Saturday, May 8, 2021

UPDATED: Election Fraud Investigations Continue

We're all looking forward to see the results of the audit from Arizona soon, but already more and more irregularities in the handling procedures and in the access authorities are being revealed. Dem and, yes, GOPe stonewalling continues at a high legal level--local authorities are defying state senate subpoenas, even though state legislatures--under the US Constitution and most state laws--are in charge of elections. Some of these issues are finding their way to the SCOTUS. There's plenty of time for these matters to be resolved--or, if not resolved, then aired--before Election 2022.

As I've said previously, I simply don't have time to cover all the ins and outs of these investigations. As a result I'm waiting for more details on a broader scale than are currently available. We know that there are ongoing investigations with regard to GA, MI, and WI. I'm not sure what the situation is with regard to PA, but I believe there is action there, too.

I notice that my last reference to these matters at any length was all the way back at the beginning of February: BRIEFLY NOTED: Matt Braynard Is Still On The Case. In that post I noted Braynard's continuing outstanding efforts to document and expose widespread fraud. At that time I quoted Braynard from an appearance he made on Steve Bannon's show--and I don't believe anything has happened to change his assessment:

What I’m finding and continuing to find, because we’re actually still doing research, and we’re looking forward to presenting it more aggressively without the constraints of the lawsuits we were entangled with initially, is that among those three states, the number of illegal ballots surpassed the margin of victory. Georgia, Wisconsin, and Arizona, without those three, Joe Biden isn’t president – and I think we can prove that fairly conclusively.

Last night and this morning TGP had several posts which illustrate what Braynard was talking about as recently as two months ago (he's been on the case for far longer). Braynard, in his conversation with Bannon, focused strongly on Wisconsin, and since then there have been continuing revelations of collusion between local Dem elected officials and national Dem operatives--often circumventing local election officials. The first TGP report delves into more of that. It's now being documented that the scope of these operations was quite widespread:

Smoking Gun Emails Reveal How Milwaukee Shared Government Election Data with Far Left Groups – Prove Existence of Massive Ballot Harvesting Operation

TGP quotes documentation that shows that outside Dem operatives were being given extraordinary--and unauthorized--access to voting information. That information would logically have only one purpose: a massive ballot harvesting operation. Much of this activity was being funded by multi-million dollar grants from Mark Zuckerberg.

Meanwhile, in MI the legal wrangling continues. TGP covers developments here:

BREAKING: Michigan Attorney Deperno Files New Findings – Alleges 1,061 “Phantom” Ballots Found in Antrim County 2020 Election

To show what TGP is talking about, I'll quote from the Deperno filing (linked by TGP)--which is an eye opener, but hardly surprising. The real point, of course, is that if what is described was going on in Antrim County, a heavily GOP county, one can hardly imagine the scale of these shenanigans in the major metro countries. I'm not able to copy and paste from that PDF file, so I'll type it in with a summary from the table on p. 9:

We can clearly see in each of these graphs that there is a near perfect turnout consistently between the ages of 65 to 80:

[Graph showing voting data for the 15 townships of Antrim County. The graph shows:

total ballots cast (14,901) and the number that were

sent to PO Boxes (3,019--20.3%)]

One may wonder what is causing a near 100% turnout in these age groups. We believe it directly correlates to the fact that 20.3% of all ballots in Antrim County were sent to PO Boxes as demonstrated in the chart above. As we see in the charts below, there were 15,962 ballots present at the hand recount on December 17, 2020.


However in the chart above ... (showing 20.3% of ballots sent to PO Boxes), we see that there are only 14,901 ballots in Defendants Benson's official database (i.e., only 14,901 people actually voted). This means that of the actual 15,962 ballots counted in December, there [are] 1,061 that are not in the database, meaning they do not exist on the voter rolls, meaning they are most likely phantom ballots. Where did they come from? The actual ballots must be audited.

It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate from this data to a statewide level, and to then apply such extrapolations to other swing states, based on data that has been gathered. The conclusion of massive fraud is inescapable--so it seems to me.

Finally, Russ Ramsland--who works closely with Sidney Powell on Dominion issues--is quoted in the most recent TGP election post (“The Battle This Time Is Over One Thing – Truth” – Cybersecurity Expert RUSS RAMSLAND Releases Exclusive Comments to The Gateway Pundit) stating inter alia:

You will soon be reading things about me and my organization from the Washington Post. Other media outlets are sure to follow. These accusations are intended to malign me and my team in the hopes that their audience will believe what we are doing is wrong. The more outlandish the accusations, the more likely it is that they know the conclusions we may eventually reach are true. Ultimately, they want us to quit the job because they do not want us to release our findings. My team is one of many investigating the last election, and the media will attack every single one to prevent the truth from coming out.

Rather than accepting misleading media “hit pieces” in an ongoing campaign to undermine these investigations, we simply ask citizens to keep an open mind, examine the information and forensic evidence we release, and arrive at their own conclusions. We do not intend to be intimidated out of completing the investigation.

So, the investigations continue to advance and to make progress. Polling by Rasmussen shows that the American public is continuing to assimilate the evidence in a broadbrush way. There's still plenty of time between now and Election 2020. We're already seeing, I believe, results of these developments in AZ. The two Dem senators from AZ are breaking ranks on several issues, and I attribute that to their perception that the legitimacy of their elections may be called into question--by AZ voters. The same may hold true in other states, as well. While this may never present us with perfect justice or a dream outcome--doubtful--there remains hope for accountability on several levels.

UPDATE: H/T to Thomas Lifson, genial editor of AmThinker, who today points to an article with numerous links at The Election Wizard. It's one of those "one weird trick" kinda things, and it extrapolates to the national level what I referred to above:

Census reveals weird anomaly: Shows millions less voted in 2020 election than official tally

Here's how that works:

US Census data released last week called into question the official vote tally from the 2020 election. As part of the Census, the government collects data on citizens who self-report as having voted in presidential elections. The collected data shows an unusual anomaly in the reported results.

According to the Census, the recorded number of people voting in 2020 was tallied at 154,628,000. On the other hand, official results place the number of actual ballots cast slightly north of 158 million. That’s a discrepancy of nearly four million votes.

Speaking to pollster Richard Baris during an episode of “Inside the Numbers,” lawyer Robert Barnes said historically, the Census tends to “pin on the nose” the recorded vote numbers with the actual results. In other words, often the two data sets reasonably match.

Sorry, but I haven't plowed through the data to find exactly where those four million extra votes turn up, but here's the one clue from the article:

Barnes pointed out the Census data also calls into question a number of contested states too.

For example, in Georgia, the bureau recorded roughly 4.8 million voting, while official results show slightly less than 5 million. Barnes said the discrepancy is consistent with claims that there were roughly 100k questionable ballots cast in Georgia.

Pollster Richard Baris stated many election experts have often viewed the Census data as generally reliable. Yet, for some reason, some experts have now flipped the script, claiming the 2020 data is the result of a Census “blunder.”

For some weird reason ...


  1. "Much of this activity was being funded by multi-million dollar grants from Mark Zuckerberg."

    I find it amazing how much Zuck has done in this area:
    So much "Integrity" - as we know, the corruption of language to mean the opposite

    Integrity Initiative - funded by Zuck, joined with News Integrity Initiative
    Narrative Initiative - upstream from Zuck
    News Integrity Initiative - founded and funded by Zuck
    Election Integrity Initiative -term first used by Zuck, created for Canadian election, partner with Atlantic Council
    Google News Integrity Initiative
    Transition Integrity Project - founded by Open Society folks

    Omidyar-backed Democracy Fund, Ford Foundation, CUNY, Bellingcat, Open Society, Momemtum (Obama), First Draft News
    all linked together

    200 page handbook for Global networking of protests, trained by Momentum


  2. Regarding the census data, Dr. Frank's findings suggest strongly that the algorithm operating during the 2020 election was based on 2010 census data.

    This could go a long way toward explaining the discrepancy.

    1. It does appear that slowly but surely the pieces are being fit together. No doubt each state will be somewhat unique, depending on the political as well as legal lay of the land--that's to be expected in our system.

  3. Jay Valentine is hinting at a national fraud database:

    And it seems some adjustments were done to the census do blue states did not lose more seats...

    1. I believe I read somewhere that GOPers are at least talking about a lawsuit re the census.

  4. Baris and Barnes were very convincing in their most recent analysis.

  5. I do believe there was fraud on a grand scale in the 2020 election.

    But I would caution the census figures to be proof of that, The census took place before and during the actual voting

    From the Census website:
    "March 12: The Census Bureau opened its phone lines and online self-response tool, allowing the public to begin submitting responses to the 2020 Census. March 12-20: Households received official Census Bureau mail inviting them to respond to the 2020 Census online, by phone, or by mail."

    People in March of 2020 cannot with accuracy predict they will vote in Nov of 2020.

    Just being cautious. Antrim County and Windham NH are much more convincing cases to me. And I have hope for the outcome of the AZ audit

    1. The actual voter total for Trump seemed to have surprised Left. Which is why you see the massive emergency actions to add Biden Votes. Lots of this was ballots only with Biden marked on them. There was no time to manipulate the census. And historically the census and actual amount of voters track, this time they did not.

      The willful blind eye turned to any indication of election fraud has been eye opening, as well as by whom. Especially the whom...

      >People in March of 2020 cannot with accuracy
      >predict they will vote in Nov of 2020.

    2. Also why the coordinated shutdowns--although that seems to have been planned ahead of time. So they must've known it would be necessary.

    3. @Ray SoCal:
      "And historically the census and actual amount of voters track, this time they did not."

      The 2010 Census was 2 years after the 2008 election, and yes it was very accurate. The 2020 election was 8 months after the 2020 Census began getting responses. That is a very different situation.

      Not disagreeing with the general fraud opinions expressed here. Just this particular argument is shaky IMO.

    4. Anon,

      I wonder if the census differences are only in states where voter fraud has been alleged?

      Only state mentioned in the article was Ga.

      Census data:

      And actual vote:

    5. @Ray SoCal:

      From your last link for the 2020 election and the following link for 2016 there is a real anomaly in the other candidate category:

      For 2016 there were 7.8 M third party votes out of 136.7 M total votes
      For 2020 there were only 3.1 M third party votes out of 158.6 M total votes

      So the actual vote count has a more the 4M difference (less in 2020 than 2016) in third party voting.

      It has been suggested by quite a few observers that the difference in third party votes could have been flipped to Biden in the voter adjudication process, trying to "guess" / assign voter intent. (If they voted third party that means they did not want Trump, so they must have meant to vote for Biden, that's logical).

    6. This is strange...

      I took the two spreadsheets, put them together, and added a column to see if the change in vote not accounted for in the census, could flip the vote. And sorted by largest difference in census guess on vote, vs. actual.

      Interesting that the state with the largest difference is Florida. Hmm...

      SWAG - This was just one of the attempts to add votes to Biden. In Florida not enough votes were added to swing the vote. And other measures did not give the needed votes.

      FLORIDA -1,371,758 flip
      NORTH CAROLINA -744,804 flip
      CALIFORNIA -619,260 0
      MICHIGAN -553,186 flip
      COLORADO -419,980 0
      MASSACHUSETTS -382,402 0
      WASHINGTON -233,631 0
      VIRGINIA -185,524 0
      PENNSYLVANIA -184,449 flip
      CONNECTICUT -143,456 0
      UTAH -119,931 0
      GEORGIA -111,960 flip
      LOUISIANA -107,062 0
      KANSAS -80,484 0
      ALABAMA -76,282 0
      IOWA -72,871 0
      NEBRASKA -64,383 0
      NEVADA -54,376 flip
      SOUTH CAROLINA -54,329 0
      MAINE -53,461 0
      MINNESOTA -52,171 0
      WISCONSIN -45,041 flip

    7. Thanks for taking the time to do that. I hafata say, I'm very surprised IL isn't on that list. Just out of sheer incompetence if nothing else.

    8. @Ray

      I'm a little confused. I understand that it appears that more votes were cast than the census predicted. But how do you subtract the overvote and from which candidate? Do you subtract all overvotes from Biden? if so, why?

    9. @cass

      I kept it simple and ignored the candidates in an excel sheet.

      Total votes actual
      - total votes per census
      Margin of votes winning state

      That is why Florida gives a flip.

      States that were came out as flip:

      Interesting the only two states that went to Trump on this list are Florida and North Carolina.

      My hypothesis is the Democrats thought this would be enough fraud to put Biden over the top, but then Trump’s votes exceeded their forecast margins, and they took emergency fraud measures.

      And my swag on why the amount of fraud in Florida is not discussed is DeSantus wants to avoid showing the dirty laundry the Fl election had. Note, more fraud prevention measures were enacted after the election in Fl.

    10. "why the amount of fraud in Florida is not discussed is DeSantus wants to avoid showing the dirty laundry the Fl election had."

      A benign explanation would be that Dems had no real clue re the huge crossover to Trump from Hispanics would play out--that, after all, was the big FL story.

      Dems, who control the media--including in FL (Miami Herald, etc.) have EVERY reason to flood a story about DeSantis/FL/GOP vote fraud throughout the country, since DeSantis is a feared possible POTSU candidate.

      Why would DeSantis enact anti-fraud measures if they were working in his favor? Perhaps more likely, he saw the extent of Dem fraud and realized that in a closer and less energized election those Dem tactics could carry the day if Hispanic voters didn't turn out GOP like they did for Trump.

    11. @Ray

      "A benign explanation would be that Dems had no real clue re the huge crossover to Trump from Hispanics would play out--that, after all, was the big FL story."

      If I understand you, Mark, isn't the simple benign explanation that the 'overvote' (the difference between census and ballots cast) in Fla did, in fact, go all Biden (as it did in other swing states) but was still not enough to beat Trump? Because Trump beat Biden overwhelmingly on 'real' votes in Fla. So subtracting the overvote doesn't flip Fla, it just makes Trump's real margin that much greater? Same in NC? Or am I missing something?

      By the way, from a non-scientific and anecdotal perspective, the size and the enthusiasm of Trump rallies in Fla last fall, and the crossover Black and Hispanic vote, and Biden's pathetic non-campaign in Fla all make an even larger than expected real world Trump landslide in Fla plausible to me.

    12. @Ray

      "States that were came out as flip:

      Plus Pennsylvania?

      As Dan Bongino likes to say, What a co-inky-dink!

    13. @Ray

      Regarding Pennsylvania, just before the election, the Trafalgar Group pollster, Robert Cahaly, predicted on Hannity that Trump would 'win' Pennsylvania but would 'lose' it...because of: systemic fraud.

      He said flat out that "Trump will defeat ... Joe Biden in Pennsylvania but will likely be a victim of voter fraud." T

      Cahaly explained to Hannity that Trump is up on Biden by two points in Pennsylvania, but Trump has to win “by four or five to overtake the voter fraud that will happen there. It’s very systematic in Pennsylvania.” He said that is the margin the president “needs in Pennsylvania to survive.”

      When Hannity then asked, “You are saying that he will win, but they will steal it?”

      Cahaly reiterated that that is what he means, adding that, “I am saying he better win by 4% or 5% to make sure he gets victory there. That is the margin he needs to avoid what they will systematically do.”

      Cahaly's statement was matter of fact. He expressed no doubt. The fix was in and known before the election.

      Doesn't Ray's spreadsheet prove it?

    14. @Cass

      PA should have been part of the list. I was typing on my iPhone my comment, and then added the list looking at my PC. This is an actual copy and paste.

      State Margin Difference Flip
      FLORIDA 371,686 -1,371,758 flip
      NORTH CAROLINA 74,483 -744,804 flip
      MICHIGAN 154,181 -553,186 flip
      PENNSYLVANIA 82,166 -184,449 flip
      GEORGIA 11,779 -111,960 flip
      NEVADA 33,596 -54,376 flip
      WISCONSIN 20,682 -45,041 flip
      ARIZONA 10,457 251,612 flip

      Az is positive, for more people voted per the census, than actually voted. I don't understand.

    15. Interesting, supposedly shredded ballots were found in Az.

      This would explain why more people said they voted, than actually voted.

  6. Clarice Feldman, at American Thinker, devotes much of her column today to the election manipulation perpetrated in various states. Mark Zuckerburg’s Center for Tech and Civic Life's (CTCL) quid pro quo “contributions” played a major part.

    Scroll down:

    1. Zuckerburg's key role was particularly well documented early on in WI--not sure why, whether simply more alert conservatives there or some other reason. One assumes that his involvement will end up being as well documented in other states, as well.

      Here's the thing about that. I believe that in many states--WI is one--it's illegal (as in, actually against the law) for public officials to accept private money donations to fund the performance of official state functions. The dangers of such an arrangement are pretty obvious, thus the laws.

  7. Zuckerberg spent between $350 to $500 million to influence the election.

  8. Over all... After 240+ years of voting if they have not come up with legislation that actually prevents fraud, it's simply because they don't want to.

    I go back to some of the James O'Keefe reporting where he was flanking the ballot harvesters in Texas and other states. Everyone of them flatly said they work for both parties.

    Very few fish have been fried since that time.

  9. I don’t know if everyone has already seen and discussed the evidence from Dr. Frank and Mary Fanning. It is definitely worth watching.

    1. @Anonymous

      Thanks for posting the link to Lindell's video. It is (at minimum) a good summary of the various allegations which have been made since Election Day 2020. Whether or not you think Lindell has proved the case of a stolen election, he certainly raises numerous and major unresolved questions about the fairness and accuracy of the results.

      An organization which disputes Lindell's assertions has published an extensive rebuttal of Lindell's video:'s-absolute-proof-video-promising-to-expose-election-fraud-is-full-of-false-and-unproven-claims.html

      If you want to invest the time, you can watch Lindell and then read the leadstories post and consider who you believe.

      From what I can tell, Lindell (and others) have found compelling assertions of election irregularities. Lawyers have found probative evidence of possible illegalities, up to and including possible corruption of voting machines, illegal actions by State officials and politically motivated court decisions.

      But, under our system of law, these allegations of irregularity and illegality do not prove the case that the election was stolen. This cannot happen until court (or state legislative) proceedings move forward to hear all of the relevant evidence.

      Here's where I come out. It is unconscionable that most courts (and state legislatures) have been unwilling to hear the complaints and weigh all of the evidence in a full and fair process to get to the truth of election irregularities and illegalities in 2020. One can only hope that existing proceedings in Arizona, Michigan and Georgia (and presumably in other jurisdictions) will eventually hear all of the relevant evidence in open and transparent proceedings.

      As many are saying, doesn't the American public deserve to know whether American elections are fair and conducted in accordance with applicable law?