Tuesday, November 10, 2020

PA And MI Updates

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:

Excuse Me While I Call BS: In Michigan

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.

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. ...



    Is linking to 5-1 verboten?

  2. Mark,

    Maybe a worthy topic, McCabe finally testified for the peacock committee today. I've made it though an hour or so of it.

    1. Were his lips moving? It hardly seems worthwhile at this point.

    2. Very would data and analytics on PA mail in issues. I love the source data being all laid bare to review.

      Also, the CFP link meme vs direct link to epoch is worthy 😆

    3. Epoch Times reported on this

  3. I suppose its human nature to speculate whether enough fraud can be found in a place like Michigan to change the result. I know its a big number.

    But here's how I see it based on the kinds of fraud that are emerging. I start with the proposition that, in fact, more legal ballots were marked for Trump than Biden in most, if not all, swing states. (If not, why did the Dems bother?) The conspirators had to 'change' or 'find' enough votes to reverse the result.

    The challenge for Trump's lawyers will be to find evidence of enough of those votes to subtract back to the real result. But their effort is absolutely justified.

  4. For better or worse, they will have to do better than "that wasnt supposed to happen."

    While these macro trends should give us very strong suspicions, the courts are unlikely to wade into anything that lacks hard evidence.

  5. J.E.Dyer has a good article on the "military campaign" going on now. She makes a good case that Trump (and Barr) knew everything for a long time already, and there will be major events unfolding soon.

    She ends on a humourous note:
    "What was Trump doing this past weekend, the darkest of his presidency if we go by media opinion? Playing golf."

    I've seen reference to Trump playing golf before, as in "strange that he always plays golf just before he does something major".


    1. Thanks Frank. Scrambling a bit here, will be checking it out.

    2. More major stuff from Dyer:
      "we’re in for something much bigger in the coming days than some reports on election irregularities in a few states in 2020....
      it occurs to me that China has been awfully quiet in the last week....
      Durham did do something with it (Hunter's laptop). Everything in it about Ukraine and China was germane...."

      Wouldn't it be cool, if Hen. D.'s outbust on CNN related to, say, Hunter having stuff on the laptop, about Chinese plans to use/ penetrate CIA vote-hijacking software?

    3. Typo: "KEN D's expletive outburst", not "Hen. D.'s outbust".

    4. Trump played golf this weekend...and I recall he ate chocolate cake with Xi.
      Trump is a cool customer.

  6. The Evidence For Voter Fraud

  7. These are computer voting systems. I don't know what y'all's expertise is but mine is in ground level data analysis and data engineering. I migrate data for a living from one system to another and every time I migrate data I manipulate the data often times en masse or in very large batch operations. None of this is mysterious to me. Any single one of these so-called "glitches" is evidence of a breach of the integrity of the dataset. If one record in the dataset is vulnerable to corruption, they all are. We simply should not be talking about voter fraud and people having to prove enough votes were changed to tip the balance. The hackers had access to ALL the ballots if they had access to one. Really think about that and let that sink in. Any individual hacker, an antifa punk or some jackass with an hour to kill (doesn't have to be high level dnc deep state 3 letter agency perpetrator for our purposes here) could have access to flip a state if they are good enough ( apparently these vote counting systems are embarrassingly vulnerable to hacking). And we're sitting here wringing our hands over whether we can locate enough dead people ballots to add up to victory. The systems in many states were compromised. Just a matter of who has the will to reveal it.

    1. Totally agree with you, Mark. This scale of an operation had to have been done as you describe, but with the addition of the 'voter fraud'. The thing about the voter fraud is that it works synergistically with what you describe, for PR purposes. It's got 'sex appeal'.

    2. When there are no paper ballots, voters are simply puppets in a charade, required to believe their votes will be honored as intended, with no way to ever know what became of their votes once they disappeared into a machine.

    3. Dff21,

      However, there is a paper trail. I am beginning to wonder right now how many accidental warehouse fires are soon to start that just happen to be the secure storehouses for that paper.

  8. Whilst a lot of the analysis on this blog tends to the quantitative, I'm more interested in the qualitative - what indicators are there out there that are positive?

    For mine, Graham and McConnell supporting POTUS is a big positive flag. They read the room better than most, and are morally happy to go wither the wind blows. They like Trump's chances.


    As any non-TDS sufferer knows, you take Trump seriously, but not literally. Based on that heuristic, Trump is confident he will win, though it may be via SC and EC rather than voter fraud per se.

    Looking internationally, leftist leaders worldwide have congratulated Biden, but the cannier operators- Xi, Putin, Netanyahu, have hedged their bets – they certainly reckon Trump may yet win.

    We know Trump was confident he’d win before election day, he said it, he projected it. He knew that fraud was coming. He knew about Hunter’s laptop, at the very least on the day Rudy found out about, perhaps earlier.

    We know he trusts Barr. We know Barr was wary of fraud. Add in Hunter’s laptop, there is a fair assumption that Barr was privy, via FISA or the like, to intel. Trump friggin’ played golf even whilst the media crowned Biden. He seems quietly confident.

    A final point: Durham. We all whined when Durham punted till after the election. But perhaps Trump wanted it? There were commentators that thought bringing indictments close to the election would muddy the waters for normies. Perhaps Trump agreed. But perhaps, he was confident he’d win, expected fraud, and needed a PR bazooka post election. As it stands, the Overton window for normies precludes the notion that the US is as corrupt as Venezuela.
    But if Durham indicts big fish, and Biden is at the very least guilty by association, if not an unindicted co- conspirator – that bigly helps the fraud narrative, as the Biden/Dem motive is now clear and obvious to normies.

    1. Great comment Charles. Just before I got to enable your comment, I wrote this on another thread:

      Also, check out how Trump-supportive Lindsey Graham has been. Judiciary is oversight on FBI criminal stuff. And firing Esper and replacing with acting--the new acting chief of staff is Kash Patel, Nunes' top investigator, but moving over now from similar position for Ratcliffe. Smacks of taking control of the military. With Barr talking to McConnell yesterday and turning USAs loose, Lindsey talking up the PA fraud today (and I don't believe Mitch would let Lindsey go out on a limb like that), and Haspel called in to Mitch today ... something big has to be up.

    2. Charles, let me run this past you. You say "We know [Trump] trusts Barr." You know I agree. Think back to that campaign appearance when Trump said that the Dems should be thankful that Barr is such a "nice" and "fair" guy. Trump wasn't savaging Barr. He likes him and trusts him. Is it possible that Trump was giving them a chance to back off? To allow a fair election? Because Trump had the goods already? Spare the country? But they went ahead, crazy as they are, and now ...?

    3. "Graham and McConnell supporting POTUS is a big positive flag....
      Xi, Putin, Netanyahu, have hedged....
      perhaps, he was confident he’d win, expected fraud, and needed a PR bazooka post election."

      I had referred to that prospect here days ago, but I didn't imagine that it could be such a huge bazooka, maybe containing foreign involvement.

    4. Fair call, Mark. That is perhaps what he meant. My only doubt is that Trump would have known the Dems wouldn't back down - it is against their entire essence.

      At the time, I thought he meant it simply thus: Barr has the ability to act like Weissman - make life difficult for your opponents, within the confines of the law and 'plausible deniability'. But as an honorable man, he chooses not to.

      In any case, Barr's utter silence, not just post election, but regarding Durham (lack of 'developments') and Hunter's laptop (and the FBI having it since '19), can mean nothing other than the calm before the storm.

    5. Mark, no matter what, you always give an out, a way to save face. You do this no matter how vile he/they have been. This solely puts the hammer that thwaps them based on their actions.

      What is this hammer, though? And, no, I don’t mean Hammer and Scorecard, but I do not totally discount that either from once written internet packet sniffers.

    6. No idea what you're talking about.

    7. TD is referring to leaving the bad guys an egress. Sometimes it's a good idea. But sometimes not.

    8. Texas, my brain goes in weird places but even in the conspiracy of conspiracies I can't follow.

      Mark like myself has very different views on people, agencies, theories and so on but he doesn't give *an out* and I don't see him trying to save face.

      The two of us are OFTEN on opposite sides with each other but I can say he has ever been deceptive or unfair in his thoughts.

      He runs the Barr Fan Club (BFC), I run the Barr Hate Club (BHC).

      I see him leave room for critical thinking, criticism and points yet to be decided or known. Pro or con of his beliefs is pretty irrelevant.

      Running a blog is a lot of work and time. I'm grateful for the spot he has carved out because most of the posters here run on the side of less *wild speculation* and more *show us the evidence*.

      It's a nice break from GWP and others where expressing a unpopular opinion of today's unhinged conspiracy results in bashing.

      Be clear, make your point, I may even support the argument and if I do I'll debate along with you. But please don't make things personal, aloof or argumentative.

    9. I wouldn't leave anyone an egress. I'm suggesting that Trump was leaving them an out--which would include gracefully watching him kick ass in the election. That might have have been Barr's suggestion: Donald, give them a chance to do the right thing. I wouldn't have done that.

    10. "Donald, give them a chance to do the right thing. I wouldn't have done that."
      A reason why DJT would've done that could be, that his taking that road may've enhanced his backing in key circles (e.g. DoD), such that now (in the light of this recent evidence) they *must* grant his premise, that the Dem brass are outright sociopaths, who must be smashed using *all* (legal) means.

    11. I can see the force of those arguments. My assumption is that Barr would have argued that it would be best to spare the country the trauma by letting the Dems do the right thing--although it was taking a risk. My feeling is that it's gotten past the point that they could ever be trusted. Obviously, under this thinking the Dems would have understood they were gravely threatened by Barr's investigations, but would not have understood that Trump was prepared for their election fraud, too. Hey, it's a theory.

    12. Although he used the term "you," I got the sense that TexasDude was referring generally, not you personally.

    13. Uhh, jeez, yeah, when addressing Mark, the “you” I used was general, not specific.

      I try to give folks a way to save face even if they are going to jail or being charged.

    14. Yeah, "it's gotten past the point that they could ever be trusted", maybe even for guys like Roberts.
      I'm guessing, that Barr would've urged this course, on the prospect that even guys like Roberts have a limit, beyond which they'll admit "yeah, DJT, these Dems are indeed beyond the pale."

  9. And, this software that Powell references is not new A predecessor cousin was used by the FBI in the late 1990s.

  10. Problem with this theory by Powell is that this software just can’t be anywhere on the internet as I understand how things still work. I mean, the basics still exist.

    What I am saying is that this software or software in a box needs to be at key points in our entire internet system or plugged into a network that specifically had these voting systems on.

    So, either we are wired right now to be surreptitiously surveilled on all IP communications or there was a substantial effort to do this by setting up a massive network.

    By bets on the former, hello Admiral Rogers.

  11. Regarding saving face ...

    Let’s say you have someone ignoring the face mask order in Texas. You can’t enforce the order per Gov Abbott. However, if the establishment asks the person to leave, per the order, and Texas law in general, that’s now criminal trespass. That is enforceable.

    Yet, this is all about masks. So, you give the person an out, a way to save face. You explain the order by the governor and explain what I stated above noting that the incident is about to turn into an enforceable violation of state law and the order.

    That’s the out. The hammer is the arrest not due to the mask issue, but their refusal to leave at the request of management.

    Every time I gave that out, they took it.

    Same principle in negotiations, which is what a lot of what law enforcement is about, especially in cases where charges/arrest can be avoided by compliance.

  12. Point .. Since things are making its way through ..,

    It is wise to allow an out if all you want is compliance.

    Sidney Powell brought up the CIA software/hardware Hammer/Scorecard. Supposedly this used to flip votes to Biden.

    Short enough?

  13. Didn’t mean to confuse or be argumentative.

    I apologize for both.

  14. Texas,

    I think I understand what you are getting at. I've talked a lot about hammer and scorecard and I know a few things about both but far more about hammer and it's history.

    It's a really really complex subject but I'll take a crack at it to give a better understanding based on what I know, have seen, learned, heard but no one can say 100%.

    Hammer is a brute force read tool. It basically accesses networks to steal data. If you need to steal a lot of data and get it into a workable database for analysis that's your tool.

    Yes it is a older software tool but I believe vintage 2000's and produced / created by Dennis Montgomery and updated accordingly.

    So... If you wanted to "read" the state of Michigans election database, that's your tool to get in and view it, grab data, analyze it watch it, whatever.

    It could also be used to access state registration data and other things pre election... Who has, who has not returned a ballot, etc. Very valuable if you are going to mass print prefilled ballots.

    Scorecard is reported to be a election outcome tool. My personal thought on how this works is by editing the data in between the county level collections and the upload of that data into the state database. (A singular place)

    I do know it's not a internet related IP tool used over a network. That is far to risky in detection and no one (with a brain) puts a voting machine "online"... Yes I know there have been "reports" of this. I'd have to see it to believe it.

    Vote changing is a tricky business because it leaves traces no matter what you do in a database. If you change a value it creates a log, if you delete the log, it creates a log of the delete... You're stuck in a circular mess

    So the idea that someone (or software) just goes in rewriting tables is kinda ludicrous. (There is another Mark M? on the site here whom has stated the same)

    You need to catch that data between the county reporting as it's going into the state database. Often by memory card, sometimes by upload over a network. (network doesn't = internet)

    That fits the story out of PA where the 6000 Trump votes ended up flipped for Biden. Reportedly *at the time of upload*.

    Scorecard and a few other election prediction softwares are reported to work off of voting percentages. If you tell it you want 49.9 for one guy and 50.1 for the other no matter what totals are fed in it will create those returns.

    I've said a great deal about this a few days ago. To be very honest if it wasn't Sydney Powell saying it I probably wouldn't have believed any of this.

    If these were used I've also said I don't expect to see any of it publicly acknowledged because these are SIGINT (Signals Intelligence) tools. Products of the NSA now held by the CIA.

    I personally would THROW A PARTY if they dragged this into court.

    In a previous posting I said... If they did in fact use these tools, you would get faster answers if you were to bulldoze Langley to the ground then sift through the remaining rubble by hand.

    So... It's not on the internet, not being used over networks in the conventional sense and has very few points within a system to be used. Probability of ever learning who, how and what 1000⁴ to 1 odds.

    Mostly I think Sydney's mass statement of this whole thing on network TV was to cause a rift and put people on notice. Someone was doing something they shouldn't be and the fastest way to stop it was to say it in public. Turn the light on, watch the roaches scatter.

    That's my .10 cent slide show on SIG tools. Toys the government shouldn't be allowed to own.

    1. That why I stated one option would be a network the machines are on. If the machines don’t use IP to transmit then it’s probably straight FTP, File Transfer Protocol. Encryption, if any, more than likely would be minimal.

      Your 2nd to last paragraph is another example of giving an out. Note, an out does not inherently mean they are scott free.

    2. Shouldn't DHS be all over this? Devilman, I think these systems , dominion and others are in fact networked and I have seen it referenced several places that Dominion uses a database in Barcelona and the vote count data if not the rest of it passes through the Barcelona site on it's way to the media for broadcast. Hard for me to believe but certainly easy to confirm I would think.

    3. I've seen that repeatedly, as well. There's another location in Frankfurt where the data is stored, as I understand it.