ANOTHER stolen election, suckers

Apollonian

Guest Columnist
Another Stolen Election

PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS • NOVEMBER 9, 2022

Link: https://www.unz.com/proberts/another-stolen-election/

This time it is CNN’s own report on its own exit polls that indicates a stolen election.
Today November 9, 2022, updated at 10:49 AM EST, CNN reporters Zachary B. Wolf and Curt Merrill remarked that the widely expected red wave did not materialize and then went on to present data that is inconsistent with the closeness of the voting.
The reporters compare the exit polls from the 2018 elections with those of the 2022 elections. The comparisons show that the Democrats lost support in Tuesday’s elections among women, moderates, youth, people of color, urban voters, college graduates, and independents.
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2022/politics/exit-polls-2022-midterm-2018-shift/
The Democrats’ support among women declined from 19 points favorable to Democrats to only 8 points. Republican support among men rose from 4 points over Democrats to 14 points.
By age, the preference for Democrats over Republicans for 18-29 years of age declined from 35 points to 28 and for 30-44 years of age from 19 points to 4. Republican support over Democrats rose from 1 to 10 points for those 45-64 years of age and from 2 to 12 points for those 65 and older.
White men’s preference for Republicans increased from 21 to 28 points. White women moved from a 50-50 split to an 8 point preference for Republicans. Black women’s preference for Democrats declined from 85 points to 78. Black men’s preference for Democrats declined from 76 points to 65. Latina women’s preference for democrats fell from 47 points to 33; and Latino men’s preference for Democrats fell from 29 points to 8.
Urban voters preference for Democrats declined from 33 points over Republicans to 17 points. Suburban and Rural voters preferences for Republicans rose by 6 points and 15 points.
Democrats also lost support among white and black college graduates. Among white votes without college degrees the preference for Republicans rose by 10 points.
Among moderates, the preference for Democrats eroded from 26 points to 15. Among conservatives the Republican advantage rose from 67 points t 83. Among liberals there was essentially no change.
The CNN exit polls show substantial erosion of the Democrat voting base since the 2018 election. How can such substantial erosion be consistent with the lack of any significant Republican gain on Tuesday?
The outcome of Tuesday’s election is made even more difficult to comprehend by CNN’s reporters when they report:
“Back in 2018, 37% of voters said they were Democrats, compared with 33% who said they were Republicans and 30% who said they were independents. In 2022, it was Republicans who have the edge. When they won control of the House in 2018, Democrats had an advantage among independent voters. That is nearly gone in 2022.
“Both Democrats and Republicans improved their performance among the party faithful. But Republicans built a lead among voters who don’t have a a favorable view of either party. Democrats lost their edge among voters who have a favorable view of both parties.”
There are many other indications that indicate that much is amiss in the vote count. Polls show that Biden suffers an approval rate of only 36% and that a large majority of Americans do not want Biden to run for reelection in two years. How is this preference consistent with the vote count of Tuesday’s election?
Consider also that the party in power loses representation in midterm elections, but despite the substantial turn away from Democrats revealed by CNN, this normal result did not occur on Tuesday.
Consider also public dissatisfaction with: record crime, record inflation with high food and gasoline prices, rising interest rates and falling home values, massive illegal immigration, forced indoctrination of school children with transgender theory and critical race theory, Biden’s Covid vaccination mandates that caused health injuries, deaths, and destroyed careers, Biden’s Covid lockdowns that destroyed businesses, jobs, supply chains and raised prices, Biden’s “Russian” sanctions that disrupted energy supply and raised the price of everything. Considering all this dissatisfaction, how did Fetterman, a person impaired by a stroke and afflicted with problems speaking who wants to release criminals from prison, win a seat in the US Senate from Pennsylvania? How did the same Georgia voter who returned Republican Gov. Kemp to office vote against black Republican and football star Herschel Walker in favor of black Democrat Warnock, who hates Trump and white people, for the US Senate?
Finally, consider the Diebold voting machines that malfunctioned in New Jersey, Arizona, and Texas, and Gateway Pundit’s report that in Detroit, Michigan, ballots were being delivered through the back door in the early hours of Wednesday morning long after the legal deadline.
Now, ask yourself, what is worse, a stolen US election or an American electorate so insouciant and out to lunch that they would keep a political party in office that is leading us into war with Russia and China, that hates white people and persecutes them, that has politicized the FBI and Department of Justice turning them into Gestapo agencies serving Democrat power, that fervently believes that parents are bad for children and should have no say in their education (brainwashing), that is demonizing normality and normalizing perversity, that . . . I could go on and on. Here was a chance for voters to register their dissent, and according to the vote results they failed to do so. If the vote count is honest, then the conclusion is that we must write off the American people as beings too stupid to survive as a free people.
This is why I much prefer to believe that the election was again stolen.
What can be done about stolen elections? Nothing. Especially when a previously stolen election has left Democrats in control of the executive branch. The executive branch is the police branch. It is not going to enforce election or any law against itself.
The Democrat controlled cities are empires unto themselves. They can steal every election and nothing can be done about it. The media is an appendage to the Democrat party. The media supports whatever the official narrative is.
This is tomorrow’s, Thursday, November 10, column. I am posting it November 9 prior to the construction of the official narrative that we will soon receive so that at least my readers will have a chance to think before the official explanation is forced on them.
 

VIDEO MONTAGE: Arizona Republican Voters Describe How Ballots Were Not Counted, Ballots Were Tossed in a Box, and People Were Not Allowed in to Vote (VIDEO)​

By Jim Hoft
Published November 13, 2022 at 9:48pm

Link: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ots-tossed-box-people-not-allowed-vote-video/

voter-maricopa-county-.jpg

On Tuesday morning, The Gateway Pundit reported that when polls opened in Maricopa County at 6 am on Election Day, voters were told that the tabulators were not working. This was happening across Maricopa County and resulted in long lines and voters being told to go to another location to vote.
Katie Hobbs is the current Secretary of State in charge of elections.
Instead of tabulating their ballot directly, voters were also told to put their ballot into a box under the tabulator so that their ballot may be tabulated at a later time downtown.
Voters were told to just drop their ballot into the open door seen below.
TRENDING: IMPOSSIBLE: Despite Only 17% Democrat Turnout on Election Day - Katie Hobbs and Democrats Are Winning Over 50% of Maricopa County Election Day Totals
170FC8EC-5868-4F48-9868-E6D883C2B795.jpeg

This took place at 30% of the precincts in Maricopa County on Election Day.
Richard Baris says the malfunctioning is WIDESPREAD ACROSS THE COUNTY!

Watch the video: [ck site link, above, top]

On Sunday night The Gateway Pundit published exclusive video of Maricopa County voters describing their nightmare at the polls on Election Day.
These men and women who stepped forward tell how they were forced to stand in lines for hours and told to toss their ballot into a box or “Door 3.” They also describe how the doors were shut and people not allowed in during the process.
County officials knew Republican voters would turn out in strength on Election Day — AND THEY DID. Then this happened.

Here are their testimonials. [ck site link, above, top]
 

‘Makes No Mathematical Sense’: Vote Tally Discrepancies in AZ Gov Vs. AZ Treasurer Races Suggest FRAUD, Say Pundits​

Infowars.com
November 15th 2022, 6:06 pm

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/make...az-treasurer-races-suggest-fraud-say-pundits/

GOP Candidate Kimberly Yee won AZ Treasurer race with 1.37 million votes - how did AZ Gov candidate Kari Lake only get 1.25Mil?

'Something is very wrong in Arizona.'

Political commentators are crying fraud after vote tallies show more people voted for the Republican candidate in Arizona’s Treasurer race than voted for the GOP candidate in the state governor’s race.

The bizarre discrepancy can be observed in official vote tallies from the New York Times, which receives its election results from the Associated Press.


Evidently, according to vote totals, Republican incumbent Kimberly Yee received 1.37 million votes, securing her the state Treasurer’s seat against Democrat opponent Martin Quezada by over 278,000 votes.

kimberley-yee.jpg

Bizarrely, however, the same enthusiasm for the GOP was not seen in the state’s hotly contested governor’s race, where Arizona’s top election official Katie Hobbs managed to squeak out a Democrat victory against GOP rival Kari Lake. Hobbs won by 19,273 votes against Lake.

hobbswins2.jpg

Whereas Yee received 1.37 million votes in her race, Lake curiously only managed to receive around 1.25 million, a discrepancy of close to 120,000 votes.

The discrepancy in vote totals set off alarm bells for pundits on social media, who rightfully questioned why more voters would vote Republican in a lower-profile election like the treasurer’s race than the closely-watched governor’s race.

The anomaly was also taken as evidence the governor’s race was fixed, with many suggesting the real outcome of the race should have reflected the Treasury election’s results.

So far, almost 115,000 more people voted for Yee for Treasurer but not Kari Lake for Governor. Apparently, the Treasurer's race was generating tons of excitement that I didn't know about
— Josh Barnett for Congress (AZ-01) (@BarnettforAZ) November 14, 2022

A Republican won the Arizona Treasurer’s race — most votes in Arizona history — but Republican Kari Lake loses for Governor?

NO WAY!!!
🇺🇸ProudArmyBrat (@leslibless) November 15, 2022

Sooo… Arizona's Republican State Treasurer won reelection by a quarter million votes… but Kari Lake and Abe Hamadeh are both losing… nothing to see here… everyone move along.
— Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) November 14, 2022

Something is very wrong in Arizona.

It makes no mathematical sense that the GOP State Treasurer won reelection by a quarter million votes but Kari Lake and Abe Hamadeh are still behind. pic.twitter.com/ayoxFUSDbl
— John Cardillo (@johncardillo) November 14, 2022

It makes no mathematical sense that the GOP State Treasurer just won reelection by 250,000 votes, but none of those voters also felt like voting for Kari Lake.
— James Bradley (@JamesBradleyCA) November 14, 2022

Time will tell whether Lake chooses to call for an audit of the election results, which may filter out some ballots that were illicitly cast for Hobbs.
 

Maricopa County: Eyewitness Accounts Suggest Election May Be Uncertifiable​

By
Wendi Strauch Mahoney
November 18, 2022

Link: https://www.uncoverdc.com/2022/11/1...counts-suggest-election-may-be-uncertifiable/



The Maricopa County election may be uncertifiable if the accounts of election workers at the polls are true. Multiple Arizona poll workers have come forward, sharing documentation of their election day observations with UncoverDC. These poll workers—an election judge, three clerks, and an election marshal—worked at the same voting center all day on election day. None of these poll workers knew each other prior to working on Election Day. There were a total of 1 inspector, 2 judges, 1 marshal, and 7 clerks at this location. One of the individuals provided a screenshot of the various roles and their duties for reference below:

Screen-Shot-2022-11-17-at-11.51.05.png
Poll Worker Roles/Maricopa County 2022 Midterm Election/Election Day
UncoverDC wrote a comprehensive column about Maricopa County Election Judge Karla Sweet’s observations on November 12. Her letter documents multiple issues at the poll, including tabulator malfunctions, long lines, not following procedures as described in the Election Day Manual, and voters who left the polls due to long waits.
The other election workers who have come forward observed many of the same issues, corroborating Sweet’s observations. Each of their declaration letters is important because each poll worker was located in a different area of the center. Their stories corroborate our previous reporting; these declaration letters present new information worth highlighting. For reference, the declarations are pictured in the gallery below:
Affidavits/Election Workers/Maricopa Election 2022
1 of 5



ElectionClerkPam

ElectionClerkSusan

ElectionMarshalCynthia

Marcella Heiman/Maricopa Election Clerk/2022/PAGE 1

Marcella Heiman/Maricopa Election Clerk/2022/PAGE2

Cynthia Schlesinger: Marshal​

Cynthia Schlesinger was the Marshal at the voting center. She noted many of the issues described by Karla Sweet. However, as Marshal, one of her duties was to assist with curbside duties. She states that the county election workers—Mark McCall and Yamille Martinez—”[did] this against all rules.” As a result of McCall’s presence outside, the poll workers had to repeatedly go outside to retrieve him when they needed assistance. Schlesinger reports she was “supposed to be spoiling the ballots as needed, but Mark gave this job to his cohort Yamille [Martinez].” Schlesinger also noted that her colleagues, Pam and Sue, counted the ballots, noting a discrepancy from Monday. Schlesinger writes:
Mark said there was 767 ballot paper in the box, there should have been [many fewer] as we had more than 30 voters and test prints. When we brought this to his attention his response was ‘oh well, they can fire me’.”
Schlesinger also states that she and the others were not sworn in according to the rules but were merely “signed in.” Additionally, she said the mail-in ballots were “left in the collector box overnight when they should have been picked up.”
The Twitter post below highlights some of the problems with ballot counts, chain of custody, and “Door #3,” as recounted at Wednesday’s public hearing before the Board of Supervisors.

At the end of the day, Schlesinger and Martinez delivered all the mail-in ballots that were never picked up. Schlesinger says she asked McCall multiple times throughout the day “to call and have them picked up.” She then continues to recount what happened at the drop-off site at the end of the day.
“When we arrived at the drop-off site, the containers and duffle bags were removed, and we both had to sign the receipt. I was given a copy, as was Yamille, but she pulled mine from my hand and said Mark [McCall] gets them; I have no idea where they are now; also, I watched as a fellow cut the seal and look[ed] in the bag, I was about to question why but Yamille [Martinez] quickly drove off, that seal should never have been cut.”

Susan Hellwig: Election Clerk​

Susan Hellwig was an Election Clerk. She says she witnessed “voter suppression,” providing the observations to substantiate her claim. She confirmed McCall was at the curbside outside. She felt he and his HUB employee were:
“Holding up the line and preventing voters from entering our site to vote when site books and voting stations were available. Because of this, I started counting the voters at the site books, voters waiting for ballots to be printed and the open voting stations, and announcing how many voters could enter.”
Hellwig also noted the “ballot paper count could not be reconciled at the end of the day.” She has “no idea how Mark handled it.” Hellwig also says the “tabulators were rejecting ballots all day, and [she] was reprinting ballots for the voters who chose not to put their original ballots in door #3.”

Pam Cetina: Election Clerk​

Election Clerk Pam Cetina worked Monday and on Election Day. She was a poll clerk whose job was to check[ing] in all voters on the computer station, verifying name, address, and voting status. She writes that Monday went smoothly. However, on Election Day, it was not until 10 a.m. that she understood there were tabulator problems. She realized it was a problem when Sweet asked her to “spoil a voter’s ballot and help her with a new one” Cetina recounts what she experienced:
“I looked over the ballots carefully when the voters came back to spoil their ballots and could see no reason why they were being rejected. I finally went and found Mark McCall, our Inspector, and asked him what was going on; he just acted like it was no big deal. I spoke to others on our team, and they all knew this wasn’t normal. Even the customers were becoming suspicious, asking if this was going to be another 2020. Yami [Martinez], who is a[n] employee of the county and works directly with Mark McCall, would often hover in our area listening to what was going on. They didn’t want me writing SPOIL in the middle of the ballot and asked that when the customer was done with it, to find him/her, and he would take care of it. Yami [Martinez] was also working as a clerk. I started telling voters if they had any more problems to come back to me, and I would print another ballot for them.”

Marcy Heiman: Election Clerk​

Marcy Heiman’s observations align with the others. Heiman observed persistent issues with tabulators malfunctioning and ballot reconciliation issues. She heard McCall say, “they might fire me, in a joking manner,” in reference to ballot reconciliation mismatch. Heiman observed long lines outside and at the tabulators all day with “no break.” Elderly people “in walkers, wheelchairs, blind, and one was wheeled in a bed, to cast their vote in person. It was difficult for them to complete the first ballot, but the look of anguish in their eyes when their ballot [was] rejected was heart-wrenching,” corroborating Sweet’s observations. An elderly voter tells his story:

Heiman also noted the following. McCall had the keys to the building. On Tuesday, notes the clerk:
“Mark [McCall] was already in the building; we clocked in and asked when we would test the tabulators. He stated he tested them the night before, seemed odd to me, especially if the other party wasn’t there for the test. No one witnessed the test. The Oath was not given that day.”
Importantly, Heiman also noticed when “Mark [McCall] would spoil a ballot, he wouldn’t write across the printing on the back of the ballot but on the side. This is not how it is supposed to be done.” Her account also notes the arrival of the “IT tech” at 12:30, “who sat at the end of the printer tables on his tablet. I couldn’t get over to see what he was doing or if he was online. Runbeck showed up around 1:20, opened up the laptops, and looked like they were changing the setting on the printers, so the ballots should print better. They did not appear to be online.”

Can The Arizona Election Be Certified?​

There has been much discussion about the DOJ announcement detailing plans to monitor local poll locations. They announced a similar plan in 2018. Federal officials are not supposed to impose themselves on local elections; however, local officials may invite federal oversight if issues at the polls are reported.
Generally, elections are the purview of each state. However, the Help American Vote Act (HAVA) passed in 2002 by the United States Congress lays out “mandatory minimum standards for states to follow in several key areas of election administration.” One of those standards highlighted by the October 26, 2022, DOJ press release is to “ensure that all qualified voters have the opportunity to cast their ballots and have their votes counted free of discrimination, intimidation, or fraud in the election process.” Given the details provided by eyewitness accounts above, it seems voters were disenfranchised, denied equal access, and/or their votes may have been suppressed. This is the very type of issue that might require the oversight of federal officials.
Kevin Moncla is a citizen activist who co-founded Election Oversight to monitor election integrity. Moncla sent an excerpt of a current Arizona election statute referencing “proceedings at the counting center” to UncoverDC. He makes the following comment about the excerpt pictured below:
“AZ law is very clear. The ballots were rendered defective when they were rejected by the scanner. Each of them tested in multiple tabulators across the county. Maricopa officials broke the law as those ballots should have been duplicated and scanned, not removed and relegated to some other process.
IMG_2863.jpeg
Moncla Tip/AZLaw
The Maricopa County website shows photos of officials performing logic and accuracy tests on the tabulator machines on October 11. The rules were not followed if those photos were taken that day. During the tests, the tabulator machines must have zip-ties with serial numbers over the card slots. Those cards contain all the necessary settings and parameters for the ballots on Election Day. The chain of custody is broken if the machines do not have serialized zip-tie seals. Logic and accuracy tests are performed before and after elections. Moncla, who found the photos, explains:
“The programming (Election definition) for the tabulators is on the flashcards that the seal protects from being removed. The seals are supposed to be in place before the testing. If the cards can be replaced after the testing, then there is no point in testing.”
Photos of the machines being tested on Logic and Accuracy day are captured below. The first two are a photo provided on October 11, and one is a close-up of the tabulator.
Image-1.jpeg
(1) Logic and Accuracy Day/October 11/Maricopa County
Image-1-2.jpeg
(2) Logic and Accuracy Day/October 11/Maricopa County/close up
The third and the fourth are photos with the properly serialized zip-tie sealing the slot. Photo 4 was provided by an Arizona voter:
Image-1-4.jpeg
(3) Tabulator Out of Box With Seal
Image-1-3.jpeg
(4) Tabulator with Seal/Maricopa Voter Photo
Moncla has submitted a complaint in Georgia referencing other important tabulator issues he has unearthed. Fraud or not, based on some of the observations reported by poll workers the Arizona election may not be certifiable. There were multiple issues with the chain of custody, voters who were not able to vote, and procedures that were not followed as dictated by law and by the Maricopa County Election 2022 manual.
 

BUSTED! Katie Hobbs Tied To Money From FTX Funded PACs​

By Jordan Conradson
Published November 27, 2022 at 8:00am

Link: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/11/ready-busted-katie-hobbs-tied-money-ftx-funded-pacs/

49F2E5B3-AFF9-442C-9547-6E1538E53A1E.jpeg

Bankrupted cryptocurrency exchange FTX now appears to have played a role in Arizona’s stolen midterm election after funneling millions of dollars into Phoenix-based Protect Our Future PAC.
In a stunning and impossible upset, Democrat Katie Hobbs allegedly ‘defeated’ extremely popular conservative Kari Lake in the midterm gubernatorial election.
Katie Hobbs did not campaign, did not have a major following, did not hold rallies, and refused to debate.
Hobbs’ victory was pulled off by disenfranchising Republican voters who chose to vote in person.
TRENDING: BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: TGP Caught Corrupt FBI Inserting Docs during Mar-a-Lago Raid to Make Trump Look Bad - But Now They're Gone!
We reported on how FTX has gone bankrupt and how it was one of the top donors to Democrats over the past few years. At least $40 million was donated to the Democrats from FTX.

According to FEC reports, FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried also gave 27 million dollars to a Phoenix-based PAC tied to Democrat activist and consultant Dacey Montoya, who is listed as treasurer. According to a report by AZ Free News, “The Money Wheel, Montoya’s consulting firm, received over $134,500 from February to early July from the Protect Our Future PAC.”
The Money Wheel also received $114,500.00 from the Katie Hobbs campaign and $372,427.25 from Mark Kelly’s campaign.
Dacey Montoya has shown support for both candidates on Twitter.
EAB5C71B-BFC9-47CD-9901-7D04A23CDCD1.jpeg

C1076154-2356-4B15-ACC2-06C4D9A9BCAB.jpeg

AZ Free News reported,
Not only did Protect Our Future PAC receive $27 million from FTX CEO Samuel Bankman-Fried — this PAC was the primary beneficiary of his contributions by far. The PAC treasurer is Dacey Montoya: a name that appears frequently throughout the Democratic dark money network. In the recent past, Montoya also chaired the Way to Lead PAC and Not Our Faith PAC, both organizations that received major funds from Democratic dark money funders like George Soros.
According to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Bankman-Fried’s millions came via four payments from February to June: $9 million on February 4, $4 million on March 15, $10 million on April 14, and $4 million on June 13.
It appears that Montoya received a good cut of Bankman-Fried’s millions. The Money Wheel, Montoya’s consulting firm, received over $134,500 from February to early July from the Protect Our Future PAC. Protect Our Future and The Money Wheel share the same business address. Her consulting firm often gets paid from the PACs she oversees.
The PAC registered with the FEC in January of this year. Bankman-Fried’s millions account for 94 percent of the PAC’s revenue. Another $1 million came from another FTX executive, Nishad Singh, also on February 4.
Montoya’s other PAC, Opportunity For Tomorrow, contributed nearly $195,000 to the FTX executive-backed PAC. One other major contributor was Everytown For Gun Safety Action Fund, the PAC arm of the gun control organization founded by major Democratic donor Michael Bloomberg.
The Phoenix-based PAC only put $1.26 million back into Arizona through its independent expenditures committee (IEC). From there, the money can’t be traced.
The remainder went to Democratic PACs and candidates in other states, primarily ad campaigns to benefit congressional and state legislature candidates in Oregon, Texas, Michigan, Kentucky, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, California, New York, and New Jersey. According to the PAC’s website, the primary reason for the PAC is to elect candidates focused on preventing pandemics.
Advertisement - story continues below

The only Arizona candidate to which Bankman-Fried contributed directly was Congressman Ruben Gallego (D-AZ-07): $5,800 in March.
Bankman-Fried also contributed thousands to two other Arizona-based PACS. He gave $5,000 to Guarding Against Pandemics, another Phoenix-based PAC with Montoya serving as treasurer. Bankman-Fried also gave $5,000 to a Phoenix-based PAC sponsored by recently-defeated Congressman Tom O’Halleran’s (D-AZ-01) campaign.
Investigative reporter Natalie Winters discussed this finding on Bannon’s War Room.
 

ELECTION FRAUD: Senator Warnock’s Campaign Calls TN Man and Asks Him to Vote – The Man Records the ENTIRE CALL Then Posts It Online (VIDEO)​

By Jim Hoft
Published November 27, 2022 at 8:55pm

Link: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...e-man-records-entire-call-posts-online-video/

Raphael Warnock’s campaign called US Veteran and homeless advocate Dom Lucre this weekend and asked him to vote for far left Senator Warnock in the December runoff election.
Dom Lucre lives in Tennessee.
And Dom recorded the entire call. The caller had the nerve to feed Dom the liberal lies about Republicans and their power and dark money, blah-blah-blah… Dom shot back that Democrats control everything. They control Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, the media and all Republicans have is FOX News.
Dom was magnificent!

This is how Democrats cheat and steal our elections from the American people.

TRENDING: BREAKING: Maricopa County Response to AZ AG Materially Conflicts with Instructions on Election Day - But They Announce They Will Certify Rigged Election TOMORROW Anyway

In a country where the authorities valued integrity, honesty, and fairness, this call would immediately be investigated and Warnock’s campaign would be punished. But we don’t have that today in the United States. You can commit any criminal act of voter fraud if you are a Democrat and it will not even be investigated.
Herschel Walker’s campaign better be at the courtroom room tomorrow morning when the doors open with their lawsuit in hand.
From Dom Lucre’s tweet: “So Senator Warnock’s campaign called me, A TN Resident to Vote in his GA election. Everyone has asked me to upload the full video. Here it is”
 

VoterGA Releases Evidence of 20,000 Votes Being Removed from Herschel Walker’s Reported Totals in November Election​

By Joe Hoft
Published December 2, 2022 at 11:30am
PShareShare
Herschel-Walker-LI.jpg

VoterGA released supporting evidence showing Herschel Walker did have 20,000 votes vanish from the amounts being reported by the media during the recent November election.
We reported previously on suspect reporting in the 2022 Senate race in Georgia. At one point in the evening, a large chunk of ballots was reported for Democrat Raphael Warnock that put him into the lead.

We also reported today that Warnock benefited more than any candidate in the US in the 2022 election from millions in donations from unemployed actors over the past year. This is criminal.
TRENDING: EXCLUSIVE: "Campaign Finance Mules" Identified in Georgia Senate Race - Democrat Raphael Warnock Received Over $24 Million from Hundreds of UNEMPLOYED Donors Giving Over 358,000 Donations

Today, VoterGA announced that they found evidence that 20,000 votes were removed from Herschel Walker’s totals during the election.
VoterGA shared this in a press release:
Press Release VoterGA Releases More Evidence of Herschel Walker 20K Vote Decrease by Jim Hoft on Scribd

VoterGA also shared the following screen prints showing this anomaly.
Hershal-Walker-Vote-Decrease-of-20k.jpg

Another day, another major Democrat election crime uncovered.
 

Arizona Mohave County Board of Supervisors to Discuss Litigation Against Maricopa County following Fraudulent Election​

By Jim Hoft
Published December 8, 2022 at 7:15am

Link: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...aricopa-county-following-fraudulent-election/

On November 8, 2022, at least 50% of the tabulators or printers were not operating on Election Day in Maricopa County.
Republicans waited 4 hours in the Arizona sun to vote in Maricopa county. Thousands were told they could vote at a different precinct after they signed in, which they couldn’t. And tens of thousands were told to dump their ballot into a bin that would be counted later.
Following Election Day, Democrat candidates won more than 50% of the votes despite only recording 17% of the turnout on Election Day. How is this possible?

In Berlin, Germany they recently threw out an election following similar circumstances of voter suppression.
TRENDING: BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Daniel Kimmage Deposition By MO and LA AGs Reveals State Department Was Funding Online Fact-Checkers to Censor Speech
This is what Arizona must do throw out the fraudulent results and redo the midterm election.
On December 15th Mohave County Arizona Board of Directors are going to discuss possible litigation against Maricopa County for stealing the 2022 election from the people of Arizona.
mohave-county-lawsuit-.jpg

Let’s pray they do the right thing. We cannot these wicked individuals to destroy OUR country.
 

BREAKING: AZ Judge Sets Schedule For Kari Lake Lawsuit Against Maricopa County – Motion To Dismiss Due By Thursday – Tentative Trial Scheduled for Next Week​

By Jordan Conradson
Published December 13, 2022 at 2:19pm

Link: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...thursday-tentative-trial-scheduled-next-week/

[see vid at site link, above]

az-court-kari-lake-.jpg

Kari Lake vs. Katie Hobbs Lawsuit.
Kari Lake appeared in court today for an Emergency Hearing in her lawsuit against Katie Hobbs and Maricopa County Elections officials, contesting the stolen Midterm Election in Arizona.
The Gateway Pundit has written numerous reports on Kari Lake’s historic lawsuit to nullify and overturn the stolen Midterm Election or hold a new election free from conflicts of interest.
The Gateway Pundit reported that a Runbeck whistleblower revealed in Lake’s filing that HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of ballots had no chain of custody documentation. This is a shocking and massive violation of the law. Twenty-five thousand ballots were added to Maricopa County’s totals after election day with no explanation of why the number of remaining ballots could increase. Tens if not HUNDREDS of thousands of mail-in ballots with mismatched signatures were illegally counted in violation of Arizona law.
The County also intentionally planned an in-person voting disaster on Election Day, where printers and tabulators failed at more than 59% of the 223 vote centers on Election Day. Voters on Election Day turned out for Kari Lake by a ratio of about 3:1.
TRENDING:
BREAKING: AZ Judge Sets Schedule For Kari Lake Lawsuit Against Maricopa County - Motion To Dismiss Due By Thursday - Tentative Trial Scheduled for Next Week
No honest person believes this election was run fairly.
Kari Lake sent out a press release yesterday highlighting critical findings from the lawsuit she filed on Friday, seeking to nullify and overturn the election or hold a new election free from conflicts of interest.
Judge Peter Thompson ordered today’s emergency hearing for scheduling purposes regarding this bombshell filing.
As reported earlier, Judge Peter Thompson ordered Kari Lake and Defendants Katie Hobbs, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, and Elections Directors to appear in court in Kari Lake’s election contest lawsuit against them.
According to Save America attorney Christina Bobb, the County was given until Thursday to file a motion to dismiss, and Lake’s response is due on Saturday.
The trial is set for next week.


Real America’s Voice correspondent Ben Bergquam shared a recording of the Judge’s decision, giving each side one hour for oral argument on December 19. The County previously requested that the allotted time for oral argument be cut in half to one hour total for both arguments.

Kari Lake attended the meeting today. Katie Hobbs was AWOL, just like during the election.
Katie Hobbs campaigned from her basement and refused to debate Kari Lake. No honest person believes that she legitimately won this election.

Hobbs and Maricopa County’s attorneys did everything possible to make this case seem illegitimate and prevent a trial where evidence is presented.

They are terrified that this judge will approve the requested relief, allowing plaintiffs to inspect Maricopa County ballots from the 2022 general election, including ballot signature envelopes and the corresponding signatures on file with Maricopa County, prior to trial, and examine the causes and extent of the printer-tabulator problems encountered on election day;

At one point, the defense council was so desperate to discredit the evidence and stop a hearing from occurring that the judge had to shut them up by asking them to stop advocating.

The council for Katie Hobbs and Maricopa County also referred to Katie Hobbs as the “Governor-Elect” throughout the hearing. The dying election fraud regime will never give up the hoax.

The judge gave equal time to Kari Lake and the defendants, allowing for a hearing and objections to be filed, and he did not allow the defendants to interject their irrelevant opinions into what was meant to be an administrative scheduling hearing. This was a fair hearing.

Here is the full video of today’s hearing. [ck site link, above, top]
 

Pinal County Officials Stayed Mum About Vote Count Discrepancies During Election Trials​

December 31, 2022 Terri Jo Neff

Link: https://arizonadailyindependent.com...out-vote-count-discrepancies-election-trials/

pinal


The judge presiding over Abe Hamadeh’s election challenge dismissed the case Dec. 23 without knowing that Pinal County would admit a few days later to mishandling hundreds of ballots that contained votes in the Attorney General race.

Instead, numerous Pinal County officials –including the board of supervisors, County Attorney Kent Volkmer, and two elections directors– kept the substantive information from Mohave County Judge Lee Jantzen, the candidates, and voters across the state.
It is the latest in a series of questionable decisions related to Pinal County’s elections. In August, then-Elections Director David Frisk lost his job after a botched Primary Election.
Days later, County Recorder Virginia Ross resigned to temporarily take over the beleaguered and understaffed elections department. Her four-month contract the county approved for Ross included $175,000 in salary and the potential for an additional $25,000 if the General Election ran smoothly.

ELECTIONS DIRECTOR FIRED:

Roll, an attorney who previously worked for Volkmer, recently became elections director when Ross departed.
District 5 Supervisor Jeff Serdy takes over as Pinal County’s board chairman on Sunday. He told Arizona Daily Independent he and others were “unsure of what we could and couldn’t talk about” related to the county’s election problems once a statutory recount for the AG and Superintendent of Public Instruction races was ordered in early December.
Serdy’s first board meeting as chairman on Jan. 3 will include a discussion of the 2022 election cycle. The agenda notes this will include follow-up by staff about what happened as well as issues moving forward.
“We’re going to be an open book,” Serdy said, adding it is very frustrating to see voters have doubt in the county’s efforts.
But a growing number of voters are calling on the board to issue subpoenas and take sworn testimony as to who knew what and when. It is an option District 1 Supervisor Kevin Cavanaugh says he could support.
“I am advocating for a very trustworthy election that our voters can count on,” Cavanaugh said Saturday after acknowledging there appeared to be problems with the county’s General Election before the canvass vote was held to certify the results.
Instead, those concerns were “kept in-house” while a push was made by some staffers and officials to conduct the canvass sooner than later under Ross’s leadership of the elections department.
That canvass took place Nov. 21, even though the county had until Nov. 28 to complete the task. Cavanaugh recalls thinking at the time it felt rushed.
“I didn’t understand why we were doing it so soon,” he says.
It is now known that multiple issues were identified with the tabulation of ballots prior to canvassing. Volkmer was notified, as was the county’s election system vendor, ES&S. There was also concerns raised about the accuracy of the vote count when staff and volunteers conducted the mandatory post-election hand count audit.
“One factor underlying this disparity is that the canvass was filed prior to taking an adequate opportunity to investigate any possible anomalies we could discern from polling place returns,” new Elections Director Geraldine Roll wrote to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office. “Unfortunately, before the analysis was completed, the canvass was downloaded and filed.”
Further errors with Pinal County’s election were discovered during the statewide mandatory recount of the AG and Superintendent’s races. As a result, the county issued a recount report to the secretary of state showing 392 more voters for Hamadeh and 115 more for Kris Mayes that what was included in the Nov.21 canvass.

RECOUNT REQUIRED:

Roll added in her Dec. 21 recount memo that the county believes the recount vote report for the two statewide races “to be accurate and the discrepancies between the recount and the canvass were the results of human error.”
On Dec. 29, Maricopa County Judge Timothy Thomason announced the results of the recounts from all 15 counties. The judge declared Kris Mayes the new attorney general by a margin of only 280 votes out of more than 2.5 million counted in the race. Mayes entered the recount 511 votes up on Hamadeh.
But separate of the recount, Hamadeh filed an election challenge on Dec. 9 in Mohave County seeking to put forth evidence that ballot tabulation errors cheated him of votes. The Pinal County board as well as the county recorder were named as defendants along with the other counties.
As a named defendant, Pinal County took a nominal position which meant they would not make arguments in the case but agreed to comply with any orders of the court. However, several attorneys who are not involved in the election challenge say nothing prevented Volkmer, the county attorney, from briefing Judge Lee Jantzen about the county’s tabulation problems.
And if Volkmer was truly concerned about violating any confidentiality order in the recount case, he could have asked Judge Thomason for permission to brief Jantzen.
Instead, Pinal County officials stayed quiet while Hamadeh’s lawsuit was dismissed. Hamadeh has announced he is considering appeal options.

It is unclear whether Ross received the full payment authorized in her contract, and if so, who authorized it.
 

HARD PROOF CONFIRMS BIDEN STOLE 2020 POTUS ELECTION

Posted on January 6, 2023 by State of the Nation
FacebookTwitterPinterestRedditEmailPrint

Link: http://stateofthenation.co/?p=152861


A Precise Statistical Analysis Categorically Proves
POTUS Imposter Joe Biden Stole the 2020 Election

SOTN Editor’s Note: There are many types of evidence that can serve as categorical proof of a crime or crime spree. There are at least 17 types of evidence which can be used in a legal context to both indict and convict a criminal or crime syndicate as the Democrat Party has become. As follows:​

Direct evidence
Circumstantial evidence
Physical evidence
Individual physical evidence
Class physical evidence
Forensic evidence
Trace evidence
Testimonial evidence
Expert witness evidence
Digital evidence
Documentary evidence
Demonstrative evidence
Character evidence
Habit evidence
Hearsay evidence
Corroborating evidence
Statistical Evidence

Different categories of crimes are more easily proved with the various types evidence. For example, election theft is extremely easy to prove with statistical evidence. As long as the underlying statistics are accurate, the numbers don’t lie.​

Which brings us to the 2020 POTUS election.​

The following rigorous statistical analysis proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that POTUS Imposter Joe Biden and the Democrat Party perpetrated a highly organized criminal conspiracy to steal the 2020 POTUS election.​

That the official and documented election outcomes from 1988 through 2016 in 22 “Bellwether Counties”, all went contrary to the well established historical pattern of voting, serves as ironclad and irrefutable evidence that the 2020 election was stealthily and successfully stolen.​

State of the Nation
January 6, 2023​


The Fall of the Bellwether Counties​

Posted by ElectionFraud20.org
This article is part of a series on Identifying Electoral Fraud Using Trend Analysis.
There are 22 counties in the US that managed to vote for the winning party in every single election from 1988 to 2016. Their finger was so tightly on the pulse of America that they not only picked the winner each time, but managed to accurately flip parties four times in that period. These are the “bellwether” counties.
But what if we told you that only 1 of these 22 counties voted for Biden in 2020?
How did the others all get it so wrong?
Let’s take a closer look.
Bellwether counties are important, and their significance should not be downplayed. They have a rare and unique property of having a perfect demographic mix that allows them to vote for either party based on the merits of each election, and always get it right.
(Think about what it takes, and what is required for a county to always get the election right. Don’t simply gloss over this. Take the time to ponder and realize that this is no mean feat! It requires a lot more than “pure luck”.)
It far surpasses any “statistical” explanation, because at the end of the day we are dealing with real people, with real personalities, concerns and aspirations, which happen to align perfectly with the whole American population.
Their concerns are real. Their hopes are real. The matters that way on their minds are real. Their emotions and decision making process are real. They are not a “statistical” curiosity, but the perfect distillation or embodiment of the whole country’s sentiment.
Please keep this in mind as you continue to read through our bellwether analysis. (Needless to say that if the tables were reversed, we would hear no end of the significance of bellwether counties in the media.)
Contents
  1. What does it take for a county to be a bellwether?
  2. Are some bellwethers better than others?
  3. Which counties are the best at “swinging”?
  4. What about counties that are great at “switching”?
  5. Recent “switch” counties
  6. Summary
  7. Conclusion
  8. Visitor Comments

What does it take for a county to be a bellwether?​

Let’s turn the clock back to 1988.
For a county to be considered a bellwether it would have to vote for the winning party at each of the following elections:
1988Republican
1992Democrat
🔄
switch
1996Democrat
2000Republican
🔄
switch
2004Republican
2008Democrat
🔄
switch
2012Democrat
2016Republican
🔄
switch
That is 4 switches in 8 election cycles! Out of 3,141 counties, there were 22 counties that had successfully voted for the winning candidate in each and every election between 1988 and 2016 (included).
If bellwethers were just a “statistical curiosity” and purely random, we could expect half of these counties to pick the winning party at the 2020 election.
But there was only one county – Clallam, Washington – which voted Democrat. All other 21 counties voted Republican.
It is easy to gloss over this. We already claimed that bellwether counties are a lot more than “statistical curiosities”, but let’s assume for the time being that normal rules of probability apply…
If you take a coin and flip it 22 times. What are the odds of getting 21 “heads” or 21 “tails”?
The probability is hard to comprehend, so let’s figure it out for real. Let’s find a coin, and flip it.
Really … stop reading. Find a coin, and flip it, and see how long it takes to (just) get 10 heads or 10 tails in a row.
Or even better, if you have children, get them to do it for you. It will keep them entertained for hours, and you can tell them it is for a good cause. After you have spent an hour trying, record the maximum streak length you achieved.
You should now have a real tangible sense of how difficult it is to get a streak of 10. Now imagine getting 21 out of 22…!
Furthermore, consider the fact that bellwethers don’t just have a random 50% chance at winning — we should expect them to have a better than 50% chance of getting it right.
For the mathematically-minded: the table below shows that county outcomes do loosely follow a random outcome, up until a point. After 8 elections, the number of counties left standing defy the odds, and it is this fact that makes them “bellwether” counties.
The table shows the number of counties that voted for the winning candidate since the 1988 election. Keep in mind that if we started the attrition from the 1980 election, there would still be 19 counties standing after the 2016 election. That is 19 counties still standing after 10 elections! (From a purely random statistics perspective, there should only be 1 or 2 standing. The fact that there were 19 demonstrates the incredible predictive abilities of these counties.)
image.png

Somehow we jumped from 22 to 1 county in one election cycle and we are supposed to believe that is “normal”?
The odds of 21 counties out of 22 missing the mark is extremely remote!
Summary:
Here are the concepts we have established so far:
  1. Bellwether counties are not just “statistical curiosities”
  2. The odds of 21 (out of 22) of these counties getting it wrong is extremely unlikely
This is just the beginning. It gets a lot more interesting…

Are some bellwethers better than others?​

Let’s introduce a new concept: the “quality” of prediction. Bellwether counties are already extremely rare, but some bellwether counties are better than others at highlighting a change in sentiment.
How so?
Well, let’s consider the percentage gap between the winning and losing party in these counties. In other words, how strongly do they swing to the winning party?
The best bellwether counties will consistently vote more than 50% for the winning party. (Independent parties will reduce the winning margin between the two major parties.) Here are the counties that consistently voted more than 50% for the winning party since the 2000 election:
image.png

There are only 4 counties.
To make things a little more interesting we will relax the constraints a little to include “modern” bellwether counties, that is, counties that have voted for the winning candidate since 1992. This favors the Democrat party since we are excluding counties that voted Republican in 1988. In other words, we are including more counties that are more likely to vote for the Democrat party.
Re-doing the analysis we obtain 35 modern bellwether counties after the 2016 election. Of these 35 counties, 10 of them consistently voted over 50% for the winning candidate since the year 2000. They are:
image.png

Notice RANSOM, SARGENT, and MARSHALL in particular. Outstanding. Their ability and sensitivity to dramatically switch parties in 2000, 2008 and 2016, is outstanding. It clearly shows they hold no allegiances and will vote for whichever party makes the most sense to them at each election. They simply vote on merit.
Since only Clallam County voted Democrat in 2020, we know they all voted for the Republican party in 2020 and got it wrong. The question is, how much did they get it wrong by?
We know these counties are the “best of the best” at predicting the election winner. So, even though they got it wrong in 2020, it is still worth figuring out how much they got it wrong by.
Did they narrowly miss out on voting for the Democrat party in 2020?
How many of these counties voted less for the Republican party in 2020? (It will at least show a trend away from the Republican party that would help make more sense of this situation.)
You can find the answers to the above questions yourself by searching this site: politico.com/2020-election/results
(Go to the bottom of the page. Click on the relevant state then look for the county name.)
Once you have found all the results and looked at the trends, remember, these counties are the best counties at predicting an election outcome!
If the Republican percentage in 2020 is less than in 2016, it would clearly indicate a change in sentiment away from the Republican party, towards the Democrat party. The magnitude of the gap (or difference) is an indicator of the strength of the change in sentiment.

Which counties are the best at “swinging”?​

In this section we will introduce a new concept: The “swing” county.
A “swing” county is a county that voted correctly for the winning party at one election and then voted for the other winning party at the next election.
To make things more interesting we will only look at “swing” counties since the 2004 election. (i.e. We will only focus on the most recent elections to increase the pool of counties to analyze.)
So, for our purposes, a “swing” county would have voted as follows:
2004Republican
2008Democrat
🔄
switch of party
2012Democrat
2016Republican
🔄
switch of party
There are 80 such counties. Let’s rank these counties from “highest to lowest” Democrat voting percentages in the 2008 election. (See the “DPV 08” column in the image below.) These counties turned out to vote strongly for the Democrat party in 2008, so they are the most likely to swing back to the Democrat party in 2020.
Here are the top 50 counties by Democrat voting percentage in 2008:
image.png

How many of these counties swung back to the Democrat party in 2020?
You can find the answer by searching politico.com/2020-election/results
We’re not going to just give you the answer, since the significance of the result might be lost on you. Go on, look them up! Bonus points if you also keep track of the trends from 2016 to 2020.
Summary:
Here is a quick recap of what we have established so far:
  1. Bellwether counties are not just “statistical curiosities”
  2. The odds of 21 (out of 22) of these counties getting it wrong is extremely unlikely
  3. We have identified and analyzed the “best of the best” bellwether counties at predicting an election outcome, and examined their trends in 2020. (You can make up your own mind on what the trends mean.)
  4. We looked at the most recent “swing” counties and determined how many of the strongest Democrat voting counties in 2008, swung back to the Democrat party in 2020.

What about counties that are great at “switching”?​

We will now introduce another new concept, called a “switch” county. A “switch” county is our name for a county that happens to vote for the winning party whenever there is a change of parties, ignoring how they voted for the incumbent.
TIP: You have probably noticed by now that with each new section we write, we are “relaxing” the constraints to make it easier to build a case for the Democrats winning the 2020 election.
Concretely, a “switch” county would have voted for the following parties:
1992Democrat
🔄
switch of party
2000Republican
🔄
switch of party
2008Democrat
🔄
switch of party
2016Republican
🔄
switch of party
(We ignore how they voted in 1996, 2004 and 2012 when the parties stayed the same.)
There are 150 such counties.
It is important to realise these counties have no allegiances whatsoever and will happily vote for whichever party makes the most sense to them based on merit.
Here are the top 30 sorted by the “highest to lowest” Democrat percentage vote in 2008, that’s the “DPV 08” column:
image.png

Here’s what you need to look into:
  • How many of these 150 “switch” counties voted Democrat in 2020?
  • Or, if you don’t have enough time, how many of the top 10 “switch” counties, which overwhelmingly voted Democrat in 2008 (with a percentage Democrat vote over 58% !), voted Democrat again in 2020?
Find out at politico.com/2020-election/results.
Summary:
Let’s quickly recap what we have established so far:
  1. Bellwether counties are not just “statistical curiosities”
  2. The odds of 21 (out of 22) of these counties getting it wrong is extremely unlikely
  3. We identified and analyzed the “best of the best” bellwether counties at predicting an election outcome, and examined their trends in 2020. (You can make up your own mind on what the trends mean.)
  4. We relaxed the constraint by introducing the concept of a “swing” county, i.e. a county which has voted Republican in 2004, but swung to the Democrat party in 2008 and then back to the Republican party in 2016.
  5. We further relaxed the constraint by introducing the “switch” county. i.e. A county that voted for the winning party in 1992 (Democrat), 2000 (Republican), 2008 (Democrat) and 2016 (Republican), irrespective of how they voted at the other elections. The idea being these counties are good at sensing a change of sentiment and will happily vote for whichever party makes the most sense to them.

Recent “switch” counties​

In this post we will further relax the constraint by analyzing counties that voted Democrat in 2008 and Republican in 2016 only; that is, the “switch” counties in the most recent elections.
There are 391 such counties. We sorted the counties from “highest to lowest” Democrat percentage vote (in the 2008 election). There are 25 counties with a Democrat percentage vote over 60%. The highest percentage being 66.1%.
Here are the top 25 counties which voted over 60% for the Democrat party in 2008, and then voted Republican in 2016:
image.png

There is no doubt these 25 counties heavily favor the Democrat party. So the question is, how many of them “switched” back to the Democrat party in 2020?
Again, you’ll appreciate the results when you dig some of them up yourself. Find the answer by searching politico.com/2020-election/results.

Summary​

Swing Counties:
There are 80 “swing” counties.
When sorted from the “highest to lowest” Democrat percentage vote (at the 2008 election), we can see that there is 1 county that has a percentage Democrat vote greater than 60% at the 2008 election. (The highest value being 60.6%)
Switch counties:
There are 150 “switch” counties.
When sorted from the “highest to lowest” Democrat percentage vote (at the 2008 election), we can see that there are 4 counties that have a percentage Democrat vote greater than 60% at the 2008 election. (The highest value being 66.1%)
Recent Switch counties:
There are 391 recent “switch” counties.
When sorted from the “highest to lowest” Democrat percentage vote (at the 2008 election), we can see that there are 25 counties that have a percentage Democrat vote greater than 60% at the 2008 election. (The highest value being again 66.1%)
With such overwhelming Democrat support in 2008, one can only surmise that ALL these 25 counties would have switched back to the Democrat party in 2020. Especially since Biden received million more votes than Obama did in 2008.

Conclusion​

We have looked at every imaginable scenario to build a case for the Democrat party winning the 2020 election based upon how our “trusted” counties voted. With each new section we relaxed the constraint, to include the most friendly Democrat voting counties in the country (based on the 2008 election). We highlighted the counties that voted the highest for the Democrat party in 2008 as it is a clear indicator of their propensity to vote for the Democrat party.
Have you looked at the results of these counties? If you’ve done your research and found the 2020 results for each of these counties, you should find the results extremely puzzling.
So did we.
___
https://electionfraud20.org/in-detail/bellwether-states-counties-2020/

SOTN Editor’s Note: Now here’s another take on the very same type and cogency of statistical evidence. Only this time the statistical analysis concerns 17 bellwether counties throughout the USA. See the graph below which clearly indicates that something went very wrong during the 2020 POTUS election.​

 

Ballot signature matching system in Maricopa County is 'almost illegal,' says longtime FBI expert​

Election workers "just staring at signatures," said Wayne Barnes, "don't know a good signature from a bad signature" or "what makes it valid."

By Natalia Mittelstadt
Updated: May 8, 2023 - 3:30pm

Link: https://justthenews.com/politics-po...g-process-maricopa-county-almost-illegal-says

As Kari Lake's lawsuit returns to the trial court for consideration of alleged violations of Maricopa County's signature verification rules in the Arizona 2022 general election, a retired FBI counterintelligence agent with longtime expertise in signature analysis says that matching ballot signatures with little time to review is "almost illegal."
If election workers have a limited amount of time to review signatures on early ballots to ensure they match with voters' files, it's "almost illegal to have it work that way," said retired FBI Special Agent Wayne A. Barnes, adding, "almost pathetic."
Barnes, a 29-year FBI veteran who mastered signature analysis while unmasking Soviet spies during the Cold War, previously wrote a report commissioned by Just the News that found that the signature on the receipt from the Delaware repair shop where Hunter Biden left his laptop was a match for the signature of President Biden's son.
The retired FBI agent's comments on signature verification followed a development in Lake's legal challenge to her defat in the 2022 gubernatorial race.
On Thursday, the Arizona Supreme Court ordered the trial court to conduct proceedings "forthwith" to resolve Lake's challenge to Maricopa County's alleged violations of its signature verification practices in the election, while granting one punitive sanction but denying attorneys' fees requested by the defendants.
Barnes, who has previously helped with ballot signature verification in Orlando, Fla., told Just the News on Friday that election workers aren't given "enough time" to check if signatures are matching. Signature verification requires "at least four to five signatures that are valid" and "not questionable" in order to compare signatures to determine if the signature in question is valid, he explained.
In Arizona, signature verification is required for early ballots so that voters' signatures on the ballot envelopes can be checked against signatures on voters' files to ensure they match. There is no ID requirement when casting an early ballot.
While election workers verifying signatures are usually given training, the retired FBI agent said that signature verification isn't something that a person can easily be trained to do the way he has been doing it for 45 years.
"If states don't" require voters to "show ID or picture ID" for comparison with those on file, then the "system is created to commit fraud," Barnes said.
Election workers "just staring at signatures," he said, "don't know a good signature from a bad signature" or "what makes it valid."
"The only thing the reviewer can do is the best he/she can" in comparing signatures on ballot envelopes to "those in the voter records," said the signature analyst.
Noting that signatures under analysis "always have to have the same styles" to permit accurate verification, Barnes explained that if someone is writing a signature on a ballot envelope, then they are "never writing it neat" and it won't "be matched because there are too many inconsistencies."
Ballot signature verification systems may thus be intrinsically flawed. "The way the [ballot signature verification] system works, it almost forces the reviewer to verify something that is not really verifiable," he said. A reviewer "essentially 'letting this one pass' is not vouching that this is a good [signature]."
In practice, the poll worker is essentially only checking a box that a "signature passed review," he said. "Only the most dissimilar signatures, when comparing them, can be knocked out."
However, "it is hardly good use of fraud with this aspect of mail-in ballots," he later added. "These one-at-a-time circumstances simply have too few ballots to be efficient for a true fraudster. More likely, the question is, 'Who put the ballot in the envelope, and under what circumstances?'"
Citing ballot harvesting as "an important unstated issue" with early voting, he suggested that fraud is likelier upstream from signature verification, saying "the fraud is committed closer to the source of the moment of filling out the form and not on the issue of whether the signatures match or don't."
Lake, the 2022 Arizona GOP gubernatorial nominee, fell about 17,000 votes short in her race against then-Secretary of State Katie Hobbs. She is suing Hobbs, now the incumbent Democratic governor, in addition to current Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and Maricopa County election officials. Her suit requests that the election results be invalidated or that she be declared the winner.
In March, the state Supreme Court remanded Lake's claim alleging massive signature verification failure to the trial court, ruling that because Lake is challenging a failure to adhere to current policy rather than the policy itself, her suit was not filed too late, as the lower court had found in dismissing her case.
Following the ruling, Lake tweeted: "For years signatures have been a third rail for Maricopa County. The process of verifying these signatures is the only security measure on mail-in ballots. The amount of time allotted to check these signatures was only 8 seconds, which is not humanly possible. The system is completely broken. That's why they are absolutely terrified of letting anyone take a look at their signatures. The signature verification process in Maricopa County is a house of cards. Thanks to this ruling my team will get the chance to topple it."
Three whistleblowers who "were intimately involved" in the signature verification process "allege that Maricopa County WILLFULLY ignored law and procedure," she added.
"This violation of procedure allowed for tens of thousands of illegal ballots to be approved and counted," she contined. "Aside from all other issues, including nearly 60% of polling locations being inoperable on Election Day, this issue alone casts the veracity of Katie Hobb's victory in serious doubt."
The eight-second estimate that Lake referred to was part of an analysis mentioned in a presentation to an Arizona state Senate committee by We the People AZ Alliance in January.
After the state high court's ruling in March, the Maricopa County Superior Court waited to return to Lake's case because the high court still needed to determine if Lake would be required to pay sanctions to Hobbs and Fontes regarding her claim that 35,563 unaccounted-for early ballots were added to Maricopa County's final tally.
The Arizona Supreme Court's ruling on Thursday ordered the lower court to start proceedings.
Lake "intends to petition [the trial court] to inspect the ballots verified by Maricopa, based on new evidence that came to light in 2023," according to a motion for a status conference her legal team submitted Thursday in Maricopa County Superior Court. "In addition, Lake has filed a special action in this Court to compel Maricopa to produce ballot envelopes and related public records for the 2022 election in response to Lake's Public Records Request."
After the state Supreme Court's ruling in March, Lake tweeted that Maricopa County was refusing to allow her "legal team to inspect ballot signatures."
On Friday, following the Arizona Supreme Court's ruling on Thursday, Lake tweeted: "I am so excited that our case is moving forward! I will not stop until we restore election integrity to the good people of Arizona."
On Thursday, Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer retweeted a tweet about the Arizona Supreme Court's sanction against Lake's legal counsel. "False statements coming from Kari Lake?" Richer wrote. "Say it ain't so! For those keeping score, Kari Lake has filed two election administration related lawsuits. She has now been sanctioned in both of them. This is an EXTRAORDINARY remedy that hardly ever happens. She's managed 2 for 2."
Following the Arizona Supreme Court's ruling in March, Richer gave a statement to Just the News. "We of course respect the Court's determination that one (out of many) of Lake's allegations should not have been dismissed according to one legal theory," he wrote. "We know, however, that if this allegation proceeds to a factual analysis, Maricopa County will be able to demonstrate that over 150 people spent a total of thousands of hours to review approximately 1.5 million signatures from the November 2022 election.
"Maricopa County's process is more robust than ever: workers received enhanced training; we have access to all signatures in the voter's file; and all initial determinations are sent to an audit queue. After this two-tiered review, Maricopa County found 18,510 signatures to be non-matching. Of those, we were able to 'cure' 15,411 by calling, mailing, texting, and emailing the voters.
"Those thousands of people can attest to the checks of our process, as can the over 150 bipartisan workers who reviewed signatures. Workers are always told that accuracy is the only important factor. Workers are not given a quota of how many signatures to complete in an hour. Workers are not paid according to the number of signatures they review. And at no point were workers told to 'hurry up.'"
Maricopa County told Just the News on Monday: "The Maricopa County Recorder's Office remains confident in its signature verification process.
"The system and signature review process consists of multiple levels. User Level 1 reviewers, who receive proper training, conduct an initial review. Recorder Richer ensured Level 1 reviewers had the appropriate time and resources to conduct their review by hiring 41 temporary staff (compared to 29 in 2020) and utilizing permanent staff.
"Level 2 Managers, who receive training from a certified forensic signature examiner, then review – including a batch audit of the Level 1 reviews.
"In addition to this multiple review level process that provides checks and balances to the process, the daily user audit (Level 3) also adds a layer of verification to the work product coming from the various reviewers – as every signature disposition set at any level is tied back to a specific user and their assigned username."
 
Back
Top