UPDATED: Things Fall Apart

Highly entertaining pick-me-up article by Jay Valentine at AmThinker: Why Industrial Scale Fraud Is Just So Hard To Hide. Valentine, a former insurance fraud investigator, recounts how two major frauds--Bernie Madoff and Elizabeth Holmes--DIDN'T go undetected for years. That's right. DIDN'T. There were pain-in-the-ass people all along who pointed out that these emperors of fraud had no clothes, but those people were resolutely ignored by the "smart people" and their media acolytes. How smart were the dupes? Well, you be the judge. In the case of Elizabeth Holmes the dupes included: 

Henry Kissinger, William Perry (former Secretary of Defense), Mad Dog Jim Mattis, remember him?  And rounding out the team with a core Republican, meet George Shultz.

So, people "smart" enough to run the world. Or so they would have us believe. And, amazingly, these "smart" people refused to believe irrefutable evidence that they'd been duped. Instead they attacked the accusers and whistleblowers--even family members.

It all took me back. As a young agent I cut my teeth, so to speak, working fraud cases of various sorts--including a union election fraud case (and I did get a felony conviction, despite, well ...). I returned to these sorts of cases later in my career--for a couple of years. Nothing had really changed, not in the basic way frauds work. Including the number of people who would be in denial that anything untoward had happened. Valentine's central theme makes perfect sense to me, as it will to anyone who's been involved with a fraud. Big scale, industrial scale, fraud just gets too complicated to hide--once someone comes across the loose end of the yarn and starts tugging on it.

So after that entertaining account of two major frauds that took in any number of "smart" people, Valentine applies those ideas to a major fraud or hoax of this century--right up their with the Covid Hoax and the Russia Hoax. It's the Biden Hoax. And the pain-in-the-ass people who are likely to spoil the whole thing are people like Sidney Powell--although there are plenty more, because the internet empowers people like that. Imagine what a pain in the ass Powell must be for the Republican establishment in GA! Apply an exponent to that when you turn to DC.

UPDATED: Taking Stock After The Sidney Powell Story

A good way to start the week may be to briefly summarize where we stand with the big picture of the Sidney Powell challenge. Hopefully this will move us past what increasingly appears to have been a distraction--intentional or not: The Trump team announcement that simply confirmed what Powell has always been clear about: She's working on her own for "we the people." We the people need to take stock before events begin multiplying.

While I say "the Sidney Powell challenge", what we're really talking about is the distinction between traditional types of "voter" fraud and the less familiar forms of "election" fraud. People like Matt Braynard (and others) are doing the research into voter fraud in this election--false ballots based on dead persons, persons who have moved out of state continuing to vote, persons voting in more than one state, absentee or mail-in ballots being cast in the name of people who didn't actually cast them. This is the underpinning for much of what happened, and there's no question but that this fraud was extensive and well organized. It was made possible by commercial databases, which also make the fraud discovery research possible on a scale well above gathering anecdotal evidence from individuals.

"Election" fraud refers to the use of software controls to manipulate votes--using algorithms to apportion or "weight" votes between candidates on a predetermined proportional basis, shifting votes between candidates, etc. This is the type of fraud that Sidney Powell has been alleging and is supported by the research of people like Russ Ramsland. However, behind both types of fraud are the same types of basically common sense observations that lead so many to conclude that the 2020 election results are wildly improbable.

Those are all aspects of the fraud issue that we've been discussing in posts and comments.

Without offering anything new--which we hope will occur later in the week per Sidney Powell's assurances--I want to present here some of that common sense support for the allegations of election fraud.

MULTIPLE UPDATES: Re The Seeming Disavowal Of Sidney Powell By Trump Legal Team

I put this in two comments, but here's what I'm seeing from sources who are probably informed--best I can say, independent sources with similar take:

From Michael Flynn's bro:

Jack Flynn #NeverConcede

@GoJackFlynn

Defending the Republic – Sidney Powell's Legal Defense Fund. The statement tonight was a simple clarification of⁦ @SidneyPowell1 role. Why would she need a fund site set up site if she were being paid by the RNC? SIDNEY IS OUR WARRIOR. SUPPORT HER. https://defendingtherepublic.org

5:26 PM · Nov 22, 2020·

Further:

Field of Fight 

@FieldofFight

Wrt the @JennaEllisEsq press release.

Very confident this has 2 do w money coming in for legal defense fund sppt @SidneyPowell1 has her own separate entity 4 legal donations that isn’t in conj w the Trump legal team.

Frees SP 2 do her own thing...which will STILL b biblical.

5:24 PM · Nov 22, 2020·

UPDATE 1: OUCH!

Jonathan Turley

@JonathanTurley

Replying to 

@JonathanTurley

If B.F. Skinner was right that "chaos breeds geniuses," the Trump legal team will soon be given Mensa status.

5:03 PM · Nov 22, 2020·

UPDATE 2: I'd been meaning to get to this. There has been a massive circling of the Deep State wagons over the last two days--which makes me tend to believe that Sidney Powell is truly on to something. To me, a tell in matters such as this one is the issuance of non-denial denials. Or, put another way, denials of something that wasn't exactly the issue.

For example, the denials--by an anonymous "Army spokesman" or an equally anonymous "national security official"--that the "the Army" seized servers in Germany. As you know, I've never believed that "the Army" did that. And have you read the CIA denials that Scytl was their front company, or that they operated a server farm in Germany, or that they've ever diddled with elections? Me neither.

Now here's another example--and very pertinent to the current Powell brouhaha. Dominion denies that their "machines" can "switch votes." That's per Dominion PR Spokesperson Responds to Allegations of Voter Fraud, Irregularities.

The Dominion spokesman stated--seemingly forthrightly:

“It is not physically possible for our machines to switch votes from one candidate to the other.”

And who exactly asked whether the "machines" could do this "physically"? The author at Red State jumped all over that:

Well, of course the “machines” wouldn’t “physically” do it. But is he truly arguing that the machines can’t be hacked? Multiple demonstrations by media when they actually cared about the issue, have indicated that they could be. That’s not to say there’s proof they were hacked here, only that his claim is misleading.

Another issue: Why did Dominion make their non-denial denial to Fox and not--as requested--to the PA legislature?

Bottom line: I'd be very loath to think ill of Sidney after all the good she's done.

UPDATE 3: In Sidney's words:

Attorney Sidney Powell released a statement late on Sunday after the Trump legal team announced that she was not part of their legal defense team.

“I understand today’s press release. I will continue to represent #WeThePeople who had their votes for Trump and other Republicans stolen by massive fraud through Dominion and Smartmatic, and we will be filing suit soon.”

daily wire

Which is exactly in line with what she told Larry O'Connor. This reflects worse on the Trump legal team than on Powell. And, at this point, reflects not too well on those who rushed to judgment.

UPDATED: Major Takeaways From Sidney Powell's Big Interview On Newsmax

I'm sure most of you have listened to at least parts of Sidney Powell's interview from last night. I won't attempt to evaluate the details of the factual claims that she makes. I think we're beginning to see confirmation--from multiple independent researchers--of the types of computer driven fraud that she's been talking about. Time will bring out more. 

Commenter aNanyMouse notes that no less a lawyer than Alan Dershowitz believes--provided the evidence is available--the Trump team will have a good chance of prevailing. There is a bit of a two edged sword involved here. A lot of people tend to pooh-pooh statistical evidence--but it is real and can be conclusive. The flip side is that in the real world of a courtroom that type of evidence is going to have to be more compelling than, say, witness testimony. It will need to be pretty black and white, not merely suggestive--even though the standard of proof in civil proceedings such as these is 'preponderance of the evidence,' not 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' And it also takes time to pull it all together, as Powell stresses in the interview. That said, what we're starting to see appears encouraging. 

Now, I want to provide a partial transcript of the Powell interview. I've edited it some, but if it's in quotes ("") it's literal. For those who haven't listened, it's here: Sidney Powell: It will be BIBLICAL. These are points that I think are important for people to keep in mind as we go forward, because everyone is frustrated that we don't know everything NOW. I continue to be convinced that Powell would not be making allegations that are so very specific unless she had a very firm basis on which to make them.

The first section is an extended Q & A that starts with Powell alleging that Dominion added 35K votes to Democrat candidates. However, that leads into two important legal issues: the standard of proof required (to which I alluded above) and another that's on many people's minds--what's going on, or not, with the Department of Justice?

UPDATED: Georgia On My Mind

Shipwreckedcrew has a very perceptive article that begins by discussing general electoral litigation issues and then focuses specifically on Georgia: What is the End Game for the Litigation Strategy In Georgia?

As regards the general issues, SWC warns us to expect reversals at the lower court levels:

Let’s begin with a simple observation — no single district court judge and no three-judge panel of a federal circuit court of appeal are going to enter an order that reverses the outcome of a state’s reported vote count with regard to selecting the electors who will choose a President. Doing so would run contrary to the long-standing principle of not involving the Judicial branch in the outcome of disputes of a political nature involving the two political branches.

Lower courts will conduct hearings and received factual evidence, but at the end of the process, it is almost a certainty that they will decline to exercise any authority to intervene — even in cases of fraud.

He goes on to explain why this is so, why you should expect these outcomes. It's part of the process that the Trump team hopes will get them to the SCOTUS--as Jordan Sekulow also makes clear in an interview that I'll link below. Be prepared, and if you want more information, follow the link above.

After this discussion, SWC moves on to Georgia. His bottom line is that the Trump team needs to get a machine recount--which they're entitled to. However, along the way to that conclusion, he uncovers some eye catching statistical anomalies that came to light in the just completed recount. Basically, what he shows is that:

1. In the heavily Dem counties in the Atlanta metro area--won by Biden in overwhelming fashion--the recount discovered new votes.

2. Logically you would expect those new votes to break in the same ratios as the votes that had already been counted.

3. Instead, in stunning fashion, the ratios actually reversed, with Trump winning the newly discovered votes in equally overwhelming fashion!

UPDATED: The Frankfurt 'Raid' And Related Matters

Adam Housley reports on what he has been able to learn from three "solid" sources:

One of the claims by Powell I have looked into...the claim a location was raided in Germany with servers. I have 3 sources on this...all as solid as they come. Here is what I have found: 

1.There is/was a clandestine location in Frankfurt run by CIA used to monitor/manipulate elections around globe.

2.That location did have servers & a front company as cover.

3.I cannot confirm the location was tied to U.S. elections.

4. One source says raided, 2 don't know. 

So, the sources seem to be saying that Scytl was a CIA front company and they definitely confirm that the CIA in Frankfurt was manipulating elections around the world. Of the three sources, when queried regarding the "raid," one said, "I know about that--it happened." The other two said: "We don't know. whether it happened or not" Note that well. One said, "Yes, I have knowledge and it's true." The others simply said, "We don't know." Not to belabor the obvious, but that's not a denial of an event, it's a denial of knowledge about an alleged event. It's not even an expression of skepticism.

The more we hear about all this, the more it sounds like a professional intel operation. All the evidence that's been accumulating and is now being presented on the internet--how does that happen without the knowledge of key components in our IC? Especially when those IC agencies have been working with the same companies to manipulate elections around the world? Try reading this thread: Dominion Voting Systems (DVS) and the Author who created Scorecard in the Serbian team for DVS. Tell me if it doesn't smell like a professional--i.e., State run--intel operation, using sophisticated techniques to conceal the identities of operatives.

UPDATE: In case anyone is interested, here is how I see the "raid" in Germany going down. I wrote this as an email earlier. Of course I may be wrong, but to me it makes sense:

Trump/Barr come to the decision that the CIA/Scytl servers must be obtained for purposes of a national security investigation involving the election--obviously, not simply for the Trump campaign. I assume that, since manipulation of foreign elections is a very sensitive operation, for the sake of security the servers are located on a US Army facility (NOT an overt CIA facility).

Having come to the decision, Barr drafts up whatever legal process is required for the FBI to take possession of another USG agency's property--possibly against their will. The FBI will be used to take possession of the servers because they're the lead investigative agency on such matters (DIA only handles intra-military matters). Barr also arranges with the SecDef to grant the FBI base access and support and to have the servers transported by military flight to the US. From wherever they land, the servers are then taken to the FBI's forensic computer lab in Quantico--possibly by USMC vehicles, since FBI Quantico is located on a USMC base.

Trump or a trusted designee sends the paperwork to Amb/Germany with instructions to order the FBI to take possession of the described servers. The FBI agents are also given a point of contact at the Army facility in Wiesbaden--since the FBI has no authority to simply barge onto a military facility and conduct a search and seizure. The FBI is also probably told that any questions may be addressed to Barr and to nobody else--or possibly a trusted aide.

The FBI in Germany follows the instructions and orders they receive from the Ambassador and take custody of the servers. The "raid" will appear to have been led by the military, but the FBI agents will have been present throughout and will be the ones who take official possession of the servers. FBI agents from Germany also accompany the servers on board the military flight and all the way to Quantico--with the FBI agents maintaining custody the whole way.

At some point I suspect that a copy is made of all the servers--just in case. Who would have custody, I'm not sure. But not Chris Wray or Gina Haspel.

UPDATED: Recommended: Best Interview So Far With Sidney Powell

Larry O'Connor (h/t sundance) has the most intelligent, informed, interview I've heard so far with Sidney Powell regarding the case she plans to bring within the next two weeks. O'Connor is well prepared and asks many of the right questions. He moves the interview along (just about 20 minutes) but allows Powell to answer fully. Powell for her part is quite forthcoming. 

Highlights:

Powell is not plugged into any single theory of fraud--she recognizes several possibilities and combinations of possibilities. In that regard she discusses some of the evidence that has so far been gathered, while stressing that this process remains ongoing.

Between now and December 14 her goal is to have "the outline" of a case ready to file in federal court--it's a matter right now of coming to grips with huge amounts of evidence, and that process will continue.

She continues to state that she's appalled that DoJ/FBI hasn't seized all voting machines in every states and reiterates: the problems are not only with Dominion machines, but with all machines she's aware of.

Both parties have benefited at different times from the corrupt processes introduced into our electoral system by Dominion and related actors, who are in it for the money.

There should be no Georgia runoff that uses the current machines--there should be an injunction against proceeding with the current system in place.

She repeats allegations of kickbacks for adopting Dominion systems--specifically mentioning Georgia.

She addresses the question: If the fraudsters were able to manufacture ballots in sufficient numbers to match the electronic manipulation, why bother with the electronic manipulation? Her response is that it was necessary in order to keep the count proceeding. She points again to the counting stoppage in multiple swing states which, she says, was necessary because the Red Wave of Trump votes had gotten so far ahead of the fraudsters manipulations--the Red Wave "broke the algorithm."

O'Connor points out that everything that Powell has said about the Mueller/Flynn case has been borne out--her reliability is a matter of record. (Powell interjects that all has still not been revealed in that case.) O'Connor says this in the context of Tucker Carlson's accusations. Powell gives her account of her dealings with Carlson.

• Description

EXCLUSIVE: Sidney Powell

Finally? Sidney Powell Says, Yes, The Scytl Servers Were Seized

H/T to an anonymous commenter.

We've all been puzzled over the seeming confusion surrounding whether or not the Scytl servers in Germany have been seized by the US Government. Yesterday, after a Trump Recount staffer specifically confirmed that the servers had been seized, at the Big Presser Sidney Powell appeared to back away from that somewhat--saying she wasn't sure whether "good guys" or "bad guys" had taken possession of the servers.

I commented last night that I thought Powell was being cautious, unsure--as a personal lawyer for Trump--whether she could confirm a government action that she most likely knew about.

This morning Powell appeared on the Glenn Beck show--Tucker Carlson will be mightily miffed over that--and this time she forthrightly confirmed that the servers were seized by the US Government. Note, however, she first speaks of "our forces" "confiscating" the servers, and then refers to the "US Government" working on an "investigation." Note, too, that Powell offers some very specific information regarding the configuration of the servers. I continue to believe that, while various agencies of the Government may have had some involvement, DoJ must be driving this or controlling the process--it's the only thing that makes overall sense, given that this is all occurring in the context of legal processes:

The servers at Scytl in Germany WERE confiscated the other day. I'm hearing it was our forces that got those servers. So I think the government is now working on an investigation of what really happened. But we're getting evidence, also, that there were lines into the servers from four foreign countries--all extremely adverse to the interests of the United States.

Regarding Powell's reference to "lines in," that sounds like the four foreign countries would have had access to the data on the servers and would have been able to manipulate it. I personally doubt that. My suspicion is that the connections were for the purpose of the server operators accessing the foreign countries' data. Others may wish to weigh in on the security implications of that setup.

Again, this type of investigation was always going to take time. Demands for EVIDENCE NOW, while understandable, are unreasonable in the current circumstances. Powell is obviously being very careful to maintain the necessary distance between her private representation of Donald Trump and what is a government led investigation of election fraud. No matter that they share common interests, they cannot act as, or be perceived as, a single team.

Is It Possible To Take The Election Challenge Straight To The Scotus?

Since publishing Thomas McInerney's Theory last night--which included the suggestion that the Trump legal team would try to take their challenge directly to the SCOTUS, I've been having second thoughts. The SCOTUS is only rarely a court of original jurisdiction--meaning, it normally hears appeals from lower courts (including state supreme courts, as we've seen already in the PA litigation). It seems more realistic then that the Trump team would file in a federal court, get a ruling and, if necessary seek to fast track the case to the SCOTUS.

This morning I was mulling these issues over, but somewhat inchoately. Commenter Andy S. attempted a rather lengthy comment on these issues, one which sharpens the issues, and so I've decided to include his comment as a separate post. 

As you'll see, Andy S. advocates for a RICO case. As readers will be aware, I'm a bit of a RICO skeptic--not generally, but with regard to most of the cases that have been discussed on this blog. In this case, I don't see how a RICO lawsuit would get Trump to the desired goal--timely relief to prevent the election from being decided in favor of Biden. The major stumbling block, that I see, however, is arriving at a definition of the "enterprise" that would be the subject of the case. Whatever my personal views, I find it difficult to believe that any court would be willing to accept that the Democrat Party--as a national entity--is an "enterprise" for purposes of RICO. And the Trump team has said they won't be suing Dominion. I'll leave my comments at that, since the whole business of enterprises is complex. However, before anyone criticizes me on this score, please understand that in my professional career I did successfully argue in cases for the existence of an enterprise in fact--so I'm not opposed to any of this on principle. I'm just sketpical in this case. But read on and see what you think.

Here's Andy S., with some very slight formatting and editing:

A Mathematician's Evaluation Of Absentee Ballots In PA

Commenter Yancey Ward has, on another thread, been advocating for Matt Braynard's analyses of absentee voting in the 2020 election. John Solomon has an article out today that offers support for Braynard, coming from a well respected academic mathematician:

In sworn statement, prominent mathematician flags up to 100,000 Pennsylvania ballots

Federal Elections Commission Chairman Trey Trainor says new analysis by professor Steven Miller "adds to the conclusions that some level of voter fraud took place in this year's election."

All of the ballots in question are absentee ballots, and Miller used PA data gathered by Braynard. Matt Braynard believes Professor Miller's study supports his own conclusions and is sending Miller the data that Braynard has gathered from other states as well. 

You can read Miller's sworn statement here. Bearing in mind that the current margin is about 82,000 votes and that Miller's study pertains solely to absentee ballots and no other category of ballots, here are two key statements drawn from Miller's declaration:

"I estimate that the number of ballots that were either requested by someone other than the registered Republican or requested and returned but not counted range from 89,397 to 98,801," Miller said in the sworn statement provided to Just the News.

...

In addition to his two base estimates, Miller also offered two estimates with broader ranges and higher confidence intervals. "Almost surely, the number of ballots requested by someone other than the registered Republican is between 37,001 and 58,914," Miller writes. "Almost surely the number of ballots requested by registered Republicans and returned but not counted is in the range from 38,910 to 56,483." 

Studies like these--both Braynard's as well as Miller's, plus others--are reasons why I think conservative carpers demanding EVIDENCE NOW need to chill. There are numerous anomalies and indicia of various types of fraud across multiple states. The public, as the Rasmussen survey shows, is manifestly distrustful of what happened in the election--and some of the dodgy recounts and other maneuverings are not increasing trust. Conservatives need to let this challenge go forward. It's simply unreasonable to expect hard results in a short time period.

UPDATED: Ranking The Hoaxes--Restored!

Thanks to the anonymous reader who allowed me to restore this post!

We live in a time of hoaxes--knowingly abetted by our elite would be opinion shapers. I think we can all agree that the Russia Hoax was some kinda major hoax. Add in the ancillary hoaxes that grew out of it--the Ukraine Hoax and so forth--and it's easy to argue that it deserves the number one ranking.

But not everyone agrees . For example. A pathologist, virologist, and CEO of a Covid testing company in Canada just testified that Covid is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.” Nor does he simply stop there. He goes on to list a whole string of associated hoaxes:

The political hoax:

“There is utterly unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians, it’s outrageous, this is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public,” said Hodkinson.

The doctor said that nothing could be done to stop the spread of the virus besides protecting older more vulnerable people and that the whole situation represented “politics playing medicine, and that’s a very dangerous game.”

 

The social distancing hoax:

Hodkinson remarked that “social distancing is useless because COVID is spread by aerosols which travel 30 meters or so before landing,” as he called for society to be re-opened immediately to prevent the debilitating damage being caused by lockdowns.

 

The mask hoax:

“Masks are utterly useless. There is no evidence base for their effectiveness whatsoever,” he said.

“Paper masks and fabric masks are simply virtue signalling. They’re not even worn effectively most of the time. It’s utterly ridiculous. Seeing these unfortunate, uneducated people – I’m not saying that in a pejorative sense – seeing these people walking around like lemmings obeying without any knowledge base to put the mask on their face.”

 

The testing hoax:

The doctor also slammed the unreliability of PCR tests, noting that “positive test results do not, underlined in neon, mean a clinical infection,” and that all testing should stop because the false numbers are “driving public hysteria.”

Wow! That's a pretty strong case for the Covid hoax taking a top spot in the rankings game.

But how about the Election Hoax? Shouldn't the notion that Biden won the election fair and square--the hoax unrelentingly pushed by Big Media and Big Tech--be vying for that coveted top spot?

Apparently not, based on a Rasmussen study. It seems no more than half the population have been fooled by the yammering Libs--Top Pollster Finds 47% Say ‘Likely’ Democrats Stole Election. And when you actually dig into the numbers it looks even bleaker for those who fancy that they shape public opinion:

“How likely is it,” Rasmussen asked 1,000 likely voters between November 17-18, “that Democrats stole votes or destroyed pro-Trump ballots in several states to ensure Biden would win?”

Only 50 percent said it was not likely, while a whopping 47 percent said it was likely.

Not at all likely: 41 percent.

Not very likely: 9 percent.

Somewhat likely: 11 percent.

Very likely: 36 percent.

There’s another way to look at this… only 41 percent are certain the election was not stolen from Trump.

The partisan breakdown is not exactly what I expected with 75 percent of Republicans — 75 percent! — saying it is very (61 percent) or somewhat (14 percent) likely the election was stolen.

Get this… 30 percent of Democrats — Democrats! — say it is very (20 percent) or somewhat (10 percent) likely the election was stolen from Trump.

Of course 69 percent of Democrats say it is not at all (61 percent) or not very (8 percent) likely the election was stolen from Trump. Still, that 30 percent of Democrats who say it was stolen is pretty remarkable.

When even 30% of Libs aren't fooled, Lib opinion shapers have a real credibility problem--because they're certainly not fooling many others. And, John Nolte adds, it's probably even a bit worse:

When asked the all-important question of whether “your friends and neighbors think Trump should concede,” only 51 percent say yes, while 30 percent say no — 18 percent are unsure.

The reason the “friends and neighbors” question is important is because America’s top pollsters believe that question is a more accurate reflection of the true intent of the person being surveyed. Now that we live in an increasingly fascist country where roving bands of left-wing Brownshirts will either get you fired, or blacklist you, or physically assault you for supporting Trump,  people have become shy about telling pollsters the truth of their Trump support. So…

Let me repeat this…

Only 51 percent say Trump should concede.

 

UPDATE: Monica Showalter also takes note of the Rasmussen survey, and her title brought a smile to my face: Unity: A third of Democrats agree with Republicans that Trump's reelection was stolen -poll. She concludes:

It certainly explains why Biden is trying to sweet talk the electorate with his nonsense unity talk. His real game is to talk voters into believing he actually won the election.

I Goofed--Deleted "Ranking The Hoaxes"

In case anyone is wondering, I mistakenly deleted the "Ranking The Hoaxes" post. I tried four different methods to recover it and none worked.