K ineligible voters; State Rep. Kelly Townsend – 36,000+ possible illegal voters.

Voters Not Properly Registered Allowed to Vote – Confirmed

♦♦♦

Illegal Campaigning at Poll Locations

Poll workers are supposed to remain politically neutral. When a poll worker displays bias for one political candidate over another at a polling location, this is contrary to state law. Unfortunately, this law appears to have been repeatedly violated in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. …

Regarding electioneering, I direct you again to the testimony of Olivia Jane Winter above – who testified to multiple people engaged in illegal electioneering in Pennsylvania. Additionally see the following articles:

Voters Complained About Threats, Aggressive Electioneering and Racism at Polls
By Adriana Gallardo, Maryam Jameel & Ryan McCarthy, Propublica Truthout.org, Dec 7, 2020

Dems Caught Cheating In Philly? Poll Watchers ‘Blocked,’ Philly GOP Raises Alarm [UPDATED]
By Chris Menahan, Information Liberation, Nov 3, 2020

Illegal Campaigning at Poll Locations – Confirmed

♦♦♦

Ballots Cured by Poll Workers or Voters Contrary to Law

Under prescribed circumstances, both poll workers and voters may fix ballots with mistakes or discrepancies. This process is known as “ballot curing.”

In nineteen states, poll workers must notify voters if there are errors or discrepancies on their ballots and allow them to “cure” or correct any errors so their votes will count. However, in states that do not allow curing, ballots with discrepancies such as missing or mismatched signatures must be discarded. …

I direct you again to the testimony of Gloria Lee Snover, Chairman, North Hampton County Republican committee. In the Pennsylvania hearing on 11/25/20 she raised a number of significant issues – including concerns around illegal ballot curing, which then led to equal protection questions:

“…The major concerns regarding this election are: Equal protection.
Were the democrats and republicans treated the same?
Were they given the same information and opportunity to vote?
Did they equally have an opportunity to cure their disqualified ballots? Not in my county
– Gloria Lee Snover


Gloria Lee Snover testimony:  no equal protection regarding ballot curing, facilitating fraud, 11/25/20 – PA

  Ballots cured by poll workers or voters contrary to law – Confirmed

♦♦♦

VI. Equal Protection Clause Violations

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and a fundamental pillar of the American Republic. This Equal Protection Clause mandates that no State may deny its citizens equal protection of its governing laws. …

 

Higher Standards of Certification & I.D. Verification Applied to In-Person Voters

The first alleged violation focuses on the application of higher standards of certification and voter identification for in-person voters than mail-in and absentee ballot voters. In effect, these higher standards disproportionately benefited the candidacy of Joe Biden because President Trump had a much higher percentage of in-person voters than mail-in and absentee voters. Indeed, mail-in and absentee ballots were largely skewed for Joe Biden across the country by ratios as high as 3 out of 4 votes in some states.

Note here that much of the alleged fraud and ballot mishandling focused on mail-in voters and absentee ballots. Therefore, the lower the level of scrutiny of these voters, the more illegal votes for Joe Biden relative to Donald Trump could slip in. …

  • This higher standard for in person voting was achieved by democrats largely by drastically lowing the certification standards and security for mail-in and absentee ballots. As Mark Levin points out below, democrats and their surrogates filed hundreds of lawsuits prior to the 2020 election. The purpose of these lawsuits, as constitutional and election law expert and former member of the federal election commission Hans Von Spakovsky explained, was “… to get rid of any of the protections and measures put in place by states to try to prevent fraud in the use of absentee ballots.”  Levin notes below they were largely successful.


Hans Von Spakovsky: Dem strategy to facilitate fraud – remove fraud protections and lower certification standards

    • Confirmation of lower standards for mail in ballots is also given by attorney Elizabeth Preate Havey in her testimony before the Pennsylvania State hearing on 11/25/20. Her entire testimony, including no meaningful access to observer 200,000 ballots – thus making them illegal,  is available here.

Higher Standards of Certification & I.D. Verification Applied to In-Person Voters – Confirmed

♦♦♦

Different Standards of Ballot Curing

As a second major violation of the Equal Protection Clause, likewise observed across all six battleground states, different standards for correcting mistakes on ballots (ballot curing) were applied across different jurisdictions within the states. Often, jurisdictions with predominantly Democrat registration were more expansive about allowing the curing of ballots than jurisdictions with predominantly Republican registration.

In Pennsylvania, there was a clear difference between how ballots were – or were not – cured in Republican counties versus Democrat counties. …

  • The testimony of Gloria Lee Snover in Pennsylvania concerning different standards of ballot curing is presented above.
  • Following is the testimony attorney Elizabeth Preate Havey, Chair, Montgomery County Republican Committee who testifies to the different treatment republicans and democrats were given with regards to the ability to cure ballots.  The below video focuses on the ballot curing differential treatment. But since her testimony includes a number of significant (though off topic) points, such as no meaningful access to view ballots (thereby making 200,000 ballots illegal), and confirmation of the removal of signature verification spoken of by Levin and Von Spakovsky above, I have made her entire testimony available here.


Elizabeth Havey, County Republican Committee chair: No meaningful access to view over 200,000 ballots
(thus they’re illegal), dead people voted (PA)

Different Standards of ballot curing – Confirmed 

♦♦♦

Differential and Partisan Poll Watcher Treatment

In most states, political party candidates and ballot issue committees are able to appoint poll watchers and observers to oversee the ballot counting process. Such poll watchers and observers must be registered voters and present certification to the Judge of Elections in order to be able to fulfill their duties at a polling location.

Such certified poll watchers should be free to observe at appropriate distances regardless of their party affiliation. Yet in key Democrat strongholds, e.g., Dane County in Wisconsin and Wayne County in Michigan, which yielded high Biden vote counts, Republican poll watchers and observers were frequently subject to different treatment ranging from denial of entry to polling places to harassment and intimidation. …

The testimony of poll watchers and observer  being preventing from observing has already been presented:

For good measure, here’s a couple more:

  • Laura Ingraham reports on a number of abuses including the following:
    – A Philadelphia officials refused to comply with court order for observers to have access
    – A Philadelphia Poll watcher was blocked from watching:

    Laura Ingraham reports on numerous poll watcher abuses
  • Here’s the testimony from a Michigan worker:
    Views obstructed, observers thrown out, objections ignored.

    Evan Shock – View obstructed, objections ignored, observers removed

At this junction it should be noted that obstructing views was an intentional strategy of the democrats.

  • Poll worker Adam de Angeli testified in the Michigan hearing 12/1/20 that during training they were instructed to use social distancing guidelines to prevent observers from seeing the ballots.


Adam de Angeli – Poll worker training instructed workers to use social distancing
to prevent observers from seeing ballots. Clear planning to facilitate fraud.

Differential and Partisan Poll Watcher Treatment – Confirmed

♦♦♦

VII. 2020 Election Voting Machine Irregularities

Perhaps no device illustrates that technology is a double-edged sword than the machines and associated software that have come to be used to tabulate votes across all 50 states. Types of voting equipment include optical scanners used to process paper ballots, direct recording electronic systems which voters can use to directly input their choices, and various marking devices to produce human-readable ballots. …

Large-Scale Voting Machine Inaccuracies

Much has been made about the shadowy genesis of a company called Dominion which provides voting machines and equipment to 28 states. According to critics, Dominion’s roots may be traced to an effort by the Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez to rig his sham elections. Dominion is also alleged to have ties to the Clinton Foundation, while the Smartmatic software used in the Dominion machines is alleged to have links to the shadowy anti-Trump globalist financier George Soros. …

  • The Navarro Report points to high rates of Inaccuracies in Agilis machines which perform automated signature matching on ballots. That charge is confirmed by Clark county officials in Nevada in a lawsuit concerning the Agilis machines,  which was reported in “GOP campaigns, voter file lawsuit alleging improper votes in Nevada“:

“If it rejects a signature, as it does 70 percent of the time, that ballot goes to county staff for verification, with Gloria having the final say.

“A recent test revealed how 89% of the flawed signature matches made it past the election security measures.”

Both 70% and 89% are indeed very high rates of failure for an automation system.

  • In addition to signature matching problems, there was also testimony in a hearing in Pennsylvania on 12/30/20. Cathy Latham, chair Cobb County Republican party testified that voting machines could not come up with the same count twice – after five runs.


Cathy Latham: Unable to duplicate counts. View Testimony from tweet hereArchive

Election Voting Machine Irregularities  – Confirmed

♦♦♦

Inexplicable Vote Switching and Vote Surges In Favor of Biden

As a further complication to the Novus software problem in Arizona referenced above, the software was not only highly inaccurate. According to observers, and as an example of inexplicable vote switching, “the software would erroneously prefill ‘Biden’ twice as often as it did ‘Trump.’”

At least one instance of a large and inexplicable vote switching and vote surge in favor of Joe Biden took place in Antrim County, Michigan – and it is associated with the controversial aforementioned Dominion-Smartmatic voting machine hardware-software combo. In this Republican stronghold, 6,000 votes were initially, and incorrectly, counted for Joe Biden. The resulting vote totals were contrary to voter registration and historical patterns and therefore raised eyebrows. When a check was done, it was discovered that the 6,000 votes were actually for Donald J. Trump.

Note: While not reported in the Navarro report, it is the conclusion of this analysis that fractional vote counting as revealed by Dr. Shiva below was another key tactic the democrats were counting on to keep Biden ahead, so this section is worthy of special attention. Ironically, the tactic failed due to the massive landslide vote for Trump, the programmed Biden advantage was unable to keep up, forcing the massive vote dumps which are covered later.

The switching of 6,000 votes in Michigan from Trump to Biden that Navarro refers to was well reported. State officials initially claimed that the “glitch” was a problem due to human error. But that claim has since been thoroughly debunked by Matt DePerno after he was given access by a judge to review the voting machine. It was not human error, it was done by the software running on the Dominion machines.  Since this software was running in 47 counties as NewsMax reported, this is no trivial problem.

Matt DePerno: the “glitch” was not human error – it was planned programming.

So the vote switch was done by software, not a human. But can it be proved that it was specifically engineered to switch votes? Yes, that too has been proven by Dr Shiva Ayyadurai , who not only identified the tale-tell signature of a computer algorithm running, but he also identified the algorithm.

The Dominion machines were programmed to weight the votes. Biden votes were weighted at 1.3, and Trump votes were weighed at .7.  This is how the Biden team intended to stay ahead of Trump. But as Sidney Powell has remarked on a number of occasions, the landslide vote for Trump was so great, it “broke” the algorithm.  What she means is that even with the programmed advantage, Biden was still losing. That’s what necessitated the midnight vote dumps as caught in the video at the State Farm arena in Georgia. That’s why they had to ship completed ballots from New York to Pennsylvania – to add sufficient votes to get Biden ahead. These huge vote dumps resulted in the very visible vote spikes or “surges” as the Navarro report calls them. Such spikes or surges are easily identifiable. Here are links to the spikes in Wisconsin and Georgia which are also covered in the final tactic below.

In Dr Shiva’s tweet below is a graph of the progress of the Arizona election. The line is composed of individual dots that represent individual votes. In the video that follows, Dr. Shiva explains the process to match that exact progression of votes – represented by the slope of the curves. A straight one to one correlation of votes for Biden or Trump will not match it in any scenario of whole number votes however distributed. The only case when the exact progression was matched was when Biden votes were weighted at 1.3 and Trump’s were weighted at .7.  This means fractional voting was occurring, or as he put it, votes were swapped from Trump to Biden. Fractional votes are, of course, impossible in a fair, legal election. So this is clear evidence of a fraudulent election.

Dr Shiva Ayyadurai – to match the above election progress fractional voting (which is fraudulent) must be used


Dr Shiva Ayyadurai – Arizona Testimony.  Archive

Following is Dr Shiva’s testimony from the Michigan hearing. In it, he identifies the tell-tale pattern of a computer algorithm adding votes, instead of votes being added naturally by real voters. When a graph of real voters is generated the resulting line is a parabola – as the red one on the left. But the actual results from the Michigan election is the straight blue line progression on the right, instead of the expected parabola. That is indicative of an algorithm, and thus vote fraud. Dr Shiva provides details in the “Dr Shiva Live” video below.


Top: The graph of the vote progression should be a parabola, not a straight line.
Bottom: Dr. Shiva explains the only way to get the straight line is by using a weighted race algorithm,
similar to what was done in Arizona above. Clear evidence of vote fraud. Archive.

Additionally we know from computer expert Jovan Pulitzer, inventor of the QR code, that the voting machines were online – on the internet – and remotely accessible. Thus operators could remotely manipulate the machines and the votes in real time. Just as importantly, they could see if the algorithm was keeping up with the votes. If not, they could order up a vote dump. Alternately, if the algorithms were insufficient to maintain a lead, democrat vote thieves could do a certain amount of manual vote swapping themselves.


Computer Expert Jovan Pulitzer reveals the Dominion voting machines were networked and online

Vote Decrements

Because of the vote swapping as described above by Dr Shiva; and the ability to manipulate votes online real-time as described above by Jovan Pulitzer, votes were deducted from President Trump. This was seen both online real time during the election reporting, and in post election analysis.


Online decrease (vote swap) of votes for President Trump in PA.
Trump loses 19,958 votes; Biden Gains 19,958 votes

Data Integrity group shows Trump lost 432,116 votes in Pennsylvania
The Data Integrity group: break down by county and absentee votes shows Trump lost 432,116 votes in Pennsylvania.

Short video (summary) from the Data Integrity Group on Votes lost, Vote Fraud
Full presentation by the Data Integrity Group on voter and election fraud hosted by American Thought Leaders

Inexplicable Vote Switching and Vote Surges In Favor of Biden – Confirmed

♦♦♦

VIII. Statistical Anomalies in the Six Battleground States

The 2020 presidential election appears to feature at least four types of statistical anomalies that raise troubling questions. …

Dramatic Changes in Mail-in and Absentee Ballot Rejection Rates from Previous Elections

It is routine across the 50 states for mail-in-and absentee ballots to be rejected for any number of reasons. These reasons may include: the lack of a signature or adequate signature match, a late arrival past a deadline, the lack of an external envelope that verifies voter-identification (a naked ballot),nor if voters provide inaccurate or incomplete information on the ballots.

In the 2020 presidential race, Joe Biden received a disproportionately high percentage of the mail-in and absentee ballots. Perhaps not coincidentally, we saw a dramatic fall in rejection rates in Pennsylvania, Nevada, and especially Georgia.

For example, in Nevada, the overall rejection rate dropped from 1.6% in 2016 to 0.58% in 2020. In Pennsylvania, the 2016 rejection rate of 1.0% dropped to virtually nothing at 0.28%. The biggest fall in the overall absentee ballot rejection rate came, however, in Georgia. Its rejection rate fell from 6.8% in 2016 to a mere 0.34% in 2020.

Note: While it might seem to be a minor problem, in reality it is no trivial matter. Navarro points out (in a video of his appearance with Jesse Watters now deleted from YouTube. Here’s the link if you want to see the reason YouTube is claiming it should be deleted.) that if historical rates applied to the Georgia mail-in ballots, that change alone would win the Georgia race for President Trump. For your reference Navarro’s comment has been reposted here.

Hans Von Spakovsky, former member of the federal election commission, confirms the precipitous drop in the the Georgia election. (Numbers for other states were still pending at the time.)


Hans Von Spakovsky – surprisingly low rejection rates.

Other sources have noticed the anomaly as well. Here is another comment regarding Georgia and other states:

“This year, the rate of rejection in that state stands at 0.2%, more than thirty times lower than the last election, according to the U.S. Elections Project, an election data site run by University of Florida political science professor Michael McDonald that draws its figures from state reports.”

“In key swing states this year, mail-in ballot rejections plummeted from 2016 rates”
Daniel Payne, Just the News, Nov 13, 2020

Like the Navarro Report, this next article looks at a number of factors indicating fraud in this election. But it includes a section on the unbelievably low rejection rates, given the huge increase in mail-in voting:

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

Yes, It Was a Stolen Election – You’d have to be blind not to see it.”
John Perazzo, FrontPage Mag, Dec 23, 2020

Dramatic Changes in Mail-in and Absentee Ballot Rejection Rates from Previous Elections – Confirmed

♦♦♦

Excessively High Voter Turnout (at times exceeding 100%)

When there are more ballots cast than registered or eligible voters, fraud has likely taken place. During the 2020 presidential election, excessively high voter turnout occurred across all six swing states. …

  • A particularly egregious example of this occurred in Pennsylvania, where according to the states own date, 202,377 more ballots were cast, than people who voted. This prompted the Pennsylvania state legislators to send a letter to Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy urging them to oppose the election results. View the OAN news segment on it here.


Pennsylvania election: There were  200K+ more votes cast than voters. Clear fraud.

Other examples of exceedingly high voter turnout:

Excessively High Voter Turnout (at times exceeding 100%) – Confirmed

♦♦♦

Statistically Improbable Vote Totals Based on Party Registration and Historical Patterns

The 2020 presidential election was characterized by strong partisan voting patterns consistent with historical patterns. As a rule, heavily Republican jurisdictions voted heavily for President Trump and heavily Democrat jurisdictions voted heavily for Joe Biden.

In some cases, however, there were instances where these partisan and historical patterns were violated. It is precisely in such instances where either outright fraud or machine inaccuracies or manipulations are most likely to be operative. …

There are a number of statistics that show that republic registrations were up compared to democrat registrations – such as this one . (Votes tend to follow registration by party.) But of greater interest, and perhaps impact,  is the 6,000 vote “glitch” that Democrats tried to pass off as “human error”, but was determined by computer expert Matt DePerno to be due to a computer program and thus was intentional. That “glitch” also has the capability of flipping red districts blue – without having to win over a single voter. That alone speaks to fraud. But often left unconsidered is the possible extent of the fraud. Consider the following two tweets:

These tweets point out:

  • The extent per state – remember the glitch was reported in one county. Multiply that by the 47 counties running the software in Michigan alone and you’re looking at a potential 282,000 vote swing.
  • The extent for the country. If glitches were found in eight states, we’re looking at potentially 1.6 – to 2.2 million vote swing nation wide – that’s huge. And that’s apart from all the other fraud already documented.
  • Notice the glitches were all one way: favoring Biden. How convenient. More evidence the glitch is a planned feature to commit fraud, and not human error – which you would expect benefits both candidates, not just one.
  • Finally let me point out that the initial glitch was caught by an alert worker in a republican county who was surprised to see the county go blue and investigated. Had it not been noticed, then the situation as noted above would certainly have occurred, but gone unnoticed: namely a historically republican county voting heavily democrat.

Let me close this section with the testimony of financial analyst and mathematician Bobby Piton from his Arizona testimony, as well as from a report by OAN News. Since his testimony can be detailed and hard to follow for those who do not love math as much as he does, a summary is provided. For those who would like to hear the entire testimony, the OAN summary report is here, the full Arizona hearing testimony is here. Piton points out the following items of significant interest:

  • As pointed out above, Piton points out there are about 202-205K more votes in PA than there are voters.
  • There are 520,000 unique names in the voter roles indicating that the person has no family in the state. To put this in context,  there are only 4 million unique names in the entire country. That means that 13% of all unique names must be in a state with only 4% of the US population. That’s highly improbable – like trying to squeeze an elephant into an old fashioned phone booth.
  • Population is growing at 1% per year, but voter rolls are growing at 7% per year. To put that into context, over a decade that’s a difference of an increase of 11,000 (at 1%) or 95,000 (at 7%) given a base 100,000 population. That’s an increase of 84,000 phantom voters – names on the roles, but the  people don’t exist. Names fraudsters could use to vote anyway they want. He believes this has been going on a long time – and was likely greatly increased for this 2020 presidential election.
  • Like Dr Shiva, he is confident his data points conclusively to vote fraud.

This voter “creep” as Piton calls is another way to flip a county – by adding phantom voters.

 Statistically Improbable Vote Totals Based on Party Registration and Historical Patterns – Confirmed

♦♦♦

Unusual Vote Surges

Several unusual vote surges took place in the very early hours of the morning of November 4th in Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. An analysis conducted by the Voter Integrity Project of The New York Times publicly reported data on Election Day that showed several vote “spikes” that were unusually large in size with unusually high Biden-to-Trump ratios. Such spikes or surges could well indicate that fraudulent ballots had been counted. …

Computer forensic expert Col Phil Waldren explains in the Philadelphia State senate hearing on 11/25/20 the significance of spikes in a graph of the vote as a prime indicator of fraudulent activity. Then he reveals that in Pennsylvania, Biden received a 570,00 vote spike while Trump received 3,300 votes – to an audible gasp from the audience.


Col Waldren: reveals a 570K spike for Biden in PA while Trump received 3.3 K votes

Below  is an example of the vote spike from Georgia.  It’s clear that in the middle of the night at 1:36 AM in the morning, Biden got a huge vote dump. Total Biden votes at that time period were 225,196; so it looks like the dump added at least 120,000 votes, probably more, up to 205,000. Thereafter it appears the fractional vote algorithm was able to keep the Biden lead, where previously, Trump had been winning all night.


Georgia spike of 120K+ or more votes during after hours shutdown with no observers

Here’s the vote spike from Wisconsin:

Wisconsin vote spoke with an addition of 100,000 or more votes in that brief period.

These spikes are further clear evidence of fraud.

  Unusual Vote Surges – Confirmed

♦♦♦

Final Thoughts and recommendations

It is said that hind sight is 20/20. Looking back, clearly we should have been alarmed when Joe Biden claimed:

“We’ve put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.”


Joe Biden on the extensive fraud organization the Dems built. (Archive)

Now we understand why he made that comment. It was not a gaffe. He was not mistaken. Nor was he lying. It appears simply to be a result of his cognitive decline failing to keep hidden one of the many lies he’s lived with for many years: The apparent plan, spanning years, to fraudulently defeat President Trump by cheating. It also now makes sense why he continually told people he didn’t need their vote to get elected and didn’t even bother trying to persuade people who disagreed with him. He knew he didn’t have to. He thought his fraud machine would handle getting him the apparent votes he needed to take the office – like a coup maddened conspirator would. But as liars often do, he under-estimated the people he’s lying to: The American Public. We The People. We The People see through the lies of the democrats and won’t allow a coup via fraud to deprive the rightful winner of the election – Donald Trump – of the office he won through four years of success after success in the office; and months of hard campaigning while Joe Biden hid in his basement, called early “lids”, and answered soft ball questions like what type of ice cream he prefers.

For some reason, liars think people can’t see through their lies. They seem to think that if you’re not watching them commit the fraud, and if they don’t confess, you really don’t have evidence of what they’re lying about. They don’t seem to understand how evidence works. Here’s a hint: you don’t need an eye witness to a crime to know it happened. Watch a few episodes of Forensic Files. All you need is the evidence, preferably forensic evidence. And we’ve got plenty of that. Most the American public did not witness these crimes. But we have the testimony and evidence of many who did. We have testimonies, affidavits, video tape of hidden ballots being counted multiple times, watchers denied access. We have mathematical analyses of many aspects indicative of fraud including voter turnout, rejection rates, election vote progression analyses, vote spikes, etc. We have computer forensic analyses of network connected voting machines that could be remotely manipulated in real time. We have evidence that the foreign made software running on those machines was capable of, and in point of fact did vote swaps (the “glitch” was no glitch – it was planned) and counted illegal fractional  votes. Let me say that again: Fractional Votes! As Dr. Shiva says we do not have one vote counted equals one vote tallied everywhere in this country anymore. Such fraudulent vote manipulation is the hallmark of a third world country. It should never have existed in the United States of America. And unless we fix this problem now, it is clear the U.S.A., and We the People will never have an honest election again. The question is what are we going to do about it?

Charge to Legislators

Trump attorney Jenna Ellis has summed up the legislative responsibility succinctly. It is up to the state legislators to protect the integrity of the election. The constitution grants the state legislatures the sole control over the appointment of electors. They must take back that responsibility, reject fraudulently electors, and send the correct electors to vote.


Jenna Ellis to state legislators: Take back your power; don’t certify fraudulently chosen electors.

And if they won’t act it is upon the Senates to reject the fraudulent electors put forth by thieves and fraudsters who clearly do not care about truth and honest, much less what this would do the country if allowed to stand.

As lead attorney Rudy Giuliani points out, correcting this will take courage. Perhaps. More importantly, you officials with the authority to do so need to discharge the duties of your office. You took an oath of office. As Jenna Ellis pointed out, it’s not an option, it  is your duty to make sure the correct electors are sent.  Anyone who does not want to discharge this duty should resign immediately.  Likewise any senator that does not to appose accepting the fraudulent chosen electors should resign immediately. (If not WE THE PEOPLE should remove them – they are either to cowardly, to compromised, or too willfully ignorant to be in office.)

Charge to WE The People

In his report, Navarro succinctly points out how republic officials – who should want a republic president elected – have failed the people:

Consider that the Republican Party controls both chambers of the State Legislatures in five of the six battleground states – Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. These State Legislatures clearly have both the power and the opportunity to investigate the six dimensions of election irregularities presented in this report. Yet, wilting under intense political pressure, these politicians have failed in their Constitutional duties and responsibilities to do so – and thereby failed both their states and this nation as well as their party.

This means we can’t count on the cowards, co-conspirators or compromised politicians who refuse to act. But what are we to do?

Bobby Piton put it well. Why are there no repercussions for people who commit election fraud in politics? If a CIO or CEO signs fraudulent documents, they’re held accountable. Why are not politicians and the people they hire or induce to cheat likewise held accountable?


Bobby Piton: Why are there no repercussions for politicians who cheat?

Mr. Piton brings up an excellent point. The American public should not put up with:

  • Politicians who perpetrate fraud
  • Politicians who refuse to prosecute fraud, promising to handle it later
  • Senators who are okay with a stolen election.  (Are you okay with someone stealing your house or car? Why should Americans be okay with a stolen election? Why are not all politicians not fighting to correct it?)
  • Senators who believe there is no evidence of fraud. Such senators are either too corrupt, complicit, cowardly or willfully ignorant and should not be in office.
  • Senators who refuse to reject the fraudulently chosen electors in the 2020 election. Each such senator should be voted out of office.

Every politician who is not fighting to right this grave attack on our nation should be removed from office. Every single one, regardless of party. Think that is too drastic? In a tweet 12/26/20 President Trump tweeted out a video that said the 2020 election reeks of corruption, even treason. The video went on to say this election fraud is the greatest threat to the republic since the American revolution. (Full video here. (archive))

This writer agrees on both accounts. It has been wisely and correctly stated, “by their fruit you will recognize them.” We don’t need to know the reasons why individuals are not joining the fight to correct this great wrong – be it corruption, cowardice, ignorance, whatever. We only need to observe the action – or inaction. If any politician will not act to stop this attack on the United States, this attempted steal of the presidency, then We The People should vote each such politician out of office. Further, as noted by Bobby Piton, there should be real consequences. Those who conspired and knowingly assisted in the fraud should be prosecuted.

Unless We The People stop this with real consequences, we cannot be assured it won’t happen again.

A Test for this Present Election

Computer Experts like Dr. Shiva and Jovan Pulitzer have indicated real ballots can be distinguished from fraudulent ballots.

In addition to all the above, the way to further prove fraud right now is to examine the ballots. But that’s a dual edged sword. Since it will expose fraudulent ballots, it will also go a long way toward exposing politicians either complicit in the fraud, or actually a part of the fraud. So those involved will resist it. Which is a clear sign for those seeking truth: Any politician resisting forensic audits and examination of the ballots should be considered either complicit or corrupt and compromised and should be removed from office.

By the way, this can also be used to identify news media outlets toeing the line for the CCP and democrats. Knowing that half the country believes that there is an active attempt to steal the election, if they aren’t doing their job by demanding forensic audits and ballot images, and instead are claiming it’s all a conspiracy theory – nothing to see here; if their main response is ad hominem attacks, calling everyone presenting evidence (including those highlighted in this report – many of whom have sworn affidavits) liars or fools or other names; if they are defending politicians who are destroying evidence, stone walling requests for the machines; and are in general impeding an open, fair, transparent review, then you know they’re a fake and compromised news outlet pushing an agenda, with no regard for the truth.  Such organizations will have many reporters with advanced cases of Trump derangement syndrome (TDS) and cannot be trusted. You can safely disregard anything they say about fair or fraudulent elections.

Here’s another test: Acceptance of clearly false excuses. Consider the Georgia ballots-under-the-table video. A Forbes piece dismissed the video , choosing to accept the lame excuse that “local Republican officials say it showed normal vote-counting.” Why is this reporter not curious about the lie poll officials told observers to get them to go home? Or the illegal activities – like ballots being counting multiple times?  And the fact that all the ballots were illegally counted since there was no observer and thus are invalid? The Georgia video is significant evidence. Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani considers it akin to the Zapruder film in the JFK case. If a news reporter buys that the Georgia video shows “normal counting”, you know such a reporter is not interested in the truth, and thus cannot be trusted, and should be disregarded.

Going forward, We the People need to demand common sense safe guards to help insure honest elections in future. Since we clearly can’t rely on rogue state supreme courts or even the US Supreme court to act in the interest of We the People, the American public should demand that at minimum, the following should be enacted:

  • Outlaw Dominion voting machines any other other electronic only voting machines and go to a paper ballot system. All results from every county should be posted promptly so people like Bobby Piton (or anyone else) can review the results if they care to.
  • All ballots images must be retained per 52 USC 20701; and any person or politician who refuses or neglects to retain such images so should be prosecuted and go to jail. Ballots should be available upon request for audit by authorized partisan officials.
  • Access MUST be granted to poll watchers, and there must be an easy way to quickly and immediately report a lack of access to the proper authorities who will either allow the access or if not  SHUT DOWN the counting and initiate a required immediate forensic audit which includes an examination of the ballots and the machines.
  • Voter ID laws must be standardized across the country. You can’t do most things in this country, (drive, get on a plane, etc.) without an ID. Why should it be any different for voting?
  • Any person conspiring to commit voter fraud, or any type of election fraud, or knowingly committing fraud or violating voting safety regulations (like refusing access to documented observers, or manipulating votes – whether electronically or physically (i.e. via counting ballots multiple times) should be prosecuted and go to jail.

Conclusion

White House advisor Dr. Peter Navarro produced a thorough, well documented paper on the extensive fraud that occurred in the 2020 election. Since the main stream media was not interested in doing an honest evaluation and merely did hit pieces, there was no real attempt to validate the claims in his report. This fact check reviewed each claim across his six dimensions and found evidence supporting each claim.  The democrats clearly attempted to steal the 2020 presidential election from president Donald J Trump. Steps need to be taken immediately to correct fraudulent counts and electors and secure future elections. Those who knowingly participated in the fraud should be prosecuted, up to and including Joe Biden who from previous statements was clearly aware of the fraud, and not only did nothing to stop it but approved it.


♦♦♦  ♦♦♦  ♦♦♦

Updates
1/7/21
Navarro Report Updates
Part 2 of The Navarro Report: “The Art of the Steal”   (Archive)
Part 3 of The Navarro Report: “The Navvarro Report Volume 3”  (Archive) (added 1/14/21)
Reclaiming A Superpower (Further detail on the election theft – see particularly appendices) (Archive)

Jovan Pulitzer:
Confirms Ballots with preprinted votes were used. (Tweet Archive | Georgia Testimony Archive)
Can detect fake ballots – whether preprinted, or not folded
Instructs on what Poll pads are and how hackers use them as a vector to attack and hack into voting machines. (Archive)

1/9/21 Additional resources (Data Integrity group shows vote decreases, vote flipping)
1/26/21 Links updated, clarified.
1/27/21 Heart of the steal – Giuliani quote highlight
2/10/21 Melissa Carone

♦♦♦  ♦♦♦  ♦♦♦

Additional resources:

Public Data Shows 432,000 Trump Votes Removed in Pennsylvania | American Thought Leaders
(video)

Georgia Data Show Over 30,000 of Trump’s Votes Removed,
Another 12,173 Switched to Biden: Data Scientists

Worthy of consideration – The data shows votes were deducted. (Should never happen)
Testimony of the Data Integrity Group at  the Georgia State Senate Meeting 12/30/20:

Twitter link  (The Tweets link to Data Integrity Group videos referenced – archives here: 1  2  3  4  5)

Please follow and like us:
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
1 Comment
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments