will25u said:

---

---

Quote:

---

The presidential recount in Milwaukee and Dane counties is entering its fourth day. Unofficial results from Nov. 3 show President-elect Joe Biden ahead of President Donald Trump in Wisconsin by about 20,000 votes.

Milwaukee County election officials say the recount is moving slowly because Trump's attorneys have been constantly interrupting and challenging tens of thousands of ballots, alleging fraud and seeking to discount them. They say few votes have actually been counted and the process is falling far behind.

The deadline for Wisconsin to certify its election results is Dec. 1.

---

When the challenged votes are more than the original margin of victory is when the courts get involved more heavily.

I edited my response above. I should have read the article first, but I think this comes down to if Virginia can explain why a 300k+ vote happened and then disappeared. Was is a software malfunction/bug. Human error? Regardless it needs to be looked into.

aggiehawg said:

---

Back to Pennsylvania. Just a reminder of how state election law was violated:

Quote:

---

Election officials clearly violated the law by inspecting mail-in ballots before November 3. According to Pennsylvania's election rules, county election boards were required to "safely keep the ballots in sealed or locked containers" until pre-canvassing legally began at 7 a.m. on Election Day.

Not only were an unknown number of mail-in ballots mishandled by election workers days before the official start date, election observers were not present at the premature inspections.
The state's election code clearly states:

Quote:

---

The county board of elections shall meet no earlier than seven o'clock A.M. on election day to pre-canvass all ballots received prior to the meeting. A county board of elections shall provide at least forty-eight hours' notice of a pre-canvass meeting by publicly posting a notice of a pre-canvass meeting on its publicly accessible Internet website. One authorized representative of each candidate in an election and one representative from each political party shall be permitted to remain in the room in which the absentee ballots and mail-in ballots are pre-canvassed.

---

Roughy 2.5 million Pennsylanians voted absentee in the general election; nearly 2 million of those votes were cast for Joe Biden. One analysis found rejection rates for Pennsylvania mail-in ballots was 30 times lower this year compared to 2016.

---

Quote:

---

Rules were changed at the last minute, ballot "curing" guidance inconsistently applied before and after Election Day, and none of the results in other races are in line with a decisive Biden victory.

---

Biden's coattails were virtually non-existent. Even rising stars in the Dem party went down decisively.

Quote:

---

Take, for example, the fact that Pennsylvania's incumbent state treasurera Democratwas soundly defeated by a Republican challenger.

Joe Torsella, considered a 2022 U.S. Senate or gubernatorial candidate, lost by nearly 80,000 votes. "Torsella's loss marks the first time since 1994 that a Republican beat an incumbent Democratic statewide officeholder and caps a brutal election cycle for Pennsylvania Democrats in down-ballot races," the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported on November 11.

---

Quote:

---

Biden received nearly 224,000 more votes than Torsella; the difference between Donald Trump and Torsella's Republican opponent was less than 90,000 votes

---

That's a pretty damn big difference.

Quote:

---

A Republican also won Pennsylvania's auditor general's race by nearly 200,000 votes.

In the state's 17th Congressional District, Democratic incumbent Conor Lamb barely survived an upset by Republican Sean Parnell in a race most experts rated as a secure Democratic hold.

---

Quote:

---

And in an even bigger shock, Frank Dermody, the Democratic minority leader of the Pennsylvania state legislature, lost the seat he occupied for 30 years to a Republican.

---

Thirty year incumbent? Still no signs of a blue wave in the down ballot races in PA.

Quote:

---

In 2020 the mood of the Pennsylvania electorateand the country in generalclearly favored Republicans, which makes Biden's 80,000-vote advantage over the president dubious at best, illegitimate at worse.

---

Quote:

---

But Pennsylvania Republicans aren't giving up yet. Parnell and U.S. Representative Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) just filed a lawsuit that claimed Act 77, the law signed in 2019 by Democratic Governor Tom Wolf to extensively relax the state's mail-in voting rules, including a "no excuse needed" provision, is unconstitutional. "Mail-in voting, in the form implemented through Act 77 is an attempt by the legislature to fundamentally overhaul the Pennsylvania voting system and permit universal, no excuse, mail-in voting absent any constitutional authority."

---

Not sure that's a winning argument nor what the remedy would be but we'll see.

Quote:

---

And it's still unclear whether a ruling by the Democratic-majority Pennsylvania Supreme Court that relied on federal "social distancing" guidelines to justify keeping Republican election observers several feet away from vote canvassers in Philadelphia will go any further. Last week, the court laughably ruled that, although observers could not determine whether mail-in envelopes and ballots were being correctly validated by election workers, "given that observers are directed only to observe and not to audit ballots, we conclude . . . that the Board of Elections has complied with the observation requirements."

Preposterous.

---

LINK

None of this is passing the smell test.

---

Wow. Nothing about this election makes sense at the top of the ticket.

will25u said:

---

---

Good! This is how the GA recount should have went. I know WI has more stringent recount/audit laws so the Dems/RINOs can't try and push a recount through.

RedHand said:

---

will25u said:

---

---

Good! This is how the GA recount should have went. I know WI has more stringent recount/audit laws so the Dems/RINOs can't try and push a recount through.

---

Agreed. I think every vote should be scrutinized and validated.

Looks like evidence to me. But who is in a position to use this to legally challenge the election results?

rynning said:

---

That's not code. I believe that's output from a real-time voting system to media systems in a way that they can process it to show pretty graphs on web pages and TV. It seems TNYT chose to publish the raw data that other media should have as well.

---

How is this real time input being fed to the media? Is it direct via internet? The reason I'm asking is because this seems like an easy way for hackers or outside influence to get in and manipulate votes.
I don't know though. Just doesn't seem right for real time data to be fed via a non-secure network to the media.
This just seems like another easy way to hack.

It is probably served on a secure subscription server that the media can access if they pay for it. It is just an output from the counting servers so it isn't that at risk for hacking unless people are monumentally stupid.

"None of this is passing the smell test."

I can smell the stink all the way down here in Texas.

aggiehawg said:

---

Virginia has some total vote issues, it would appear.

Quote:

---

Additionally, AT's Andrea Widburg, on November 16 in "There may have been massive voter fraud in Virginia", noted strange happenings in the vote totals and allocations in the wee hours of November 4. I have read the JSON code provided by the New York Times (see below), and I concur.

---

Quote:

---

Translating the code in the graphic above, we see that at 11:03 PM EST on November 3, total votes were 2,724,165, and Trump had 1,419,290 votes (52.1%), Biden had 1.258,564 votes (46.2%), other candidates had 46,311 votes (1.4%).

Between 11:14 and 11:42 came a big Biden vote dump. At 11:43, when the dump had ended, total votes were 3,368,181, and Trump had 1,512,627 votes (45.8%) and Biden had 1,771,663 votes (52.6%). During this half-hour period when the fraudsters switched the lead from Trump to Biden, Trump gained 93,337 votes (a 6.58% increase), and Biden gained 513,099 votes (a 40.77% increase). That is, there were about 5.5 Biden votes for every Trump vote during this interval.

Before the dump, during the heat of the count, Trump votes were rolling in at the rate of almost 8,000 per minute. After the dump (in the half-hour that followed), Trump votes accumulated at the rate of about 1,900 per minute. During the dump, Trump votes piled up at the rate of 2300 per minute, so it appears to me that those Trump votes were being counted more-or-less honestly, without any "votes switched" or "votes lost". So, Biden's outsized vote tally I rate as "votes added", and by my calculation this means about 479,337 fraudulent votes were created for Biden.

---

Quote:

---

Now we come to the real craziness that happened just after midnight on November 4. Here is the JSON code from the New York Times between 12:04 AM and 12:01 PM EST:

---

Quote:

---

And here is my line-by line description of the "events" that the code identifies. I've numbered these lines so I can refer back to them:

1. 12:04 AM, total votes 3,524,459; Trump 1,617,727 votes (45.9%), Biden 1,846,817 votes (52.4%).
2. 12:07 AM, total votes 3,572,807; Trump, 1,643,491 votes (46.0%), Biden 1,872,151 votes (52.4%).
3. 12:12 AM, total votes 3,199,165; Trump, 1,605,981 votes (50.2%), Biden 1,541,998 votes (48.2%).
4. 12:26:21 AM, total votes 3,390,813; Trump, 1,678,452 votes (49.5%), Biden 1,654,717 votes (48.8%).
5. 12:26:48 AM, total votes 3,782,386; Trump, 1,758,890 votes (46.5%), Biden 1,963,058 votes (51.9%).
6. 12:30 AM, total votes 3,390,813; Trump, 1,678,452 votes (49.5%), Biden 1,654,717 votes (48.8%).
7. 12:38 AM, total votes 3,439,609; Trump, 1,699,167 votes (49.4%), Biden 1,685,408 votes (49.0%).
8. 12:42 AM, total votes 3,441,979; Trump, 1,700,338 votes (49.4%), Biden 1,686,570 votes (49.0%).
9. 12:43 AM, total votes 3,442,999; Trump, 1,700,841 votes (49.4%) Biden 1,687,070 votes (49.0%).
10. 12:58 AM, total votes 3,488,507; Trump, 1,709,368 votes (49.0%), Biden 1,719,834 votes (49.3%).
11. 1;34 AM, total votes 3,498,592; Trump, 1,717,808 votes (49.1%), Biden 1,724,806 votes (49.3%).
12. 2:17 AM, total votes 3,894,363; Trump, 1,795,301 votes (46.1%), Biden 2,032,857 votes (52.2%).
13. 4:00 AM, total votes 4,157,392; Trump, 1,916,558 votes (44.8%), Biden 2,224,204 votes (53.5%).
14. 4:59 AM, total votes 4,312,181; Trump, 1,927,545 votes (44.7%), Biden 2,315,641 votes (53.7%).
15. 8:02 AM, total votes 4,312,181; Trump, 1,927,545 votes (44.7%), Biden 2,315,641 votes (53.7%).

---

Quote:

---

But this fraudulent maneuver had two problems. First, it was hard to believe, a sudden vote swing of 4.5% in just 8 minutes; and second, those half-million fake Biden votes might show more "votes" cast than there were registered voters to cast them, making the fraud immediately obvious. So the crooks had to lower the overall vote total to bring it more into line with the 2016 and prior presidential elections.

In Line 2 you see what was probably the running count of the total votes before the fakers got to work -- 3,572,807 votes.

In Line 3, at 12:12 AM, the fraud began, by calling up data that looks like was from an hour earlier. Total votes suddenly shrank to 3,199,165, a loss of 373,462 votes.

---

Quote:

---

In an honest election the vote totals never go backwards. They always get larger, because votes are continually being counted and added to the totals. This is prima facie evidence of fraud being committed, by humans directly intervening in the tabulation of votes, in real time. Software "algorithms" don't work this way; the do their dirty work surreptitiously, in small increments.

---

Quote:

---

However, the old data in Line 3 also flipped the election back to Trump (50.2%) from Biden (48.2%) -- definitely not what the crooks wanted. Also, from Line 2 to Line 3 Biden lost 37,510 votes, and it was important to the fraudsters to recover those. So in Lines 4 and 5 they got to work, restoring Biden's lead (51.9%) by adding 421,060 Biden votes compared to Trump's (46.5%) additional 152,909 votes.

But this action inflated the overall vote total to 3,782,386, which re-created the problem of too many total votes. So the crooks backtracked. They "deleted" Line 5 by "restoring" the data in Line 4. If you look at Line 4 and Line 6 (highlighted in yellow), you will see that they have identical data, except for the timestamp.

---

More here

Thoughts?

---

Great find, Hawg!

This is what we call a "Smoking Gun". It is not the bullet, nor the dead body, but it does indicate that a bullet was very likely fired. The dead body (final precinct tallies) indicates where it was fired. The gun possibly has fingerprints all over it that can provide some insight as to who pulled the trigger.

The source data that was transmitted might also exist, and if so, might corroborate the story. these are all clues that point to where to go looking for more evidence.

These data feeds could be matched up with similar data feeds received by other media outlets, and also could be correlated to other data feeds from other swing states to show patterns that are difficult/impossible to refute. The Trump legal team should absolutely challenge these and put the elections boards on the defensive to explain how this occurred.

If the same pattern is seen in multiple swing states, then it is more evidence that the election results were manipulated.

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

---

rynning said:

---

That's not code. I believe that's output from a real-time voting system to media systems in a way that they can process it to show pretty graphs on web pages and TV. It seems TNYT chose to publish the raw data that other media should have as well.

---

How is this real time input being fed to the media? Is it direct via internet? The reason I'm asking is because this seems like an easy way for hackers or outside influence to get in and manipulate votes.
I don't know though. Just doesn't seem right for real time data to be fed via a non-secure network to the media.

---

Yes, the voting system would need to publish results to the media on a period basis over the Internet. I have no idea how they designed it, but possibly exposing a public API and giving media companies credentials for their servers to pull the data. They could also periodically "push" the data to a read-only source that media servers could consume. Yes, either way would mean that the voting system is "on" the Internet which is very common and not a security problem if done right. (Every bank in the world is on the Internet.) I'm sure it's not a secret how they electronically publish results.

aggiehawg said:

---

Virginia has some total vote issues, it would appear.

Quote:

---

Additionally, AT's Andrea Widburg, on November 16 in "There may have been massive voter fraud in Virginia", noted strange happenings in the vote totals and allocations in the wee hours of November 4. I have read the JSON code provided by the New York Times (see below), and I concur.

---

Quote:

---

Translating the code in the graphic above, we see that at 11:03 PM EST on November 3, total votes were 2,724,165, and Trump had 1,419,290 votes (52.1%), Biden had 1.258,564 votes (46.2%), other candidates had 46,311 votes (1.4%).

Between 11:14 and 11:42 came a big Biden vote dump. At 11:43, when the dump had ended, total votes were 3,368,181, and Trump had 1,512,627 votes (45.8%) and Biden had 1,771,663 votes (52.6%). During this half-hour period when the fraudsters switched the lead from Trump to Biden, Trump gained 93,337 votes (a 6.58% increase), and Biden gained 513,099 votes (a 40.77% increase). That is, there were about 5.5 Biden votes for every Trump vote during this interval.

Before the dump, during the heat of the count, Trump votes were rolling in at the rate of almost 8,000 per minute. After the dump (in the half-hour that followed), Trump votes accumulated at the rate of about 1,900 per minute. During the dump, Trump votes piled up at the rate of 2300 per minute, so it appears to me that those Trump votes were being counted more-or-less honestly, without any "votes switched" or "votes lost". So, Biden's outsized vote tally I rate as "votes added", and by my calculation this means about 479,337 fraudulent votes were created for Biden.

---

Quote:

---

Now we come to the real craziness that happened just after midnight on November 4. Here is the JSON code from the New York Times between 12:04 AM and 12:01 PM EST:

---

Quote:

---

And here is my line-by line description of the "events" that the code identifies. I've numbered these lines so I can refer back to them:

1. 12:04 AM, total votes 3,524,459; Trump 1,617,727 votes (45.9%), Biden 1,846,817 votes (52.4%).
2. 12:07 AM, total votes 3,572,807; Trump, 1,643,491 votes (46.0%), Biden 1,872,151 votes (52.4%).
3. 12:12 AM, total votes 3,199,165; Trump, 1,605,981 votes (50.2%), Biden 1,541,998 votes (48.2%).
4. 12:26:21 AM, total votes 3,390,813; Trump, 1,678,452 votes (49.5%), Biden 1,654,717 votes (48.8%).
5. 12:26:48 AM, total votes 3,782,386; Trump, 1,758,890 votes (46.5%), Biden 1,963,058 votes (51.9%).
6. 12:30 AM, total votes 3,390,813; Trump, 1,678,452 votes (49.5%), Biden 1,654,717 votes (48.8%).
7. 12:38 AM, total votes 3,439,609; Trump, 1,699,167 votes (49.4%), Biden 1,685,408 votes (49.0%).
8. 12:42 AM, total votes 3,441,979; Trump, 1,700,338 votes (49.4%), Biden 1,686,570 votes (49.0%).
9. 12:43 AM, total votes 3,442,999; Trump, 1,700,841 votes (49.4%) Biden 1,687,070 votes (49.0%).
10. 12:58 AM, total votes 3,488,507; Trump, 1,709,368 votes (49.0%), Biden 1,719,834 votes (49.3%).
11. 1;34 AM, total votes 3,498,592; Trump, 1,717,808 votes (49.1%), Biden 1,724,806 votes (49.3%).
12. 2:17 AM, total votes 3,894,363; Trump, 1,795,301 votes (46.1%), Biden 2,032,857 votes (52.2%).
13. 4:00 AM, total votes 4,157,392; Trump, 1,916,558 votes (44.8%), Biden 2,224,204 votes (53.5%).
14. 4:59 AM, total votes 4,312,181; Trump, 1,927,545 votes (44.7%), Biden 2,315,641 votes (53.7%).
15. 8:02 AM, total votes 4,312,181; Trump, 1,927,545 votes (44.7%), Biden 2,315,641 votes (53.7%).

---

Quote:

---

But this fraudulent maneuver had two problems. First, it was hard to believe, a sudden vote swing of 4.5% in just 8 minutes; and second, those half-million fake Biden votes might show more "votes" cast than there were registered voters to cast them, making the fraud immediately obvious. So the crooks had to lower the overall vote total to bring it more into line with the 2016 and prior presidential elections.

In Line 2 you see what was probably the running count of the total votes before the fakers got to work -- 3,572,807 votes.

In Line 3, at 12:12 AM, the fraud began, by calling up data that looks like was from an hour earlier. Total votes suddenly shrank to 3,199,165, a loss of 373,462 votes.

---

Quote:

---

In an honest election the vote totals never go backwards. They always get larger, because votes are continually being counted and added to the totals. This is prima facie evidence of fraud being committed, by humans directly intervening in the tabulation of votes, in real time. Software "algorithms" don't work this way; the do their dirty work surreptitiously, in small increments.

---

Quote:

---

However, the old data in Line 3 also flipped the election back to Trump (50.2%) from Biden (48.2%) -- definitely not what the crooks wanted. Also, from Line 2 to Line 3 Biden lost 37,510 votes, and it was important to the fraudsters to recover those. So in Lines 4 and 5 they got to work, restoring Biden's lead (51.9%) by adding 421,060 Biden votes compared to Trump's (46.5%) additional 152,909 votes.

But this action inflated the overall vote total to 3,782,386, which re-created the problem of too many total votes. So the crooks backtracked. They "deleted" Line 5 by "restoring" the data in Line 4. If you look at Line 4 and Line 6 (highlighted in yellow), you will see that they have identical data, except for the timestamp.

---

More here

Thoughts?

---

Well, the timestamps the author lays out actually show to be between 5:00 am and 5:30 am EST, as evidenced by the code. The author wrote them as being between 12:00 am and 12:30 am EST, which looks to be incorrect, and all of his times look to be off by a full 5 hours. If this is the case, that's about the same time the big dumps came in for both Michigan and Wisconsin, I'd check those and see if there are any similarities in count switching and timestamps. Exhibiting a pattern could be expected to go a long way toward proving (possibly organized) election fraud.

A summary

Quote:

---

Bomer describes:

• Hearing an announcement of 50 boxes at 4am: the Biden Ballot Dump!
• Hearing that the Biden Ballot Dump was counted and processed in an impossibly short amount of time
• Witnessing officials TAMPERING with tabulators at the TCF Center!
• Ballot harvesting operations being done by a local Church
• Poll workers overriding the actual votes, and changing Trump votes to BIDEN!
• Poll workers REFUSING TO COUNT Trump votes!
• Poll workers bringing in luggage and boxes that could have contained illegal ballots
• Poll Workers using deceitful tactics and colluding with Democrats to try and EXPEL GOP Poll Challengers
• GOP Poll Challengers being EJECTED from observing the vote count
• GOP Poll Challengers were observing ILLEGAL BALLOTS and their objections were IGNORED
• Poll workers being obvious Democrat PARTISANS
• Suspicious meetings of the poll workers

Bomer describes a Detroit poll worker who used correction tape to rig the machines to generate errors that could be overridden by staff.

"Our goal was to secure the vote." Bomer raised her concerns at the time with the GOP Attorneys on-site but nothing appears to have been done in response to her statements.

"Now? I don't have faith in any election system after having witnessed this fraud happen right before my eyes," Bomer said.

---

LINK

will25u said:

---

---

This is literally what is supposed to happen with a real audit.

aggiehawg said:

---

A summary

Quote:

---

Bomer describes:

• Hearing an announcement of 50 boxes at 4am: the Biden Ballot Dump!
• Hearing that the Biden Ballot Dump was counted and processed in an impossibly short amount of time
• Witnessing officials TAMPERING with tabulators at the TCF Center!
• Ballot harvesting operations being done by a local Church
• Poll workers overriding the actual votes, and changing Trump votes to BIDEN!
• Poll workers REFUSING TO COUNT Trump votes!
• Poll workers bringing in luggage and boxes that could have contained illegal ballots
• Poll Workers using deceitful tactics and colluding with Democrats to try and EXPEL GOP Poll Challengers
• GOP Poll Challengers being EJECTED from observing the vote count
• GOP Poll Challengers were observing ILLEGAL BALLOTS and their objections were IGNORED
• Poll workers being obvious Democrat PARTISANS
• Suspicious meetings of the poll workers

Bomer describes a Detroit poll worker who used correction tape to rig the machines to generate errors that could be overridden by staff.

"Our goal was to secure the vote." Bomer raised her concerns at the time with the GOP Attorneys on-site but nothing appears to have been done in response to her statements.

"Now? I don't have faith in any election system after having witnessed this fraud happen right before my eyes," Bomer said.

---

LINK

---

Really appreciate you sifting through all this material and bringing it to the thread and summarizing/giving your legal opinion. It's way more information than most of have time to peruse but is incredibly helpful in knowing up to the minute how matters are proceeding and where the likely fraud took place.

You perform a great service and bring tremendous value to this board in keeping everyone here informed with the facts. Thank you.

rynning said:

---

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

---

rynning said:

---

That's not code. I believe that's output from a real-time voting system to media systems in a way that they can process it to show pretty graphs on web pages and TV. It seems TNYT chose to publish the raw data that other media should have as well.

---

How is this real time input being fed to the media? Is it direct via internet? The reason I'm asking is because this seems like an easy way for hackers or outside influence to get in and manipulate votes.
I don't know though. Just doesn't seem right for real time data to be fed via a non-secure network to the media.

---

Yes, the voting system would need to publish results to the media on a period basis over the Internet. I have no idea how they designed it, but possibly exposing a public API and giving media companies credentials for their servers to pull the data. They could also periodically "push" the data to a read-only source that media servers could consume. Yes, either way would mean that the voting system is "on" the Internet which is very common and not a security problem if done right. (Every bank in the world is on the Internet.) I'm sure it's not a secret how they electronically publish results.

---

Yeah, guess I'm a bit skeptical with the security of it all.

BobaFettsClone said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Virginia has some total vote issues, it would appear.

Quote:

---

Additionally, AT's Andrea Widburg, on November 16 in "There may have been massive voter fraud in Virginia", noted strange happenings in the vote totals and allocations in the wee hours of November 4. I have read the JSON code provided by the New York Times (see below), and I concur.

---

Quote:

---

Translating the code in the graphic above, we see that at 11:03 PM EST on November 3, total votes were 2,724,165, and Trump had 1,419,290 votes (52.1%), Biden had 1.258,564 votes (46.2%), other candidates had 46,311 votes (1.4%).

Between 11:14 and 11:42 came a big Biden vote dump. At 11:43, when the dump had ended, total votes were 3,368,181, and Trump had 1,512,627 votes (45.8%) and Biden had 1,771,663 votes (52.6%). During this half-hour period when the fraudsters switched the lead from Trump to Biden, Trump gained 93,337 votes (a 6.58% increase), and Biden gained 513,099 votes (a 40.77% increase). That is, there were about 5.5 Biden votes for every Trump vote during this interval.

Before the dump, during the heat of the count, Trump votes were rolling in at the rate of almost 8,000 per minute. After the dump (in the half-hour that followed), Trump votes accumulated at the rate of about 1,900 per minute. During the dump, Trump votes piled up at the rate of 2300 per minute, so it appears to me that those Trump votes were being counted more-or-less honestly, without any "votes switched" or "votes lost". So, Biden's outsized vote tally I rate as "votes added", and by my calculation this means about 479,337 fraudulent votes were created for Biden.

---

Quote:

---

Now we come to the real craziness that happened just after midnight on November 4. Here is the JSON code from the New York Times between 12:04 AM and 12:01 PM EST:

---

Quote:

---

And here is my line-by line description of the "events" that the code identifies. I've numbered these lines so I can refer back to them:

1. 12:04 AM, total votes 3,524,459; Trump 1,617,727 votes (45.9%), Biden 1,846,817 votes (52.4%).
2. 12:07 AM, total votes 3,572,807; Trump, 1,643,491 votes (46.0%), Biden 1,872,151 votes (52.4%).
3. 12:12 AM, total votes 3,199,165; Trump, 1,605,981 votes (50.2%), Biden 1,541,998 votes (48.2%).
4. 12:26:21 AM, total votes 3,390,813; Trump, 1,678,452 votes (49.5%), Biden 1,654,717 votes (48.8%).
5. 12:26:48 AM, total votes 3,782,386; Trump, 1,758,890 votes (46.5%), Biden 1,963,058 votes (51.9%).
6. 12:30 AM, total votes 3,390,813; Trump, 1,678,452 votes (49.5%), Biden 1,654,717 votes (48.8%).
7. 12:38 AM, total votes 3,439,609; Trump, 1,699,167 votes (49.4%), Biden 1,685,408 votes (49.0%).
8. 12:42 AM, total votes 3,441,979; Trump, 1,700,338 votes (49.4%), Biden 1,686,570 votes (49.0%).
9. 12:43 AM, total votes 3,442,999; Trump, 1,700,841 votes (49.4%) Biden 1,687,070 votes (49.0%).
10. 12:58 AM, total votes 3,488,507; Trump, 1,709,368 votes (49.0%), Biden 1,719,834 votes (49.3%).
11. 1;34 AM, total votes 3,498,592; Trump, 1,717,808 votes (49.1%), Biden 1,724,806 votes (49.3%).
12. 2:17 AM, total votes 3,894,363; Trump, 1,795,301 votes (46.1%), Biden 2,032,857 votes (52.2%).
13. 4:00 AM, total votes 4,157,392; Trump, 1,916,558 votes (44.8%), Biden 2,224,204 votes (53.5%).
14. 4:59 AM, total votes 4,312,181; Trump, 1,927,545 votes (44.7%), Biden 2,315,641 votes (53.7%).
15. 8:02 AM, total votes 4,312,181; Trump, 1,927,545 votes (44.7%), Biden 2,315,641 votes (53.7%).

---

Quote:

---

But this fraudulent maneuver had two problems. First, it was hard to believe, a sudden vote swing of 4.5% in just 8 minutes; and second, those half-million fake Biden votes might show more "votes" cast than there were registered voters to cast them, making the fraud immediately obvious. So the crooks had to lower the overall vote total to bring it more into line with the 2016 and prior presidential elections.

In Line 2 you see what was probably the running count of the total votes before the fakers got to work -- 3,572,807 votes.

In Line 3, at 12:12 AM, the fraud began, by calling up data that looks like was from an hour earlier. Total votes suddenly shrank to 3,199,165, a loss of 373,462 votes.

---

Quote:

---

In an honest election the vote totals never go backwards. They always get larger, because votes are continually being counted and added to the totals. This is prima facie evidence of fraud being committed, by humans directly intervening in the tabulation of votes, in real time. Software "algorithms" don't work this way; the do their dirty work surreptitiously, in small increments.

---

Quote:

---

However, the old data in Line 3 also flipped the election back to Trump (50.2%) from Biden (48.2%) -- definitely not what the crooks wanted. Also, from Line 2 to Line 3 Biden lost 37,510 votes, and it was important to the fraudsters to recover those. So in Lines 4 and 5 they got to work, restoring Biden's lead (51.9%) by adding 421,060 Biden votes compared to Trump's (46.5%) additional 152,909 votes.

But this action inflated the overall vote total to 3,782,386, which re-created the problem of too many total votes. So the crooks backtracked. They "deleted" Line 5 by "restoring" the data in Line 4. If you look at Line 4 and Line 6 (highlighted in yellow), you will see that they have identical data, except for the timestamp.

---

More here

Thoughts?

---

Well, the timestamps the author lays out actually show to be between 5:00 am and 5:30 am EST, as evidenced by the code. The author wrote them as being between 12:00 am and 12:30 am EST, which looks to be incorrect, and all of his times look to be off by a full 5 hours. If this is the case, that's about the same time the big dumps came in for both Michigan and Wisconsin, I'd check those and see if there are any similarities in count switching and timestamps. Exhibiting a pattern could be expected to go a long way toward proving (possibly organized) election fraud.

---

Timestamps in the code has a "Z". Zulu time is 5 hrs ahead of Eastern time zone.

PJYoung said:

---

---

So just spitballing, and maybe the real lawyers can tell me if this would work. But what if what Sidney is waiting for is each of the major election fraud swing states to certify their elections? She has mentioned several times that she plans to directly sue the election officials. Is it possible that she could collectively sue the SoS for GA, MI, PA, WI, AZ, NV, etc. in federal court based on failing to ensure that the votes don't include fraudulent ballots?
Or some sort of case against them allowing votes using the insecure dominion systems if she has evidence they were hacked/running algorithms?

What if Sidney doesn't have anything and is only in this for purposes of self promotion? I think that theory certainly aligns better with the known data points we've seen thus far.

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

BobaFettsClone said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Virginia has some total vote issues, it would appear.

Quote:

---

Additionally, AT's Andrea Widburg, on November 16 in "There may have been massive voter fraud in Virginia", noted strange happenings in the vote totals and allocations in the wee hours of November 4. I have read the JSON code provided by the New York Times (see below), and I concur.

---

Quote:

---

Translating the code in the graphic above, we see that at 11:03 PM EST on November 3, total votes were 2,724,165, and Trump had 1,419,290 votes (52.1%), Biden had 1.258,564 votes (46.2%), other candidates had 46,311 votes (1.4%).

Between 11:14 and 11:42 came a big Biden vote dump. At 11:43, when the dump had ended, total votes were 3,368,181, and Trump had 1,512,627 votes (45.8%) and Biden had 1,771,663 votes (52.6%). During this half-hour period when the fraudsters switched the lead from Trump to Biden, Trump gained 93,337 votes (a 6.58% increase), and Biden gained 513,099 votes (a 40.77% increase). That is, there were about 5.5 Biden votes for every Trump vote during this interval.

Before the dump, during the heat of the count, Trump votes were rolling in at the rate of almost 8,000 per minute. After the dump (in the half-hour that followed), Trump votes accumulated at the rate of about 1,900 per minute. During the dump, Trump votes piled up at the rate of 2300 per minute, so it appears to me that those Trump votes were being counted more-or-less honestly, without any "votes switched" or "votes lost". So, Biden's outsized vote tally I rate as "votes added", and by my calculation this means about 479,337 fraudulent votes were created for Biden.

---

Quote:

---

Now we come to the real craziness that happened just after midnight on November 4. Here is the JSON code from the New York Times between 12:04 AM and 12:01 PM EST:

---

Quote:

---

And here is my line-by line description of the "events" that the code identifies. I've numbered these lines so I can refer back to them:

1. 12:04 AM, total votes 3,524,459; Trump 1,617,727 votes (45.9%), Biden 1,846,817 votes (52.4%).
2. 12:07 AM, total votes 3,572,807; Trump, 1,643,491 votes (46.0%), Biden 1,872,151 votes (52.4%).
3. 12:12 AM, total votes 3,199,165; Trump, 1,605,981 votes (50.2%), Biden 1,541,998 votes (48.2%).
4. 12:26:21 AM, total votes 3,390,813; Trump, 1,678,452 votes (49.5%), Biden 1,654,717 votes (48.8%).
5. 12:26:48 AM, total votes 3,782,386; Trump, 1,758,890 votes (46.5%), Biden 1,963,058 votes (51.9%).
6. 12:30 AM, total votes 3,390,813; Trump, 1,678,452 votes (49.5%), Biden 1,654,717 votes (48.8%).
7. 12:38 AM, total votes 3,439,609; Trump, 1,699,167 votes (49.4%), Biden 1,685,408 votes (49.0%).
8. 12:42 AM, total votes 3,441,979; Trump, 1,700,338 votes (49.4%), Biden 1,686,570 votes (49.0%).
9. 12:43 AM, total votes 3,442,999; Trump, 1,700,841 votes (49.4%) Biden 1,687,070 votes (49.0%).
10. 12:58 AM, total votes 3,488,507; Trump, 1,709,368 votes (49.0%), Biden 1,719,834 votes (49.3%).
11. 1;34 AM, total votes 3,498,592; Trump, 1,717,808 votes (49.1%), Biden 1,724,806 votes (49.3%).
12. 2:17 AM, total votes 3,894,363; Trump, 1,795,301 votes (46.1%), Biden 2,032,857 votes (52.2%).
13. 4:00 AM, total votes 4,157,392; Trump, 1,916,558 votes (44.8%), Biden 2,224,204 votes (53.5%).
14. 4:59 AM, total votes 4,312,181; Trump, 1,927,545 votes (44.7%), Biden 2,315,641 votes (53.7%).
15. 8:02 AM, total votes 4,312,181; Trump, 1,927,545 votes (44.7%), Biden 2,315,641 votes (53.7%).

---

Quote:

---

But this fraudulent maneuver had two problems. First, it was hard to believe, a sudden vote swing of 4.5% in just 8 minutes; and second, those half-million fake Biden votes might show more "votes" cast than there were registered voters to cast them, making the fraud immediately obvious. So the crooks had to lower the overall vote total to bring it more into line with the 2016 and prior presidential elections.

In Line 2 you see what was probably the running count of the total votes before the fakers got to work -- 3,572,807 votes.

In Line 3, at 12:12 AM, the fraud began, by calling up data that looks like was from an hour earlier. Total votes suddenly shrank to 3,199,165, a loss of 373,462 votes.

---

Quote:

---

In an honest election the vote totals never go backwards. They always get larger, because votes are continually being counted and added to the totals. This is prima facie evidence of fraud being committed, by humans directly intervening in the tabulation of votes, in real time. Software "algorithms" don't work this way; the do their dirty work surreptitiously, in small increments.

---

Quote:

---

However, the old data in Line 3 also flipped the election back to Trump (50.2%) from Biden (48.2%) -- definitely not what the crooks wanted. Also, from Line 2 to Line 3 Biden lost 37,510 votes, and it was important to the fraudsters to recover those. So in Lines 4 and 5 they got to work, restoring Biden's lead (51.9%) by adding 421,060 Biden votes compared to Trump's (46.5%) additional 152,909 votes.

But this action inflated the overall vote total to 3,782,386, which re-created the problem of too many total votes. So the crooks backtracked. They "deleted" Line 5 by "restoring" the data in Line 4. If you look at Line 4 and Line 6 (highlighted in yellow), you will see that they have identical data, except for the timestamp.

---

More here

Thoughts?

---

Well, the timestamps the author lays out actually show to be between 5:00 am and 5:30 am EST, as evidenced by the code. The author wrote them as being between 12:00 am and 12:30 am EST, which looks to be incorrect, and all of his times look to be off by a full 5 hours. If this is the case, that's about the same time the big dumps came in for both Michigan and Wisconsin, I'd check those and see if there are any similarities in count switching and timestamps. Exhibiting a pattern could be expected to go a long way toward proving (possibly organized) election fraud.

---

Timestamps in the code has a "Z". Zulu time is 5 hrs ahead of Eastern time zone.

---

Got it, thank you

boomis said:

---

What if Sidney doesn't have anything and is only in this for purposes of self promotion? I think that theory certainly aligns better with the known data points we've seen thus far.

---

I think dems said the same thing about the Flynn case and she made people look like a bunch of morons. I think she has been called a kook before when she asked trump not to pardon flynn so they could prove his innocence and she did.

Lastly I think there are plenty of rubes now infesting texags with burner sock rookie accounts that post inane and stupid comments. I think those same people are clueless.

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

boomis said:

---

What if Sidney doesn't have anything and is only in this for purposes of self promotion? I think that theory certainly aligns better with the known data points we've seen thus far.

---

I think dems said the same thing about the Flynn case and she made people look like a bunch of morons. I think she has been called a kook before when she asked trump not to pardon flynn so they could prove his innocence and she did.

Lastly I think there are plenty of rubes now infesting texags with burner sock rookie accounts that post inane and stupid comments. I think those same people are clueless.

---

Yeah, the amount of rookie posters that have created their account within the last week or so is ridiculous.

PJYoung said:

---

---

Now that the election is over, you can go back to Premium for another 4 years.

Quote:

---

A group of Pennsylvania Republicans have filed an emergency lawsuit seeking to block certification of the election results in the Keystone State, which President-elect Joe Biden won by more than 80,000 votes.

The emergency petition, filed in state court this weekend, comes ahead of Monday's deadline for Pennsylvania counties to certify their voting results, part of the process of formalizing President Trump's electoral defeat.

Among the plaintiffs are Trump ally Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.), who has asked the court to strike down an expanded mail ballot policy that Pennsylvania put in place last year after it was passed by the state's GOP-held legislature.

---

Quote:

---

Biden won three of every four mail-in ballots cast in the state, according to an analysis of Pennsylvania Department of State data by The Philadelphia Inquirer.

The lawsuit is part of an increasingly desperate legal effort by the Trump campaign and its allies to seek judicial orders overturning the result of the national election that Biden won by more than 6 million raw votes.

The Trump campaign is engaged in separate litigation in Pennsylvania federal court.

---

The Hill

Analysis:

Quote:

---

The Plaintiffs are Mike Kelly, a GOP member of the U.S. House of Representatives from the extreme northwest corner of Pennsylvania; Sean Parnell, a GOP politician who lost his race for the US House in a suburban Pittsburg District; Wanda Logan, a GOP politician who lost her race for Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia County; and five other individual voters from various Pennsylvania counties. The defendants are the State of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania General Assembly, Tom Wolfe, the Governor of Pennsylvania, and Katherine Boockvar, the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

The Pennsylania Legislature passed, and Gov. Wolf signed, Act 77 which included amendments to Pennsylvania election laws including a provision that expanded the availability of absentee voting on a "no excuse" basis.

Here is the issue as presented by the Complaint the Pennsylvania Constitution sets forth the basis upon which voters ("electors") may cast an absentee ballot, and Act 77 did not "amend" the State Constitution as has been done in the past when changes were made to the Absentee Ballot provisions. Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution Reads:

Quote:

---

Sec. 14. Absentee voting.
(a) The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner in which qualified electors who are unable to attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability may vote, and for the return and canvass of their votes in the district in which they respectively reside

---

The Complaint alleges that the Pennsylvania State Constitution requires in-person voting, and the only recognized exception to this requirement is the options reflected in Sec. 14, which were added to the Constitution via the accepted Amendment process in 1967. Sec. 14 sets forth four specific bases for a qualified voter to cast an absentee vote under the Constitution: 1) the voter will be absent from their municipality because duties, occupation, or business needs require them to be elsewhere; 2) illness or physical disability; 3) observance of a religious holiday, and 4) due to status as a county worker.

Act 77 did not follow the procedure for amending the Pennsylvania State Constitution as set forth in the Pennsylvania State Constitution. That process requires that such proposed Amendments pass both houses of the Pennsylvania Assembly by majority vote in two consecutive legislative sessions. The provisions of the proposed Amendment must then be published for three months in two newspapers in each county. Finally, the provisions must be approved by a majority of electors in the next general election.

Recognizing that there was no basis in the Constitution to support "no excuse" mail-in balloting, at the same time the Pennsylvania Legislature approved Act 77, it also initiated the process for Amending Sec. 14 of the Constitution to accomplish that purpose. However, neither Act 77 nor the simultaneously proposed amendment were ever passed by a majority vote of the Legislature in two consecutive sessions, and neither was ever approved by a majority of voters in Pennsylvania in a general election.

---

Quote:

---

The first bill proposing a "no excuse" absentee voting amendment to Section 14 was introduced in the Pennsylvania Senate in January 2019 more than one year before the COVID-19 pandemic. It was introduced as a Joint Resolution for the purpose of amending the Pennsylvania Constitution. This bill passed in October 2019, and was sent to the Pennsylvania House.

That Senate bill was amended by the House, and both the Senate and the House passed the amended version on April 29, 2020 after the COVID-19 pandemic had begun. But before a proposed Constitutional Amendment can be submitted for approval by the voters, it must be passed by both houses of the Assembly in two consecutive sessions and that has not happened. Only after that happens can it be placed on the ballot of a general election for approval by the voters.

The text of the proposed amendment struck out the four enumerated grounds for absentee voting and added a sentence at the end stating that no law passed pursuant to that provision could require a voter to be personally present at a voting location.

At the same time the first Senate bill was approved in October 2019, both houses of the Assembly adopted Act 77, and Gov. Wolf signed it into law. The State officials then proceeded to carry out the provisions of Act 77 as if they were not an amendment of the Pennsylvania Constitution at all, and then followed those procedures in the recently completed general election procedures which violated the current Pennsylvania Constitution.

---

Quote:

---

The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment from the Court that Act 77 was void from the outset to the extent it was used by the State to violate the Pennsylvania Constitutional limitations on absentee voting, and ballots cast in reliance on Act 77 are invalid.

---

Whoa! I'll hold my thoughts for now but that is an interesting approach.

Shipwrecked crew

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

boomis said:

---

What if Sidney doesn't have anything and is only in this for purposes of self promotion? I think that theory certainly aligns better with the known data points we've seen thus far.

---

I think dems said the same thing about the Flynn case and she made people look like a bunch of morons. I think she has been called a kook before when she asked trump not to pardon flynn so they could prove his innocence and she did.

Lastly I think there are plenty of rubes now infesting texags with burner sock rookie accounts that post inane and stupid comments. I think those same people are clueless.

---

Perhaps there's a difference between the Flynn case and this election, that being the existence of evidence that is useful in court. If Sidney has something and starts making waves in court, the known data points I referred to earlier change. Until then.........

Burner sock accounts with an Ag-Tag? Interesting concept.

At this point, there is more evidence for a court case to make a claim for systematic and calculated voting malfeasance than what you are attributing about Sidney merely doing this for the sake of wanting to promote herself. Especially when taking into account her reputation and history.

That is why your question before was inane. Hope that helps.

https://gnews.org/577635/

Artorias said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

---

Now that the election is over, you can go back to Premium for another 4 years.

---

I must say I enjoyed the 2016 thread a lot more than the 2020 version.

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

At this point, there is more evidence for a court case to make a claim for systematic and calculated voting malfeasance than what you are attributing about Sidney merely doing this for the sake of wanting to promote herself. Especially when taking into account her reputation and history.

That is why your question before was inane. Hope that helps.

https://gnews.org/577635/

---

Perhaps if I perceived Sidney to be putting forth more effort into actually bringing evidence of these claims for systematic and calculated voting malfeasance into court instead of just talking about it while making rounds on the conservative talk show circuit I would feel differently. Reputation and history aside, conspiracy theories about republican governors and zombie communist dictators aren't exactly helping her cause, on which Trump himself seems to agree.

PJYoung said:

---

Artorias said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

---

Now that the election is over, you can go back to Premium for another 4 years.

---

I must say I enjoyed the 2016 thread a lot more than the 2020 version.

---

Go work on your golf swing.

PJYoung said:

---

Artorias said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

---

Now that the election is over, you can go back to Premium for another 4 years.

---

I must say I enjoyed the 2016 thread a lot more than the 2020 version.

---

No you didn't. You have taken every opportunity to post nothing other than negative articles the entire time you have been here this election cycle. You are loving this. Your charade as a "Trump voter" is dumb and tired.

See you in 2024 when you conveniently only post negative articles against the R candidate.