I know everyone is picking up news here and there. However, Red State has three particularly worth updates on what's going on with election fraud research - investigation - litigation in PA and MI.
First, Pennsylvania. The update is handled by Shipwreckedcrew. Please note in the title the words "New Lawsuit". This lawsuit is in addition to the lawsuit that is already being addressed by the SCOTUS:
New Lawsuit By Trump Campaign In Pennsylvania Challenges Handling of Mail-In Ballots in Seven Counties -- Seeks to Prevent Certification of Outcome
You may have seen earlier today that Lindsey Graham was pointing a finger at the way mail-in ballots were handled at PA nursing homes--25K mail-in ballots. The article doesn't discuss that, but that situation may be one part of the new lawsuit.
The article itself is long and detail dense from a legal standpoint--the complaint is over 100 pages long. I won't try to summarize it, but these excerpts should give you a good overall idea of what's going on:
The “Verified” complaint is over 100 pages long. The fact that it is “verified” is significant because that means the answer cannot make “general” denials of the allegations of the complaint. The allegations must be responded to specifically with an admission or denial or each factual allegation, and the answer must be signed under penalty of perjury by the defendant — the Secretary of the Commonwealth.
The causes of action alleged are
1) Denial of Due Process on Right to Vote, and Invalid Enactment of Regulations affecting Observation and Monitoring of Election;
2) Denial of Equal Protection Invalid Enactment of Regulations Affecting Observation and Monitoring of the Election;
3) Violation of the Electors & Elections Clauses;
4) Denial of Equal Protection Disparate Treatment of Absentee/Mail-In Voters Among Different Counties;
5) Violation of the Electors & Elections Clauses;
6) Denial of Due Process Disparate Treatment of Absentee/Mail-In Voters Among Different Counties; AND
7)Violation of the Electors & Elections Clauses.
The goal of the suit is not to alter the vote count in Pennsylvania — the Supreme Court may do that in the case now pending before it involving the changes to Pennsylvania election law ordered by the State Supreme Court. The goal in this suit is to prevent the Secretary of the Commonwealth from certifying the outcome of the contest on November 3 beyond the date by which electors must be named, in which case the task of naming electors will fall to the Pennsylvania Legislature.
With that, on to Michigan.
There are two articles, and both deal with some of the details of the election fraud--a general pattern in one case and very specific actions in the second.
The first article is by Scott Hounsell. It follows exactly on his article yesterday about Wisconsin, and finds exactly the same pattern of questionable voting totals in a relatively few Michigan counties--Biden drawing hugely more support in those counties than did Obama or Hillary:
The details are quite similar to what Hounsell saw in his review of the WI vote totals. He examines eight counties, but here are some representative examples:
In Washtenaw County "Biden outperformed Obama by 29.98 points or 13,834 votes. Remember, Biden didn’t beat Obama’s average in Wayne County (home to Detroit and neighbor to Washtenaw County) Biden missed that mark by 1.47% yet in Washtenaw, Biden not only meets that but beats it by 30 points? Red flag anyone?
In Leelanau County(6.23% increase in registration since 2016), Biden outperformed Obama by 33.71%.
Kent County, Biden beat Obama’s turnout by 40% (39.99%) in a county that saw just a 10% increase in registration since 2012. That increase netted Biden another 48,000 voters. In our last County, Ottawa County, Biden outperformed Obama by 51.08% in a county that saw just a 13.52% increase in registration since 2012.
The article has lots more relevant detail for all these examples--as well as several more counties. But you get the picture.
In his conclusion Hounsell focuses on what we could call the methodology or strategy of what seems clearly fraudulent. Rather than trying to pump up Detroit's totals unduly--because that would probably have led them into very dicey turnout terrain--the ploy was to claim better numbers from counties that would ultimately go to Trump. To me, this seems to be a pretty clear indicator of election fraud--jiggering of vote totals, rather than the physical fraud we'll see in our final section. Here's how Hounsell explains it:
The trend I am beginning to see is what appears to be operations in counties where Dems feel that they could pick up a lot of votes, where they didn’t have to carry the counties (Trump won most of the counties) but that they only had to clear enough votes out of these counties to allow for the metro areas to carry the state. Does it look like fraud? Can’t say, but again, the mysterious disappearing double-digit advantage strikes again. I could understand a slide from 1 county to the next by say, 8 or 10 points. Hell, go buck wild and say 15 points. 38 to 65 points? Huge red flag.
Long and the short of it, I don’t see enough votes in Michigan for Trump to come back for a win. Sure, there’s plenty of questionable data here, and enough to justify further investigation. Biden leads the state by 149,000 votes. I agree that these gains are likely questionable, but even if we erased the gains from these counties, we still only end up with a Biden lead of 24,000 votes. I welcome an investigation, but I believe efforts would be better spent on Wisconsin.
Finally, put Hounsell's defeatist attitude toward Michigan in context with the final article:
Report: Detroit Poll Watcher Logged "Tens of Thousands" of Biden-Only Ballots Delivered In Weird Way
For our purposes we'll just paste in a tweet that should be both highly explanatory and pretty self evident.
🚨🚨 EVIDENCE 🚨🚨— Elizabeth Harrington (@LizRNC) November 10, 2020
Detroit Poll watcher: At 4:30 a.m. on Nov. 4 "tens of thousands of ballots" delivered from out-of-state
"Unlike the other ballots, these boxes were brought in from the rear of the room"
"I specifically noticed every ballot I observed was cast for Joe Biden" pic.twitter.com/wFHhGsxEWS
The author concludes:
Many are calling this “hearsay” and at any other time, it would be, however, if this is a sworn affidavit from the poll watcher in question, then it is evidence.
This requires some measure of investigation to fish out and some questions do remain to be answered. For instance, why was this delivered from the back room when it’s typically not delivered from that area? Why were the vehicles who delivered the ballots from out-of-state? How many of these Biden-only votes are actually legal?
There’s a lot of suspicious activity happening here and with some investigation, we can get to the bottom of things. ...