Both Republicans and Democrats are involved in reporting election irregularities, and both Republicans and Democrats may be involved in actual cheating.
Democrat politicians have been talking about their voting machine concerns for many years. Reports of issues and “concerns” about suspicions are interesting, but much more important are affidavits signed under threat of perjury.
Some Republicans, such as Mitt Romney and Jeff Flake, on the other hand, are silent. Philadelphia Republican election commissioner Al Schmidt said Donald Trump’s electoral fraud claims are “deranged.”
To say there are many suspicious incidents in recent elections would have to be the understatement of the year. The Hill reported a list of more than 3,602 irregularities in Nevada was sent to the DOJ as part of a criminal referral.
Democrat Senators Concerned About Election Security
In 2019, three Senate Democrats, Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) expressed concerns about the voting systems. Their concerns included the fact that the systems were “prone to security problems.”
Democrats may have been worried that Republicans, foreign governments or other bad actors were involved in election fraud.
Their letter to voting machine company investors said “We are particularly concerned that secretive and ‘trouble-plagued companies,’ owned by private equity firms and responsible for manufacturing and maintaining voting machines and other election administration equipment, ‘have long skimped on security in favor of convenience,’ leaving voting systems across the country ‘prone to security problems.'”
“These problems threaten the integrity of our elections and demonstrate the importance of election systems that are strong, durable, and not vulnerable to attack,”
The Democrat letter quoted election security experts who “have noted for years that our nation’s election systems and infrastructure are under serious threat.”
Hillary Clinton learned about election fraud in 2016 in three states – Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. In the end, Hillary’s campaign did nothing to challenge the suspected election fraud. Apparently, the Obama White House did not want there to be an audit. This seems very strange given Hillary’s assertions at the time and her position that she was robbed of the election over the past four years.
13 years prior to the Democrat Senators’ letter, CNN covered the issue of electoral interference. In 2006, a CNN report noted that the Smartmatic company, whose software underpins most of the voting machines, is owned by Venezuela, and was associated with Hugo Chavez.
Voting systems across America are vulnerable to attack. Audit trails can be compromised or overwritten, and in some cases there is no audit trail. The chain of custody of ballots is not secure and the procedures that should guarantee legitimacy can be subverted.
The voting machine affidavit documented below asserts this is true.
In the 2020 election, glaring irregularities should have every voter wanting there to be an investigation into what happened. The fact that most of the media appears to be completely incurious about these irregularities says something about the lack of integrity of the media.
Election Irregularities Across Party Lines
Affidavits gathered for possible court proceedings are very serious business, because affiants make their statements under threat of perjury. They must be sure of what they are saying, and they are aware that their words will be brought to court and they will be held accountable if what they say is not the truth.
From various known reports, it is thought that more than one thousand people have put their name to an affidavit setting out election irregularities they witnessed personally. These are American citizens who saw something – or more than one thing – that did not seem right.
Until the cases are brought to court, the evidence of irregularities, errors, and possible wrongdoing are not public. Nothing is known about the politics of those signing the affidavits, but their politics should not matter, because they are Americans asserting they witnessed irregularities. They signed their affidavits under threat of perjury, so it is highly unlikely any of them would lie in it.
Many people, informed by the mainstream media, keep saying “there is no evidence.” Anyone who says this is either trying to cover up wrong-doing, or they do not understand how the legal system works. Nobody would gather evidence and then release it all to the public square so it could be picked apart, and in any case, these days, it may not survive more than a few minutes on twitter, facebook or youtube.
From the number of stories and discussions going around, it seems likely that election fraud runs across political parties. The people who engineer or take part in election fraud are likely to be driven by money, power, or both.
Some irregularities may be isolated incidents while others appear to be more widespread and organized. If the same irregularities appear in multiple counties and/or multiple states, that would appear to be a more organised error or fraud.
It was just learned that the PA Secretary of State website showed that 1.8 million absentee ballots were mailed out in Philadelphia county alone. 2.5 million absentee ballots were counted in that jurisdiction. Unless the number of mailed-out absentee ballows is wrong, there is a 700,000 difference there, and it must be investigated.
Publicly Available Affidavit
What follows is information from a publicly-available affidavit setting out irregularities seen by Americans. Note that all affidavits being used for court cases are not yet publicly available, and will not be until after they have been presented in court for the first time.
Voting Machine Affidavit
Russell James Ramsland Jr., a management team member of Allied Security Operations Group LLC. signed an affidavit setting out his findings after reviewing the Dominion voting machines over a period of 18 months and also looking at the 2020 election.
Mr. Ramsland and his team worked on reviewing the Dominion voting systems since November 2018. The affidavit is detailed and contains technical information.
Of all the items listed in Mr. Ramsland’s affidavit, one stands out more than others. Item 13 references the 2020 election in Michigan, in which it is shown that the Michigan machines would have needed to operate at four times their maximum capacity to have been able to produce the documented number of ballots processed.
In the data, four spikes of processed ballots show 384,733 ballots were allegedly processed in 2 hours 38 minutes. According to the specifications of the machines, even ignoring the need for human-assisted loading and processing, only 94,867 ballots could be processed in that timeframe. This maximum allows no time at all for downtime due to paper jams or other processing time. This means that there were at least 289,866 more ballots processed than were physically possible.
This appears to point to a manual-intervention, either by an operator within the system, or an attack by someone from outside.
Vote Distribution Ratio
Item 12 in the same affidavit shows that up until voter turnout reached 83%, the distribution of votes for the candidates was around 55% versus 45%. Then counting closed at around 2:00 am in the morning. After counting was supposedly stopped, there were spikes of incoming votes, with a completely different vote distribution ratio.
Here is a copy of the affidavit. Note that the affidavit contains an error, listing a township in the wrong state.
In a public hearing in Pennsylvania, Colonel Phil Waldron, a psyops officer in electronic warfare said that his team has been studying voting operations since 2018. Waldron stated that the voting systems in use in this election were “built to be manipulated.” He further said the same systems were used in Argentina, Italy Singapore, and Venezuela, where elections were “stolen.”
A registered Democrat, Olivia Jane Winters, who said she volunteered to ensure the integrity of the election in her area, spoke about an irregularity she witnessed after the “Judge of Elections” in the polling place was not supposed to leave the location went home for 45 minutes.
Winters said that when someone arrived to vote, who wanted to return the mail-in ballot they received so they could vote in-person, she wanted the Judge of Elections to sign it. Another pollwatcher who was also a committeeman confronted her and said anyone could sign it. He verbally abused Winters, telling her to be quiet and stop causing problems.
Other speakers said memory sticks were removed from machines, and currently 47 memory sticks are “missing.”
Still other speakers said there were stacks of blank mail-in-ballots to allow for fixing unreadable ballots, but there was nobody to oversee and validate that process.
Integrity of Elections
The integrity of elections should be important to all American voters. It does appear many stay it is important before any election, but afterwards, positions change. After an election, most winners don’t care about integrity, only the losers do.
That is the reason election fraud must be rooted out before elections. At that point, it may be the only people who don’t care about the integrity of the process are those who think they have an advantage because of a compromised system.
Many people now say that in-person voting on paper with strict security observance procedures and chain of custody is the only way to have a reasonable guarantee of election integrity.
The big media companies and many journalists apparently don’t understand how the legal system works, so they mislead the public with their flawed understanding.
Media companies and government departments do not decide the winners of elections. After the people vote, the votes are counted by what should be a legitimately monitored process. Then any disputes are resolved and the election is certified by the state.
Both Republicans and Democrats may be involved in election irregularities. Some of these may be due to poor training. Some may rise to the level of fraud. Some may be organized fraud. It is unlikely that this will be known until the court cases are decided in the next few months. Even then, it may be years before the final outcome is known.