Update on election fraud theories

This watercolor is something I painted from life in Hollywood on New Year’s Eve, 1999. I had two apartments in neighboring buildings at the time. I lived in one with my family. The other was my studio where I did all my work. The night before, I heard some shooting outside. My wife told me that my building was surrounded by police, and no one could leave. I tried to cross over to the other building, but wasn’t allowed. My wife showed me my dinner from our balcony.

That night, I slept on a cardboard box in my studio, without food. The next morning, I came out and found the parking area around my wife’s building was all blocked off with police tape. There were bullet holes and casings all over. A dead man lay in the garage driveway covered in blood. A discarded rifle lay near the body. With nothing better to do, I made this watercolor.

At that moment, I knew only what I could see and what I remembered from the previous evening. I had heard gunshots, I had seen many police officers. I could see the dead man, gun, and evidence of gunfire. What happened? From the information available, I had no idea.

Later, the story came out: the dead man was an unemployed sound editor who lived on the first floor of my wife’s building. He had been observed carrying the rifle and wearing body armor. This was reported to the police, who knocked on his door. The man shot through the door at the officers, wounding one in the chest. An “officer down” call went out, bringing dozens more police officers to my building within minutes. The man had by then worked his way to the exit of the building, where he pointed his rifle in the direction of a wall of police. They opened fire (the sounds I heard), but due to his body armor, was wounded, not killed. He crawled to the garage where he bled out and died.

To learn the full story, reporters had to call the police station and talk to the officers involved. I wish it was as easy with election fraud. We have an obvious crime, with the equivalent of bullet holes, casings, and blood all over the place. We even have some ballistics reports giving the direction of the shots. However, the shooters and victim are all missing. We know something happened and even have an idea what it was, but cannot definitively prove the who or why until we identify some of the participants.

That is my long-winded caveat for what follows: my current impression of various election fraud theories. Or more exactly, a couple of theories.

Tabulator vote-flipping

The best evidence I’ve seen for this comes from Antrim, Michigan. It shows that about 4,000 votes for Donald Trump were received by the tabulator(s) in Antrim County, and converted to 4,000 Biden votes. In that case, As far as I know, this isn’t a seriously contested fact. Therefore, we can accept that the tabulators in question did flip those votes and that it is possible for other tabulators of the same design to also flip votes.

If not for the small size of the county and the fact the residents knew “everyone else” and that most were Trump voters, this count may have never been challenged. The problem would have remained hidden. Once revealed, it invites suspicion that all other such tabulators have the same “flaw” and would do the same thing.

Ballot Stuffing

Videos from an Atlanta, Georgia counting center seem to show several people counting ballots after observers have left due to a phony emergency. The video also reveals what appears to be the same ballots being run through tabulators multiple times. Two of the people in the video are named Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss. They successfully sued Rudy Giuliani for defamation, and won a default judgment of $148,169,000. They also settled cases against TheGatewayPundit and other news outlets.

Due to their success in court, I’ll just say this: I can understand why people would have understood those videos as evidence of ballot stuffing. To me, it does look like the same ballots are run through multiple times, but I can’t see the screens on the machines, so for all I know, they are the same ballots but had to be run multiple times due to scanning errors.

Regardless, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that ballot stuffing occurred. Let’s also assume it occurred in the manner alleged: first, observers were removed from the counting area (as also happened in Philadelphia and Detroit), and then ballots were either counted multiple times each, or fraudulent ballots were introduced into the count.

Ballot Destruction

I remember several reports of this. From ballots found strewn on the highway to industrial scale events with shredders. In a related anomaly, some election workers were fired for shredding registration applications.

Algorithms V1: controlling Election Day counting

These algorithms were discovered by Jeff O’Donnell/Lone Raccoon. These convincingly show that vote counts for the two major candidates in 2020, Trump and Biden, followed what appears to be an artificial pattern in many states. The unnatural graphs that track votes throughout the day seem to start with a spike favoring Biden. Then, if Trump’s total exceeds Biden’s, it continually course corrects in real time so that Biden wins. You can see examples of his work here.

Algorithms V2: Registration Indexing

I found these, and regular readers know what they are. For everyone else, these algorithms are found in multiple states and have the ability to covertly index voter registration records. This amounts to a hidden data artifact that could be used to reveal hidden meaning, like the ID numbers of fraudulent or suspicious records. This is known to have happened in New York and Wisconsin, but other state’s algorithms aren’t as well understood, making it difficult to say they perform the same function as similar algorithms in NY and WI, though they definitely have the capacity to do it.

Registration fraud

This may be the least controversial item on the list. I’ve found it, Jeff O’Donnell has found it, other researchers have found it, Sheriff Dar Leaf in Michigan has found it, and the Heritage Foundation’s election fraud database is full of examples. This happens, has been prosecuted, and guilty pleas have been obtained.

Registration fraud can be either: 1) the introduction of a synthetic (fraudulent) identity into the rolls, or the use of an existing registration to fraudulently obtain a ballot. Both allow the creation of genuine ballots, though obtained fraudulently and illegal to use.

Obstruction of justice

Lawsuits and sometimes criminal convictions against Trump-aligned persons for what amounts to exercise of free speech rights. These cases, like the one against Mesa County, Colorado town clerk Tina Peters and her subsequent 9 year jail sentence, the many baseless cases against President Trump, the 1500 or so cases against J6 rally attendees, the disbarrment of Rudy Giuliani and others, all add up to two things: Obstruction and intimidation.

The cases were flagrantly unfounded, unjust, illegal, and caused real harm directly to their subjects, as well as widespread intimidation of the American public. All for one thing: expressing doubt about the outcome of the 2020 election.

Review

These listed items are the circumstantial evidence from which a legal theory can be generated. The most powerful to me is the widespread obstruction. I see no reasonable motive for law enforcement personnel, prosecutors, judges, intellligence agencies, politicians, and media to take the existential risk of pursuing unfounded criminal attacks unless they were hiding something. Based on their victim selection methodology, the thing they wanted to hide was the 2020 election.

From this alone, I can assume that the 2020 election was not just crooked, but the product of a sophisticated conspiracy. Some of the other evidence seems to conflict, yet let’s assume it is all true and see how it fits together.

The biggest issue I see is tabulator miscounts. It appears to have happened in Antrim, and I’m satisfied it did, but some of the other evidence recommends a different theory.

The problem is this: a tabulator provides a count in the form of a digital readout or on a piece of paper tape. That is its product. In the Antrim case, 4,000 Trump votes went in, 4,000 Biden votes came out. That is what the readout said. However, the ballots that went into the machine were available., They could be checked, and were. It quickly became evident that the number of ballots counted was correct, thus limiting the count to the ballots fed to the device, but the distribution of votes among candidates was wrong.

This is too easy to falsify for me to believe it was a primary or even intentional fraud method. I have another reason, but we’ll get to that.

In Georgia, if all is as it appeared, the tabulators counted all the ballots it was fed (correct tally of ballots inserted) but some of the ballots were inserted more than once. Therefore, a count of paper ballots should not match the tabulator totals. There is evidence in Georgia that the tabulator counts don’t match the number of available ballots. There is also evidence of an attempt to coverup this fact. On that basis alone, the election should have been voided in Georgia. Instead, it was certified.

Ballot stuffing is a very old and often used method to modify election results. The introduction of a tabulator to multiply the count seems unsophisticated, because it would be very easy to prove the count was faulty. All one has to do is produce the underlying ballots. On the other hand, if officials are determined to defend the results by either denying access or by fraudulently multiplying the number of paper ballots, there is little that can be done. This method bothers me because it would be easier, and harder to detect, if the desired number of fraudulent ballots were printed off and counted. Then, the counts would match no matter how many fraudulent ballots were added.

The reason almost every person ever convicted of voter fraud is also convicted of registration fraud, is that it is difficult to do one without the other. Indeed, although registration fraud is often prosecuted on its own, voter fraud almost always includes other charges.

Fraudulent registrations can be used to generate completely authentic ballots. For these, there is no need to run to the local Kinko’s to make copies, or to run ballots multiple times through a tabulator, or even to have a tabulator switch votes. If you have a fake registration, you can get a real ballot mailed to any mailing address you designate, filled out however you like. You can then mail it in and no one will know it came from you. If this was your chosen method, but the tabulator was also flipping votes, it could flip yours the wrong way or draw unwanted attention. If your fraudulent registrations were run through a tabulator three times each, that would also reveal a problem with the count. If any of these methods are mixed by unaffiliated people, they run an increased risk of discovery, as well as the likelihood that their efforts will cancel out yours.

If you intend to defraud an election, registration fraud is a logical first step. This provides full control, anonymity, and a paper trail littered with completely authentic untraceable ballots. If this is what you intend to do, you don’t want any of the other methods used, because they could expose you or compromise your effort.

The two algorithms are interesting because there is a seeming conflict. I am satisfied that the ones I found are real. Similarly, I find O’Donnell’s evidence convincing. The problem is that the algorithms I found appear related to registration fraud, but the ones found by O’Donnell seem to control vote counting throughout the day. At first, these seemed incompatible to me. If you have fraudulent ballots, why would you need to modulate the counting process?

The answer is that both have their purpose. If you have a huge number of fake ballots all filled out for Biden, you don’t want to dump them into a box all at once. This would show up as a huge unnatural spike in the cast vote records O’Donnell is analyzing. Instead, you would want to distribute them throughout the day, so they appear more natural. Also, you wouldn’t want to add more than necessary, to reduce the risk of discovery. This is where O’Donnell’s algorithm becomes useful.

I haven’t asked him (though I will when I get a chance) if he agrees with what I’m going to say next, but here it goes: it occurs to me that O’Donnell’s algorithm might be used to direct workers who are in on the plot when and how many fake ballots need to be added to the count. Instead of monkeying with the way the ballots are counted, they go to their special box of fake ballots, possibly marked in a certain way for identification, and grab 15 ballots to add to the tally. Then the algorithm says 30 more are needed at 3:15PM, and they are retrieved and added to the count. That would produce the same result O’Donnell sees, but it would be connected to real ballots rather than the tabulator alone.

As for the rest, I think many of the other things we’ve seen were lone wolf attempts to help Joe Biden, particualrly in Georgia and Pennsylvania, but also Michigan and Colorado. I think the fraud (and I assume there was widespread fraud) was probably well-calibrated in the states needed for a Biden victory. Some states likely were resistant enough to corruption that the planned fraud wasn’t enough, and drastic, poorly-planned maneuvers were generated on an emergency basis to give Biden the win. These maneuvers make up the bulk of the fraud we read about in the press.

The majority of the fraud, I believe, took place quietly and for the most part wasn’t discovered. That fraud amounted to the generation of illegal registrations, then the use of those registrations to create mail-in ballots. As simple as that, but with some modern technology to help it along.