Questioning the 2016 and 2020 Elections
- Mollie Hemingway [ on Twitter, May 2021:]
I don't recall the corrupt media demanding every Democrat denounce Nancy Pelosi for this tweet, or calling it a big lie. In fact, they agreed with it and helped her push her claim of a "hijacked election" for *years.*
May 16, 2017
Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy & #FollowTheFacts.
When the media and other prominent Democrats all the way up to Hillary Clinton and Jimmy Carter spent four years hysterically repeating that Donald Trump was a traitor who colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election, we didn't call that a "big lie." Why is that? That lie was used to win multiple elections. It *dominated* news, with daily updates suggesting it was somehow true. It was used to bully weak Republicans away from an agenda. And for telling the lie, the media gave itself many awards. But for some reason it wasn't called a lie. But in an election when media invented fake stories (Afghan bounties, Aisne Marne), suppressed real ones (Biden family corruption), pushed fake polls, unprecedented tech censorship silenced opposition, and there was a "revolution" in voting, you can have no questions? Convenient!
Four Stolen Elections: The Vulnerabilities of Absentee and Mail-In Ballotsby Hans von Spakovsky,July 16, 2020, describes how "harvesting" is done by people paid to collect and turn in absentee ballots, something legal in many states.
"In early 2005 specifically, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., along with Rep. Stephanie Tubbs, D-Ohio, objected to Bush’s 2004 electoral votes in Ohio. That forced the chambers to leave their joint session and debate separately for two hours on whether to reject Ohio’s electoral votes. ... Democrats also raised objections in 2001 (against Bush) and 2017 (against Donald Trump), despite not having a senator sign aboard their objection so they couldn’t legitimately have a debate."
"With U.S. Senate Runoffs Near, Georgia's Not Prosecuting Its Unprecedented Number of Double Voters," By Paul Sperry, RealClearInvestigations December 13, 2020:
More than 1,700 Georgians were singled out for illegally casting two ballots in 2020 elections — including last month’s hotly contested presidential race -- but their fraudulent votes weren't canceled out, according to state election officials. And so far, none of the cheaters has been prosecuted, raising concerns about continued fraud as Georgia prepares to vote again in twin U.S. Senate runoff elections next month.
Unsuccessful Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, left, with Joe Biden in Selma, Ala. She and other voting-rights activists pressured Georgia to mail out absentee ballot applications and install drop boxes, which make elections more vulnerable to double voting. (Curtis Compton/Atlanta Journal-Constitution via AP)
The majority of double voters were Democrats who cast an absentee ballot either by mail or drop box and also voted in person on Election Day, officials said, which is a felony under state law.
The 2020 Presidential Election: Biden v. Trump
First of all, the historical record indicates that when a sitting president increases his vote totals relative to his original election, he is reelected. President Trump did increase his vote, not by hundreds of thousands of votes, but by over 10 million (not counting votes of which his supporters claim that he was robbed). Trump’s support among Hispanics, a group often described as hostile to him, expanded to 32 percent, even more among Hispanic men. His support among blacks increased this year by 50 percent.
Another basic fact: certain American states almost always go with the winner. Florida and Ohio are at the top of that list, partly because they reflect the demographic composition of the U.S. as a whole. If you add Iowa, you can predict with high confidence that the winner of those three states will also be the winner of the presidential election. Trump not only carried these states, he won them very comfortably, Ohio and Iowa by about 8 percent, Florida by over 3 percent. In 1960, the outcome in these states was not the same as in the general election. What presidential election was that? Nixon-Kennedy....
There are counties that voted for the winner in the presidential elections from 1980 to 2016. In 2020, with rare exceptions, these counties suddenly reversed course. They did not vote for the person regarded as the winner, but for Donald Trump. Nineteen counties have been identified whose vote is viewed as a particularly good predictor of the outcome in the presidential election. They are virtually certain to go with the winner. It has been assumed that if a candidate carries 15 to 16 of those 19 counties, he is also bound to be the winner of the presidency.
How, then, did the 2020 election turn out in those bellwether counties? Trump won no fewer than 18 of the 19! Even more telling, he improved his performance in these counties. A county having been on the list of voting for the winner of presidential elections for a very long time does not by itself make the outcome there more predictive, but a few examples of such counties are striking. Valencia County in New Mexico has mirrored the outcome of every presidential election since 1952. In that county, Trump won by 10 percent in 2020. Indiana’s Vigo County voted for every president except two since 1882. This year, Trump carried that county by 15 percent. Westmoreland County in Virginia has failed only twice since 1928 to vote for the winner of the presidential election. Trump carried that county by 16 percent. ...
Given Trump’s nationwide surge, it is not surprising that, contrary to media predictions of “a blue wave,” the Republicans actually gained 13 seats in the House of Representatives. Not a single Republican incumbent House member lost—not a single one! ...
It is relevant that the successes for Trump and his party took place despite unexampled, almost unbelievable levels of spending on the part of the pro-Biden, anti-Trump cause. The Democrats vastly outspent Republicans. ---[ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-2020-election-what-happened-a-political-scientists-memorandum/ "Memorandum: How The 2020 Election Could Have Been Stolen A political scientist examines the evidence and concludes that widespread fraud took place."]
"political scientist Patrick Basham reports in the Spectator that “[i]n Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch.” What are the chances of that? "
Biden, the elderly, almost passive, candidate who generated no discernible popular enthusiasm—in this respect the very opposite of Trump—somehow got his numbers in Philadelphia, Detroit, Atlanta, Milwaukee, and other cities in the swing states up sufficiently to “win” the corresponding states, in Georgia by a very small margin. The turnout in these Democratic cities was by the standards of history and as compared to cities outside of the battleground states very high. There are charges that in many precincts in heavily Democratic counties in Michigan, the number of votes cast exceeded the number of registered voters. In Pennsylvania, at least one truck with already completed ballots is alleged to have been brought in from New York. In the same state, laws for how to vote and review ballots were simply set aside by local officials. In previous years, a substantial percentage of mail-in ballots had been invalidated for obvious errors. This year, when new and partly improvised voting procedures had brought in a vastly larger number of mail-in ballots, many of them deposited in drop boxes, almost none of them were invalidated in Democrat strongholds.
In the large states of Florida and Texas, with many large cities, the vote count was completed on Election Night. Not so in cities in the swing states. There, on the evening of Election Day, counting was suddenly stopped. Election observers and most others were sent home. CCTV captured what happened then at a voting place in a convention center in central Atlanta, Georgia. A few election workers stayed behind, pulled out suitcases with ballots from under a covered table and, without the legally required election observers, fed them into the voting machines into the early morning. A large number of sworn affidavits testify to local officials in the cities flagrantly violating election laws and indiscriminately accepting votes that had been challenged. There were charges of ballots being inserted into voting machines more than once. Among the many examples of “traditional” vote fraud and “irregularities” in city political machines was that dead people, non-citizens, and non-residents voted. Many votes were not cast by the people who had actually registered.
After official vote counting had been suspended, tabulations of votes took place that have astounded statisticians and computer experts. These experts have not been able to explain them except as a result of fraud. The issue here was electronic “ballot stuffing.” Votes recorded showed a uniform pattern in several states, such as giving a set percentage of votes to Biden and Trump. Some batches of electronically recorded votes were all or virtually all for Biden.
There were also various “glitches,” explained as “human errors,” some of which were electronically “corrected.” People familiar with election fraud in foreign countries have pointed to the sudden suspension of vote counting and “glitches” as characteristic of computer-generated fraud. The voting machines used in the battleground states have been shown to be rather easily manipulated, e.g., by inserting algorithms to continuously shift votes from one candidate to another. It is surely relevant that in this election, the aggregated election data were connected to the internet and even to servers abroad. That there are methods for manipulating elections through electronic voting is well known to experts, not least in the intelligence field....
In Pennsylvania, one big batch of some 550,000 votes is reported to have been 99.4 percent for Biden, a figure that is beyond preposterous even if you assume it to consist solely of votes from Democratic strongholds. ...
People technically proficient in these matters have speculated that some of the most easily detectable anomalies are due to fraudsters having become desperate upon noticing an even stronger Trump vote than they had expected. To make up for this development, they had to improvise. They took risks, became careless, and could not easily hide the traces of their actions.
---[ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-2020-election-what-happened-a-political-scientists-memorandum/ "Memorandum: How The 2020 Election Could Have Been Stolen A political scientist examines the evidence and concludes that widespread fraud took place."]
In response (or lack thereof) to the other side’s assiduous preparations, the president, his staff, his campaign, and his party committed four serious errors of omission. First, they made hardly any attempt to work with Republican state officials—governors, legislatures, and secretaries of state—to oppose and amend rule changes that would disadvantage them and favor their opponents. As far back as the 2016 election, Trump had complained that Hillary Clinton’s popular vote total had been padded by several million votes by illegal immigrants. Yet he and the GOP did very little to tighten state election procedures. Second, after having failed adequately to oppose those changes, they mounted far too few legal challenges to get them overturned or modified. Third, having declined to challenge the changes, they barely even tried to ramp up their own mail-in voting operation to rival the Democrats’. Fourth, despite numerous loud predictions—both as boasts and warnings—that the election outcome would be unclear and disputed in several states, no team was assembled in advance to investigate and, if necessary, litigate the results. Florida 2000 came as a surprise to candidates Al Gore and George W. Bush. Nonetheless the Bush campaign was able to field almost immediately an army of lawyers, including experts on election law, headed by a former secretary of state, the wily James Baker. The Trump team had at least six months’ warning and, as far as I can see, did nothing to prepare. Michael Anton
In the months leading up to November 3, tens of millions of dollars flooded into key urban areas in battleground states that had the power to, and in fact did, determine the outcome of the 2020 presidential election and some U.S. Senate races. This effort was conducted by an Internal Revenue Service-approved 501(c)(3) nonprofit that is barred under IRS regulations from explicitly providing support—financial or otherwise—to advance the agenda of one political party over another. https://amgreatness.com/2021/01/24/zuckerbergs-safe-election-con/
[Poll Observer Claims 'Statistically Impossible' Number of Military Ballots in Georgia County Went for Biden] BY MATT MARGOLIS DEC 31, 2020
CTCL proceeded to distribute Zuckerberg’s funds to left-leaning counties in battleground states. The vast majority of the money handed out by CTCL — especially in the early days of its largesse — went to counties that voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Some of the biggest recipients, in fact, were the very locales Plouffe had identified as the linchpins of the Democrat strategy in 2020.
Zuckerberg and CTCL left nothing to chance, however, writing detailed conditions into their grants that dictated exactly how elections were to be conducted, down to the number of ballot drop boxes and polling places. The Constitution gives state lawmakers sole authority for managing elections, but these grants put private interests firmly in control.
Amistad Project lawyers tried to prevent this unlawful collusion by filing a flurry of lawsuits in eight states prior to Election Day. Unfortunately, judges were forced to put those lawsuits aside without consideration of their merits because the plaintiffs had not yet suffered “concrete harm” in the form of fraudulent election results. The law had no remedy to offer because the left’s lawless schemes had not yet reached fruition.
In the meantime, CTCL continued splashing Zuckerberg’s cash — only now, the organization was intent on finding Republican-leaning jurisdictions to give its donations a veneer of bipartisanship. Of course, the number of votes in play in those counties paled in comparison to those in the liberal counties.