15 thoughts on “To People Who Work With Fraud”

  1. I think we’re dealing with “Murder on the Orient Express” levels of fraud here- there were multiple, independent, sometimes overlapping frauds. Business as usual, in other words.

    1. Yes. One of my early reaction was that they had high levels of pre-planned fraud in motion, and then later that night they panicked because they had believed the polls more than they should have. So the early results caused total panic and they cranked all possible election-rigging schemes to 11. As one of the investigators noted, this has the hallmarks of a poorly-coordinated scheme where the later orders weren’t carefully calculated and coordinated, but more of just all the fraudsters getting a green light to go all in with everything they had.

      So instead of all the methods being subtle and under-the-radar, they became over-the-top and in-your-face, and there were so many different schemes being simultaneously employed that red flags popped up everywhere.

      1. “So instead of all the methods being subtle and under-the-radar, they became over-the-top and in-your-face, and there were so many different schemes being simultaneously employed that red flags popped up everywhere.”

        Yes. Like the ridiculously obvious vote dumps happening in Wisconsin & Michigan. And yet aided by the complicit mainstream media, Tech giants, hollywoodenheads and of course the democratic establishment its looks like they just might get away with it. And it pains me greatly to admit it..I am north of 60 yrs old and this is the blatant attempt at election stealing I have ever witnessed. Though I still listen to Dr Steve Turley he seems optimistic things might settle out favorable for Trump (and the Country). Many of them doubtlessly think that once they get rid of evil bad man racist Trump things will return to some semblance of normalcy. They are likely mistaken.

    2. Demicrat’s MO is to operate cellular groups but they usually share funding, manpower, and organization at some level.

  3. As he notes, this stealthy road follows in the footsteps of a number of previous contested American elections, especially the 1876 election that pitted Tilden v. Hayes. Then as now, each state must decide on a group of electors to meet with a joint session of Congress on January 6 where the winner of the presidential election is declared. The normal practice in a state where Biden won the popular-vote total would be for state election officials to certify the results and send a slate of electors to Congress. But state legislatures have the constitutional authority to conclude that the popular vote has been corrupted and thus send a competing slate of electors on behalf of their state. The 12th Amendment to the Constitution specifies that the “President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.” That means that in the case of disputes about competing electoral slates, the President of the Senate—Vice President Pence—would appear to have the ultimate authority to decide which to accept and which to reject. Pence would choose Trump. Democrats would appeal to the Supreme Court.

    Alternatively, if at that point, no candidate has the required 270 electoral votes, the 12th Amendment stipulates, “the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote.” Currently, Republicans have a state delegation majority with 26 of the 50 states and they appear almost certain to keep that majority in the new Congress. A vote of the states would then elect President Trump for a second term. And again, Democrats would appeal that outcome to the Supreme Court.

    As the analysis below notes, these issues are even more complex. But to repeat the bottom line: both the words of the 12th Amendment, and historical precedent offer a credible, stealthy, winding road that could lead to Trump’s victory and a second term. Or as the saying goes: the opera ain’t over till the fat lady sings.

    •I project a 20% chance of a contested election outcome leading to a victory for President Trump.

    ◦Whereas consensus sees contestation via Constitutional means as a far, remote possibility, a scenario invoking the 12th amendment is an easier path for Republicans to pursue than currently recognized.

    •Trump has consistently during his reelection campaign questioned the legitimacy of mail-in ballots, claiming the election will be “rigged” and “the most corrupt election in the history of our country.” This is most likely part of a strategy to set the stage for a contested outcome.

    – On Nov. 1 in North Carolina, President Trump decried recent Supreme Court rulings allowing states such as Pennsylvania to continue counting ballots after election day, stating, “We’re going to go in the night of, as soon as that election’s over, we’re going in with our lawyers.”

    ◦Most significant, President Trump has clearly discussed and been briefed on a strategy to contest the election via Constitutional means,
    saying at a Sept. 26 rally in—where else—Pennsylvania: “And I don’t want to end up in the Supreme Court and I don’t want to go back to Congress either, even though we have an advantage if we go back to Congress — does everyone understand that? I think it’s 26 to 22 or something because it’s counted one vote per state, so we actually have an advantage. Oh, they’re going to be thrilled to hear that.”

    ◾Politico reports, “In private, Trump has discussed the possibility of the presidential race being thrown into the House as well, raising the issue with GOP lawmakers, according to Republican sources.”
    •Trump is correct: Republicans currently have 26-state delegation majority to Democrats’ 22 state delegations in a scenario in which the election is decided by a House of Representatives vote on the presidency according to state delegations.
    ◦A conceivable contested election could involve multiple states’ electoral votes, but Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes would almost certainly figure into such a scenario.

    ◾1876 precedent: Coincidentally, in the contested election of 1876 between Democrat Samuel J. Tilden and Republican Rutherford B. Hayes —the best precedent available for a possible contested 2020 election (not the 2000 election)—20 electoral votes were under dispute, albeit from four different states: all electors from Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, and one elector from Oregon.

    ◾House of Representatives Office of the Historian: “Both Tilden and Hayes electors submitted votes from these three states, each claiming victory in violent and confused elections. The Democratic-controlled House and the Republican-dominated Senate came to a compromise on how to resolve the problem by creating an Electoral Commission: a bipartisan committee of House Members, Senators, and Supreme Court Justices who would determine the final disposition of the yet-unassigned electoral votes…[Beginning on Feb. 1, 1877], Congress met in a Joint Session 15 times in the next month, until—acting on the decision
    of the commission—it awarded the disputed vote to Hayes, granting him the victory by one vote.”

    ◾The resolution was decided via a backroom deal in which the Republicans agreed with Democrats to end Reconstruction in return for winning the presidency.

    ◦In a contested 2020 election, Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor and Republican state legislature could send competing electors to be counted at the Jan. 6, 2021 joint session of Congress.

    ◾Similar to 1876, the Republican Senate and Democratic House would disagree on which electors to accept. However, in the media environment of 2020, it would be virtually impossible for the two houses of Congress to reach a backroom deal to resolve their dispute as happened in 1876.

    ◦Democrats would argue that the Electoral Count Act of 1877—passed
    in order to avoid a repeat of 1876—favors the electors certified by state governors; in this case, the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania certifying electors voting for Biden.

    ◦Republicans, on the other hand, would argue that the Electoral Count Act is unconstitutional, as the Constitution clearly allows state legislatures to certify electors; in this case, the Republican state legislature of Pennsylvania certifying electors voting for Trump.

    ◦Under the Constitution, there exists no mechanism to resolve a dispute in which the two houses of Congress cannot agree upon a certified set of electors, and there is no Constitutional role for the courts, including the Supreme Court.

    ◦Republicans, supported by legal and historical precedent, would argue that under the language of the 12th amendment, which reads, “The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted,” the President of the Senate—Vice President Mike Pence—has the sole discretion to break a deadlock between the Senate and the House, and to either accept or dismiss

    disputed electors.

    ◾As Edward B. Foley explains, in such a scenario, “Some Republicans take the especially aggressive position that Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, has the unilateral authority under the Twelfth Amendment to decide which certificate of electoral votes from Pennsylvania is the authoritative one entitled to be counted in Congress and that he, accordingly, will count the certificate from the electors appointed by the state legislature because the Constitution authorizes the state legislature to choose the method of appointing electors. These Republicans point to the historical pedigree of this position, observing that Republicans made the same argument during the disputed election of 1876 and that at least some recent law journal scholarship has supported this position. Unembarrassed by the apparent conflict of interest caused by Mike Pence simultaneously being a candidate for reelection and arbiter of the electoral dispute, these Republicans observe that Thomas Jefferson was in essentially the same position during the disputed election of 1800 and yet the Twelfth

    https://nationalinterest.org/feature/donald-trumps-stealthy-road-victory-172235

      1. “Do you have a life, or are you just copying/pasting this to clog up my comments section?”

        Sorry for the length of the post feel free to delete

  4. Amendment left this provision in place when Congress rewrote the procedures for the Electoral College afterwards. While it is true that an incumbent Vice President might have a direct personal stake in the electoral dispute to be resolved, the Republicans argue, at least the glare of the spotlight is focused on whatever the vice president does in this situation, and everyone will be able to judge whether the vice president acted honorably or dishonorably in resolving the dispute.”

    ◾“This interpretation of the Twelfth Amendment is bolstered, moreover, by the further observation that the responsibility to definitively decide which electoral votes from each state are entitled to be counted must be lodged ultimately in some singular authority of the federal government. If one body could decide the question one way, while another body could reach the opposite conclusion, then there inevitably is a stalemate unless and until a single authority is identified with the power to settle the matter once and for all. Given the language of the Twelfth Amendment, whatever its ambiguity and potential policy objections, there is no other possible single authority to identify for this purpose besides the President of the Senate. This role could have been vested in the chief justice of the United States, as is the constitutional authority to preside over the trial of an impeachment of the president. Or disputes of this nature could have been referred directly to the Supreme Court, as a singular corporate body, for definitive resolution there. But the Constitution does neither; nor does it make any other such provision. Thus, according to this argument, the inevitable implication of the Twelfth Amendment’s text is that it vests this ultimate singular authority, for better or worse, in the President of the Senate. Subject only to the joint observational role of the Senate and House of Representatives, the President of the Senate decides authoritatively what ‘certificates’ from the states to ‘open’ and thus what electoral votes are ‘to be counted.’”

    ◦Vice President Pence would then either accept the electors submitted by the Pennsylvania Republican legislature voting for Trump, or dismiss them as disputed and not have them counted. In this new, reduced total of electors, a remaining majority still delivers Trump a victory.

    ◦If a majority is not reached, then under the 12th amendment, “the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote.” If Republicans maintain their current 26-state House majority by state delegation, they are thereby able in this scenario to reelect President Trump for a second term.

    ◦Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi could refuse to attend with House Democrats the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress, thereby indefinitely delaying the aforementioned process, and—in a different scenario—assume the presidency as Acting President under the 20th amendment and under the succession statute enacted by Congress. This sets up a battle of dueling inaugurations on Jan. 20, 2021.

  6. I need some help with stats, because I don’t do stats.

    I was looking at a list of 17 bellwether counties. Disqus upload image

    The worst they ever performed was 53% correct in 1960, but we know the 1960 election was rife with fraud, so I’m tossing it out.

    That leaves 15 races prior to 2020, each with 17 counties, for 255 total runs. Of those, they made 231 correct calls and 24 wrong calls, so the calls averaged 90.58% correct and 9.42% incorrect.

    So what are the odds of them getting only 3 right this time?

    Since 90.58% is so close to 9/10ths, I could represent each trial as a letter (a through j), or a 10 sided dice, with 9 letters or digit representing correct and one representing incorrect. The order is unimportant, so I’m looking for the number of combinations of a 17 letters chosen from a 10-letter alphabet. That number is 3,124,550.

    If ‘a’ is wrong and all other digits are right, then each letter meets my criteria of having a 90% chance of being “right”. So I’m looking for the number of patterns that have 14 a’s, paired with three other digits.

    So one possibility is all a’s. Another is 1 letter being b through j (So 9), another is 2 letters being b through j (81 possibilities), and another is 3 letters being b through j (729 possibilities), for 820 possible outcomes with up to three bellwethers not being wrong. That’s 820 outcomes out of 3,124,550 possible outcomes (of our alphabet or 10-sided dice problem).

    So the bellwethers should expect to be this badly off once ever 3,810 elections, which is once every 15,240 years. 1-1/3810 is a 99.974% chance that the Biden win is, um, incorrect.

    But as I said, I don’t do stats. I don’t even remember taking a stats class. So I could be approaching this in entirely the wrong way. Please feel free to correct it!

    1. Okay, I wasn’t satisfied with my math.

      The counties got 231 of 255 calls correct, ignoring 1960 which was rigged. So each county makes the right call 90.588% of the time.

      I tried to run some statistics on it earlier, but I thought I just write a computer simulation where each county had a 90.588% chance of being right. So I ran 1 billion elections (17 billion county races), and here’s the stats.

      18.6% of the time, it’s a perfect call – all counties correct.
      32.9% of the time, one county should miss.
      27.3% of the time, two counties should miss
      14.2% of the time, four counties should miss
      5.1% of the time, five counties should miss
      1.4% of the time, six counties should miss
      0.29% of the time, seven counties should miss
      0.047% of the time, eight counties should miss
      0.0057% of the time, nine should miss
      0.000066%of the time, ten should miss
      11 didn’t miss in a billion elections (billion with a B), which would be almost as old as the Earth itself.

      This time, 14 bellwethers missed. The universe isn’t old enough for that to happen, at least as long as the bellwethers remain representative enough to be 90% accurate.

      The code is just a loop of elections and an inner loop of the 17 county races, rating the call correct if a random float from 0 to 1 is less than 231.0/255.0, keep track of how many successful calls (from the 17 counties) each election, and having that add one to a histogram of successful bellwether predictions per election.

      Fortunately by Ryzen 5 3600 made short work of a billion elections, cranking out the result in a couple of minutes.

  7. I tossed 1960 to see what happened. The odds of each county getting it right went from 90.58% to 88.97%. In a billion elections, there were 60 cases where only six counties got it right, and no case where only 5 got it right.

    So I ran 10 billion elections, which be three times longer than the age of the universe.

    The worst case that popped up was only 6 bellwethers getting it right, which occurred 596 times. Having only 5 get it right never happened, so I feel safe in saying that an election where only 3 get it right is a virtual impossibility, given the assumptions about bellwethers.

    A liberal suggested that bellwethers simply aren’t bellwethers anymore, due to [ insert stupid, ad hoc reasoning ]. I guess he was thinking that their predictive powers could’ve dropped.

    So I ran more simulations to see where a 3-only success of the bellwethers would occur with 25% frequency. To do that, each bellwether county would have to drop from 88-90% accuracy down to 20% accuracy. They basically have to become horrible, horrible predictors, getting 4 out of 5 races wrong, before 17 of them would produce the 2020 outcome.

    So I pointed out that for all of them to so catastrophically change is probably even less likely than the odds of good bellwethers missing it by chance.

Comments are closed.