Official Thread: 2020 Vote Fraud

HUGE EVIDENCE! 'Glitches' ALL OVER THE COUNTRY! �� STOP THE STEAL ��
posted 2 days ago by PedeInspector (edited) +1528 / -0
I made this post earlier, and edited to add more and more states until I got all of them.

For better visibility, I thought a new thread would do better, here they all are.

Switched votes are votes that were taken from Trump and given to Biden.

Lost votes are voted that disappeared during the counting, from both candidates.

There might be a small overlap between Switched votes and Lost votes.

Dominion Voting Systems :

Pennsylvania : Switched : 220,883 Lost Votes : 941,248

New Jersey : Switched : 80,242 Lost Votes : 20

Florida : Switched : 21,422 Lost Votes : 456

Michigan : Switched : 20,213 Lost Votes : 21,882

New York : Switched : 18,124 Lost Votes : 623,213

Georgia : Switched : 17,407 Lost Votes : 33,574

Ohio : Switched : 14,965 Lost Votes : 5,102

Virginia : Switched : 12,163 Lost Votes : 789,023

California : Switched : 7,701 Lost Votes : 10,989

Arizona : Switched : 4,492 Lost Votes : 0

Minnesota : Switched : 2,766 Lost Votes : 195,650

Tennessee : Switched : 2,330 Lost Votes : 0

Louisiana : Switched : 2,322 Lost Votes : 0

Illinois : Switched : 2,166 Lost Votes : 54,730

Wisconsin : Switched : 2,078 Lost Votes : 3,408

Colorado : Switched : 1,809 Lost Votes : 0

Utah : Switched : 1,627 Lost Votes : 0

New Hampshire : Switched : 973 Lost Votes : 116

Iowa : Switched : 938 Lost Votes : 477

New Mexico : Switched : 268 Lost Votes : 4,610

Missouri : Switched 0 : Lost Votes : 20,730

Nevada : Switched : 0 Lost Votes : 0

Alaska : Switched : 0 Lost Votes : 0

Washington : Switched : 0 Lost Votes : 0

Hawaii : Switched : 0 Lost Votes : 0

Kansas and Texas use Premier Election Solutions, owned by Dominion Voting Systems.

Texas : Switched : 14,954 Lost Votes : 30,557

Kansas : Switched : 1,674 Lost Votes : 2,154

Election Systems & Software :

Nebraska : Switched : 30,086 Lost Votes : 50

Kentucky : Switched : 8,129 Lost Votes : 23,849

Arkansas : Switched : 3,664 Lost Votes : 20,748

South Carolina : Switched : 2,779 Lost Votes : 2,119

Montana : Switched : 2,330 Lost Votes : 1,276

South Dakota : Switched : 1,347 Lost Votes : 1

North Dakota : Switched : 234 Lost Votes : 681

Maryland : Switched : 203 Lost Votes : 0

North Carolina : Switched : 0 Lost Votes : 15

District of Columbia : Switched : 0 Lost Votes : 0

Unknown Systems:

Nebraska : Switched : 30,086 Lost Votes : 50

Connecticut : Switched : 3,834 Lost Votes : 272

Massachusetts : Switched : 3,613 Lost Votes : 51

Oregon : Switched 2,557 Lost Votes : 0

Alabama : Switched : 1,170 Lost Votes : 408

Mississippi : Switched : 355 Lost Votes : 0

Maine : Switched : 271 Lost Votes : 35

Rhode Island : Switched : 6 Lost Votes : 13

West Virginia : Switched : 0 Lost Votes : 78,300

Idaho : Switched 0 Lost Votes : 0

Oklahoma : Switched : 0 Lost Votes : 0

Indiana : Switched : 0 Lost Votes : 0

Delaware : Switched : 0 Lost Votes : 0

Vermont : Switched : 0 Lost Votes : 0

NOTE : Lost votes are votes that disappeared, not only for Trump, but overall.

MEGA BREAKING NEWS EDIT:

I VERIFIED THAT THE SWITCHES ARE REAL!

I went looking through the data I got from my script, trying to find if the moment the Antrim glitch happened in Michigan is there. And it is. Here is the Data.

And here is the specific part when the switch happened.

You can see in that picture, that Trump lost 3,096 votes, those all went to Biden. BUT, Trump also lost 2,324 votes, that went nowhere.

NEW EDIT : Updated the numbers after fixing a small error, MORE states are affected now, holy shit.

https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8O0gyAf/huge-evidence-glitches-all-over-/
 
showpan said:
GA recount and audit is a sham!!!

"The training and directives issued today do not comport with your
stated goals yesterday and do not satisfy our concerns that gave rise to our request for a hand count in the first place."

https://gagop.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Deficiency_Letter_1_.pdf
Click to expand...

In my opinion, the first thing to do when recounting the ballots would be simply to separate Trump votes from Biden Votes. That should be easy to do. In my state Biden was on the Top line and Trump was on second line. Make two piles. A person can then fan thru and easily spot any mistakes in seperation. Once all Trump and Biden ballots have been separated one easy method is which stack is higher. Another thing is there are machines that have manual counters on them that can count the votes. Furthermore the ballots can be counted by weight and can also be hand counted. So If I were running the show, I would first separate the Trump/Biden ballots, measure the size of the stacks, count them by machines like those used at a printing facility, and hand count them. I also agree that the signatures need to be verified on the envelopes. All these things can be done simultaneously.
 
showpan said:
HUGE EVIDENCE! 'Glitches' ALL OVER THE COUNTRY! �� STOP THE STEAL ��
posted 2 days ago by PedeInspector (edited) +1528 / -0
I made this post earlier, and edited to add more and more states until I got all of them.

For better visibility, I thought a new thread would do better, here they all are.

Switched votes are votes that were taken from Trump and given to Biden.

Lost votes are voted that disappeared during the counting, from both candidates.

There might be a small overlap between Switched votes and Lost votes.

Dominion Voting Systems :

Pennsylvania : Switched : 220,883 Lost Votes : 941,248

New Jersey : Switched : 80,242 Lost Votes : 20

Florida : Switched : 21,422 Lost Votes : 456

Michigan : Switched : 20,213 Lost Votes : 21,882

New York : Switched : 18,124 Lost Votes : 623,213

Georgia : Switched : 17,407 Lost Votes : 33,574

Ohio : Switched : 14,965 Lost Votes : 5,102

Virginia : Switched : 12,163 Lost Votes : 789,023

California : Switched : 7,701 Lost Votes : 10,989

Arizona : Switched : 4,492 Lost Votes : 0

Minnesota : Switched : 2,766 Lost Votes : 195,650

Tennessee : Switched : 2,330 Lost Votes : 0

Louisiana : Switched : 2,322 Lost Votes : 0

Illinois : Switched : 2,166 Lost Votes : 54,730

Wisconsin : Switched : 2,078 Lost Votes : 3,408

Colorado : Switched : 1,809 Lost Votes : 0

Utah : Switched : 1,627 Lost Votes : 0

New Hampshire : Switched : 973 Lost Votes : 116

Iowa : Switched : 938 Lost Votes : 477

New Mexico : Switched : 268 Lost Votes : 4,610

Missouri : Switched 0 : Lost Votes : 20,730

Nevada : Switched : 0 Lost Votes : 0

Alaska : Switched : 0 Lost Votes : 0

Washington : Switched : 0 Lost Votes : 0

Hawaii : Switched : 0 Lost Votes : 0

Kansas and Texas use Premier Election Solutions, owned by Dominion Voting Systems.

Texas : Switched : 14,954 Lost Votes : 30,557

Kansas : Switched : 1,674 Lost Votes : 2,154

Election Systems & Software :

Nebraska : Switched : 30,086 Lost Votes : 50

Kentucky : Switched : 8,129 Lost Votes : 23,849

Arkansas : Switched : 3,664 Lost Votes : 20,748

South Carolina : Switched : 2,779 Lost Votes : 2,119

Montana : Switched : 2,330 Lost Votes : 1,276

South Dakota : Switched : 1,347 Lost Votes : 1

North Dakota : Switched : 234 Lost Votes : 681

Maryland : Switched : 203 Lost Votes : 0

North Carolina : Switched : 0 Lost Votes : 15

District of Columbia : Switched : 0 Lost Votes : 0

Unknown Systems:

Nebraska : Switched : 30,086 Lost Votes : 50

Connecticut : Switched : 3,834 Lost Votes : 272

Massachusetts : Switched : 3,613 Lost Votes : 51

Oregon : Switched 2,557 Lost Votes : 0

Alabama : Switched : 1,170 Lost Votes : 408

Mississippi : Switched : 355 Lost Votes : 0

Maine : Switched : 271 Lost Votes : 35

Rhode Island : Switched : 6 Lost Votes : 13

West Virginia : Switched : 0 Lost Votes : 78,300

Idaho : Switched 0 Lost Votes : 0

Oklahoma : Switched : 0 Lost Votes : 0

Indiana : Switched : 0 Lost Votes : 0

Delaware : Switched : 0 Lost Votes : 0

Vermont : Switched : 0 Lost Votes : 0

NOTE : Lost votes are votes that disappeared, not only for Trump, but overall.

MEGA BREAKING NEWS EDIT:

I VERIFIED THAT THE SWITCHES ARE REAL!

I went looking through the data I got from my script, trying to find if the moment the Antrim glitch happened in Michigan is there. And it is. Here is the Data.

And here is the specific part when the switch happened.

You can see in that picture, that Trump lost 3,096 votes, those all went to Biden. BUT, Trump also lost 2,324 votes, that went nowhere.

NEW EDIT : Updated the numbers after fixing a small error, MORE states are affected now, holy $#@!.

https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8O0gyAf/huge-evidence-glitches-all-over-/
Click to expand...

what switch? who verified the switch or loss votes even happened?
 
Occam's Banana said:
There is a twitter thread purporting to debunk the time series analysis offered above (in post #191).

Apparently, the numbers upon which the analysis is based were not actual raw vote totals, but were derived by the application of a percentage of limited-precision (only a single decimal place), representing votes for Biden or Trump, to large (e.g., seven-figure) overall vote totals. This causes problems when, for example, batches contain a quantity of votes that is less than the limited precision can adequately represent.

Here is the thread: https://twitter.com/cb_miller_/status/1325714414490824704

I would have posted the content of the thread here, but it is quite long and threadreaderapp.com only compiled the first part of it. There are also a lot of images, so it would have required several separate and lengthy posts.

As mentioned in the thread, the explanation given in the debunking might also account for those times when vote totals being displayed on TV news in real time suddenly decreased after being updated. Apparently, the Edison data feed the networks were using doesn't actually contain specific vote totals for each candidate - so the assumption is that they are extrapolated from the overall total by application of the limited-precision per-candidate percentage figures which the feed does include.
Click to expand...

redmod79 said:
I haven't posted in a while, but I feel compelled to since some of you are arguing over the validity of the time series democrat/republican ratio data. Unfortunately, the debunking tweet is correct. There is not sufficient precision in the vote share data (only 3 significant digits) in order to back-calculate accurate dem/rep ratios per batch. Please consider the following example, inspired by the Michigan data (but not an actual data point, I just wanted to make the numbers easy).

Towards the tail end of the data there are over 5 million total votes. Let's call it 5.53 million. The republican share is 0.479 and the democrat share is 0.505. Since there are no actual vote totals for each party, just these ratios, so you have to estimate

rep votes = 5.53 mil x 0.479 = 2,648,870
dem votes = 5.53 mil x 0.505 = 2,792,650

For the sake of argument, let's say these are the true numbers at this point...
Now, let's say the next batch that comes in is for 10,000 votes, and it's 55% rep and 45% dem.

the total votes (true values) for each party is then
rep votes = 2,648,870 + 0.55 x 10,000 = 2,654,370
dem votes = 2,792,650 + 0.45 x 10,000 = 2,797,150
total votes = 5.54 million

The true ratios for each party is then
rep share = 2,654,370 / 5.54 mil = 0.479128...
dem share = 2,797,150 / 5.54 mil = 0.5049007...

The edison data would round these values to 3 significant digits
rep share = round(0.479128, 3) = 0.479
dem share = round(0.5049007, 3) = 0.505

No change in the overall share ratios even though the batch share was 0.55 rep vs 0.45 dem

Now since the overall share ratios have not changed, the apparent total vote counts for each party are
rep votes (apparent) = 0.479 x 5.54 mil = 2,653,660
dem votes (apparent) = 0.505 x 5.54 mil = 2,797,700

If you were to calculate the apparent dem/rep vote share for the batch, it would be no different than the overall vote share ratio of 0.505 / 0.479 =1.05, versus the true (and unknown) batch ratio of 0.45 / 0.55 = 0.82.

I hope this clears the confusion.
Click to expand...

Ugh, what a mess.

I have not looked at the actual download scripts or data used by the original "analysis", but if we take @cb_miller_ at face value on the data used and how it was used, then yes, a 50 vote batch coming in would not change the cumulative percentage no matter which way that vote went. It could be 50-0 for Trump or 50-0 for Biden.

But the original implication by @cb_miller_ that the NYT did not have the detailed data appears to have been wrong. The exact vote counts could be found from the NYT data:

Alright we might have ACTUAL vote data: it looks like some saint (shoutout to whoever Alex is, and to @mn_trades
) scraped data that had exact vote data from NYT. I tried replicating the graph of @mn_trades
and came close but not exactly.
...
https://twitter.com/cb_miller_/status/1326412786340126721
Click to expand...

New graphs generated by the full data appear to show scattered ratios, and not the straight lines of the original graphs.

A rebuttal from the creator of the original graphs would be of interest. IIRC, the premise of the original graphs was that they were working with mail-in ballots that would be homogenized by being shuffled in the mail. That is an unproven hypothesis. I don't know if anyone has addressed how it could be determined that vote counts came from mail-in ballots vs. other sources. I believe it was assumed that all later data was mail-in? Is that information in the NYT raw data?

---

From the original Twitter thread:

What appears to be happening is that points on the straight line are actually mail in votes. The reason they're so homogeneous across with respect to the ratio of #Biden vs #Trump votes is that they get randomly shuffled in the mail...

like a deck of cards. Since the ballots are randomly mixed together during transport, spanning areas occupied by multiple voting demographics, we can expect the ratio of mail-in #Biden ballots to mail-in #Trump ballots will remain relatively constant over time...
...
https://twitter.com/APhilosophae/status/1325595331862667264
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Occam's Banana said:
@jhalderm on "Antrim county MI errors"


1/
There's been lots of speculation about why Antrim County, MI initially reported incorrect results on Wed. The results have since been corrected, but people are naturally wondering what happened. Here's the likely technical explanation and my assessment.

2/
First, see @MichSOS's new statement about the issue [PDF file]: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/Antrim_Fact_Check_707197_7.pdf

It was human error, isn't a sign of anything malicious, and couldn't impact the official results in any way. But what exactly happened?

3/
The problem relates to the "election definition"--configuration files that describe the races and candidates on the ballots across the county.

In October, Antrim noticed an error in its election definition: two local races had been omitted in certain precincts.

4/
They fixed this by recreating the election definition and installing the corrected version on the scanners for affected precincts. However, precincts where the ballot wasn't impacted by the change continued to use the original election definition.

5/
Because of this, each individual scanner tabulated ballots correctly, but there was a problem when it came time to combine the results from across precincts.

6/
Antrim uses @dominionvoting ballot scanners, which store vote totals on memory cards. Think of the data on the card like spreadsheet, with a number for each choice. But there aren't any labels--it's the election definition that says which row corresponds to which candidate.

7/
When Antrim loaded the memory cards into its reporting system, the system interpreted them using the revised election definition. The numbers from scanners that used the old definition didn't line up with the right candidates, so the initial combined totals were very wrong.

8/
Fortunately, the individual scanners counted correctly. Each scanner prints its results on a paper "poll tape" at the end of election night, so Antrim re-entered the data from those printouts to get the correct overall totals.

9/
Even if Antrim hadn't caught this problem so quickly, it would have been found and corrected during normal post-election procedures. Every Michigan jurisdiction checks the poll tapes against the reported totals before certifying results.

10/
When the dust settles, we can investigate further and learn from these events. Defensive software engineering should help prevent such reporting glitches even if operators make a mistake. Still, Antrim responded well, and MI's failsafes worked as designed to ensure integrity.

11/
In conclusion, it appears that Antrim's problem:
* Isn't a sign of anything nefarious.
* Was corrected quickly.
* Has nothing to do with the version of the Dominion software in use.
* Is not a security vulnerability.
* Isn't likely to impact results in other jurisdictions.
Click to expand...

I responded to him the day after he posted that:


https://twitter.com/USAB4L/status/1325493219929550848
 
Brian4Liberty said:
Ugh, what a mess.

I have not looked at the actual download scripts or data used by the original "analysis", but if we take @cb_miller_ at face value on the data used and how it was used, then yes, a 50 vote batch coming in would not change the cumulative percentage no matter which way that vote went. It could be 50-0 for Trump or 50-0 for Biden.

But the original implication by @cb_miller_ that the NYT did not have the detailed data appears to have been wrong. The exact vote counts could be found from the NYT data:



New graphs generated by the full data appear to show scattered ratios, and not the straight lines of the original graphs.

A rebuttal from the creator of the original graphs would be of interest. IIRC, the premise of the original graphs was that they were working with mail-in ballots that would be homogenized by being shuffled in the mail. That is an unproven hypothesis. I don't know if anyone has addressed how it could be determined that vote counts came from mail-in ballots vs. other sources. I believe it was assumed that all later data was mail-in? Is that information in the NYT raw data?

---

From the original Twitter thread:
Click to expand...

He was using the truncated vote ratio data that has 3 significant digits. I recreated his charts exactly. I uploaded my code here

https://github.com/RandomUserNumber1/VoteRatiosFor2020Election

I also added some comments in the code.
 
Brian4Liberty said:
I responded to him the day after he posted that:


https://twitter.com/USAB4L/status/1325493219929550848
Click to expand...

The same guy did a video piece for The New York Times a couple of years ago demonstrating that voting software can be deliberately exploited.


Of course, the context is that "Russians" would be the exploiters - but if the "Russians" could pull it off, then surely any interested "domestic" parties with much more direct access would have an even easier time of it ...
 
Occam's Banana said:
Occam's Banana said:
New York Time DENIES Election Voter Fraud? Viva Frei Vlawg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmgMu5sefzA

Reading the MSM can be a full mental workout in terms of wordsmithing and manipulation. Here is the breakdown on their claims that there was "no evidence of voter fraud" in the 2020 election.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


https://twitter.com/thevivafrei/status/1326880479598047232


EmoGwwAW4AABJXr.jpg
Click to expand...


In sharp contrast to the above, The New York Times was singing a much different tune in 2012 (bold emphasis added):

Error and Fraud at Issue as Absentee Voting Rises
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/...il-faulty-ballots-could-impact-elections.html
Adam Liptak (06 October 2012)

[...]

Election experts say the challenges created by mailed ballots could well affect outcomes this fall and beyond. If the contests next month are close enough to be within what election lawyers call the margin of litigation, the grounds on which they will be fought will not be hanging chads but ballots cast away from the voting booth.

[...]

The trend will probably result in more uncounted votes, and it increases the potential for fraud. While fraud in voting by mail is far less common than innocent errors, it is vastly more prevalent than the in-person voting fraud that has attracted far more attention, election administrators say.

[...]

Voting by mail is now common enough and problematic enough that election experts say there have been multiple elections in which no one can say with confidence which candidate was the deserved winner. The list includes the 2000 presidential election, in which problems with absentee ballots in Florida were a little-noticed footnote to other issues.

[...]

There is a bipartisan consensus that voting by mail, whatever its impact, is more easily abused than other forms. In a 2005 report signed by President Jimmy Carter and James A. Baker III, who served as secretary of state under the first President George Bush, the Commission on Federal Election Reform concluded, “Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.”

On the most basic level, absentee voting replaces the oversight that exists at polling places with something akin to an honor system.

“Absentee voting is to voting in person,” Judge Richard A. Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has written, “as a take-home exam is to a proctored one.”

[...]

Fraud Easier Via Mail

Election administrators have a shorthand name for a central weakness of voting by mail. They call it granny farming.

“The problem,” said Murray A. Greenberg, a former county attorney in Miami, “is really with the collection of absentee ballots at the senior citizen centers.” In Florida, people affiliated with political campaigns “help people vote absentee,” he said. “And help is in quotation marks.”

Voters in nursing homes can be subjected to subtle pressure, outright intimidation or fraud. The secrecy of their voting is easily compromised. And their ballots can be intercepted both coming and going.

The problem is not limited to the elderly, of course. Absentee ballots also make it much easier to buy and sell votes. In recent years, courts have invalidated mayoral elections in Illinois and Indiana because of fraudulent absentee ballots.

Voting by mail also played a crucial role in the 2000 presidential election in Florida, when the margin between George W. Bush and Al Gore was razor thin and hundreds of absentee ballots were counted in apparent violation of state law. The flawed ballots, from Americans living abroad, included some without postmarks, some postmarked after the election, some without witness signatures, some mailed from within the United States and some sent by people who voted twice. All would have been disqualified had the state’s election laws been strictly enforced.

In the recent primary here, almost 40 percent of ballots were not cast in the voting booth on the day of the election. They were split between early votes cast at polling places, which Mr. Sancho, the Leon County elections supervisor, favors, and absentee ballots, which make him nervous.

“There has been not one case of fraud in early voting,” Mr. Sancho said. “The only cases of election fraud have been in absentee ballots.”

Efforts to prevent fraud at polling places have an ironic consequence, Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School, told the Senate Judiciary Committee September last year. They will, he said, “drive more voters into the absentee system, where fraud and coercion have been documented to be real and legitimate concerns.”

“That is,” he said, “a law ostensibly designed to reduce the incidence of fraud is likely to increase the rate at which voters utilize a system known to succumb to fraud more frequently.”

[...]

Election law experts say that pulling off in-person voter fraud on a scale large enough to swing an election, with scores if not hundreds of people committing a felony in public by pretending to be someone else, is hard to imagine, to say nothing of exceptionally risky.

There are much simpler and more effective alternatives to commit fraud on such a scale, said Heather Gerken, a law professor at Yale.

“You could steal some absentee ballots or stuff a ballot box or bribe an election administrator or fiddle with an electronic voting machine,” she said. That explains, she said, “why all the evidence of stolen elections involves absentee ballots and the like.”
 
Last edited:
[h=1]Leftist Groups Accidentally Prove Pennsylvania Elections Officials Violated Laws And Judge’s Orders[/h]To combat Trump’s motions to battle the election fraud taking place in Pennsylvania, various different leftist organizations have filed a motion to intervene in the case. As part of this motion, they included several affidavits from various community members. In some of those affidavits, citizens swear that they were contacted by people at the elections office and/or by the democrat party and were informed that there was a problem with their ballot, and they needed to come down to the elections office and cure the problem.
This is in direct defiance of the orders previously given by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which specifically stated that voters are not to be contacted to cure a ballot.


Furthermore, why are voters being contacted by partisan party officials, when it should be elections officials contacting them?
Still another concern is that this is contrary to what the “fact checkers” have told us regarding proper policy and procedure.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ctions-officials-violated-laws-judges-orders/
 
Three employees of the voting machine / software company "Dominion" whose products were used in multiple U.S. States for the recent election, have come forward and are blowing the whistle about OUTRIGHT ELECTION THEFT perpetrated through their company's voting software!The crux of their testimony: Software switched or simply erased more than 3.8 MILLION votes. According to Intelligence Community sources, Dominion software vote-switching was the Democrats first weapon of choice. Mail-In voting was their second weapon of choice. That's why they froze all the counting on election night, the software wasn't giving them the desired outcome, so they resorted to having vans full of pre-filled ballots delivered at 4 a.m.Rudy Giuliani, the President's Attorney says the three whistle blowers have come forward and are willing to testify under oath as to what took place.What we are beginning to see is evidence of the biggest scandal in the history of the United States; An attempted THEFT of the Presidency, and the criminal nullification of literally millions of citizen votes.

 
Occam's Banana said:
Michigan Election Lawsuit Makes SERIOUS Allegations! Viva Frei Vlawg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2wXRFXUGw0

Here is a breakdown of the Michigan Election lawsuit. It's no joke, and makes some very serious highly-detailed allegations. Up to you too decide if there is "no evidence" of election chicanery.
Click to expand...

lawsuit (PDF): https://greatlakesjc.org/wp-content/uploads/Complaint-Costantino-FINAL-With-Exhibits.pdf
Click to expand...


https://twitter.com/thevivafrei/status/1327386014927773698
 
ProBlue33 said:
Three employees of the voting machine / software company "Dominion" whose products were used in multiple U.S. States for the recent election, have come forward and are blowing the whistle about OUTRIGHT ELECTION THEFT perpetrated through their company's voting software!The crux of their testimony: Software switched or simply erased more than 3.8 MILLION votes. According to Intelligence Community sources, Dominion software vote-switching was the Democrats first weapon of choice. Mail-In voting was their second weapon of choice. That's why they froze all the counting on election night, the software wasn't giving them the desired outcome, so they resorted to having vans full of pre-filled ballots delivered at 4 a.m.Rudy Giuliani, the President's Attorney says the three whistle blowers have come forward and are willing to testify under oath as to what took place.What we are beginning to see is evidence of the biggest scandal in the history of the United States; An attempted THEFT of the Presidency, and the criminal nullification of literally millions of citizen votes.

Click to expand...


HACKING DEMOCRACY
 
I posted the link. If you read through the comment section you will find more links to that actual machine dumps where they discovered when it happened and the methodology used to find the vote switch and losses. They really don't even have to look at the ballots themselves since the machines have a record of the changes made. Antrium county Michigan were the first ones to report it as they compared their totals with what they sent to the state and what the state actually recorded. The votes were switched to Biden...lol...all of the machines are linked to a central processor and can be manipulated through one location.
 
showpan said:
I posted the link. If you read through the comment section you will find more links to that actual machine dumps where they discovered when it happened and the methodology used to find the vote switch and losses. They really don't even have to look at the ballots themselves since the machines have a record of the changes made. Antrium county Michigan were the first ones to report it as they compared their totals with what they sent to the state and what the state actually recorded. The votes were switched to Biden...lol...all of the machines are linked to a central processor and can be manipulated through one location.
Click to expand...

why bother tampering with paper when you can just do that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Swordsmyth
Official Thread: 2024 Vote Fraud
12 13 14
Replies
270
Views
57K
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
PAF
Trump’s Brazil Tariff Isn’t America First – It’s Economic Authoritarianism
Replies
0
Views
19
PAF
PAF
PAF
Globalists Are Rebranding Their “Woke Capitalism” Agenda After Crushing Setbacks
Replies
16
Views
145
devil21
D
PAF
How Billionaires Who Sell to the U.S. Government Control the U.S. Government
Replies
1
Views
58
TheTexan
TheTexan
Intrepid
LEGACY MEDIA TRUMP HOAX LIST ***OFFICIAL THREAD***
Replies
6
Views
937
Madison320
M
Back
Top