In a further attempt to circumvent the intelligence of the voter, the American media machine has, this past Saturday, Nov 7, 2020, arbitrarily declared Joe Biden president. There are many problems with this report being accurate. The largest problem is that of the media itself.
In declaring Biden the winner, this media ignores very credible accusations of Biden campaign election fraud, substantiated problems with the mail-in ballots, successful legal challenges and, more importantly, that at least three of the states in question will be available to Trump, by state law, to perform a recount. When these recounts do occur, they will likely be under court order and also allow all Republican vote watchers to view the millions of mail-in ballots of which thousands are already in question.
To begin this presentation of the first 72 hours since election night Nov 3, it would serve the voter well to remember: This is same media which first spent more than two years championing, like Biden himself, the utterly debunked Russia Gate allegations and next the Democrat’s very flawed and deliberately tepid Impeachment attempt against incumbent Trump.
More to the point, as of Election Day of this past Tuesday, that media had worked a blanket media censorship of the very credible allegations of a Biden family influence-peddling operation while their candidate was, then, Vice President.
It must be now also be recalled that Biden, during a campaign stop Q&A presser on Oct 25, stated very clearly, that…
“[W]e have put together and you guys did it for President Obama’s administration before this, we have put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.”
While his statement may also prove the upcoming need for the 25th Amendment, if it is not an admission of complicity, it is certainly an indictment of the media.
These past seventy-two business hours are already the stuff of American history and a good reason for a journalist to stay up all night to follow and report this ongoing daily history. Unless Trump concedes, this election has many more days to go. This reporter, thus sleep-deprived and objectively irritable, will in the days to come update the proceedings within the body of this series.
To the student of history and American backed Color Revolutions, when MSM divisively anointed Biden far too early as US president- after a two-and-a-half-year quest to do so- their candidate, Joe Biden, became, instead, America’s own Juan Guaido.
It has become apparent that the Trump campaign’s concern about the Dems use of mail-in ballots was justified since all allegations begin here. Trump strategists were expecting this. What was not expected was that the DNC would be so brazenly obvious in using the mail-in ballots to Biden’s advantage.
The chronology of questionable vote counting began in the wee hours of election night morning.
Still barely awake and by then cross-eyed, news hit the screen at approx. 2:30 AM EST that despite the national back and forth of the vote count, suddenly that vote count had been suspended for the night in NV, AZ, MI, Wi, PA, GA and NC. These were the last of the swing states that were still key to any victory. All but two (GA and AZ) are under a democratic governor’s control. This stoppage seemed very strange. Brief research did not reveal a precedent to this, at which time the vote favored Trump in all but AZ and NV.
Interestingly, on that night several hours before every network had already called AZ for Biden with only 75% counted. This early declaration came despite the Trump campaign’s protests and AZ governor, Doug Ducey saying,
“I encourage media outlets, cable news and national pundits to… avoid the temptation to declare a winner until our Arizona election officials have finished their jobs.”
A look at the converse is also enlightening.
As of this Sunday morning, despite NC reporting, a 99% tally and a recount proof 1.3 % lead all weekend for Trump, not one media source has, as they did so quickly for Biden in AZ, NV, WI, PA, GA, declared that state and NC’s fifteen delegates for Trump’s total.
Deliberately, this action continues to deceive the uneducated voter that there is a much larger, and presumably insurmountable electoral lead for Biden. The intent is to sow disinterest and make the allegations irrelevant to the win.
Before pursuing some much-needed strong tea and a walk, I wrote down the existing vote counts in all these states as a reference for the restart of the media’s count beginning the next day.
Revitalized, I took a quick look at tabulations on my screen merely out of habit. What I saw sent me scrambling for my notes. Suddenly Biden was up in MI. This had happened while the count was reportedly suspended!
A quick search provided a graph comparing the Biden to Trump vote count, minute-by-minute per state. Looking back in time, the graph had spiked straight up, not diagonally, for Biden during my few minutes of absence. This sudden upward tick was so large that it had put Biden in the lead. The same graph showed no uptick for Trump at the same moment at all. All Biden votes. No Trump votes?
As dawn broke, Michigan’s “Decision Desk HQ” attempted to explain away too easily this discrepancy:
“The data showing Biden receiving 100% of the newly counted votes was released at 5:04 a.m. by Decision Desk HQ which showed Biden with 2,130,695 votes at Trump with 2,200,902 votes. But that data was not correct…Once we identified the error, we cleared the erroneous data and updated it with the correct data as provided by officials. We stand by our data as reflected… “
Sure.
Since that morning’s reawakening, many more questions have been buried by the media. N ot in these pages.
This day, news surfaced of Trump’s observers being barred from their duties by the vote counters in many locations in many states. This, at the least, called into question the workers neutrality.
Hindsight would recall that before the election there were successful efforts by Democrats to loosen electoral administration standards. This did legalize ballot harvesting, where, such as in Texas, partisan “volunteers” went out and collected ballots, sometimes after helping voters fill them out. The same laws facilitated same-day voter registration and mass mail-in voting.
At the same time, the DNC decried efforts by the RNC to require ID or proof of citizenship to vote.
After the early morning irregularities of November 4, there continued the mysterious discoveries of huge tranches of ballots that were overwhelmingly, if not exclusively for Biden. This turned out not to be surprising.
It was reported that US District Judge Emmet Sullivan was outraged at Postmaster General Louis DeJoy for not following his specific court order to “sweep” all USPS facilities for any possible stashes of ballots before 3 PM on Election Day. Prudently, Sullivan’s order was crafted to prevent ballots surfacing for counting after the close of the polls at 8 PM. Of course, this, in part, was exactly what happened. Said Sullivan , “At some point, the postmaster is either going to have to be deposed or appear before me and testify under oath,” adding, “The court has been very clear that it expects full compliance,” while excoriating the US Postal Service’s legal team for failing to promptly notify him after the agency supposedly realized it couldn’t meet his deadline.
Naturally, it was then confirmed by the vote counters in many districts that “glitches”with the digital voting machines had flipped Republican votes into the Democrats’ column as was documented.
As Wednesday continued, next were reports from people who showed up to vote in person but were told by poll workers that they had already voted as absentees, despite not having requested an absentee ballot. This was confirmed by a voter, Eugene R. who contacted the author through his website, stating that this happened to both he and his wife in Allentown, PA.
In many of the Democrat-controlled precincts in PA reports coming in regarding vote counters limiting access to Republican observers, in defiance of court orders, were frequent.
Combined, these individually insignificant reports began to quickly add up to suspicion. However, next came a very large statistical anomaly, in both Georgia and Michigan.
In Michigan for example, by using the old screenshots provided, there showed a minimal mathematical difference of just 7,131 votes between Trump and GOP Senate candidate John James. This was as expected since, as PEW research agreed, the vote for senator almost always closely follows that of the presidential vote and adheres to party preference.
However, the difference between Joe Biden and Democrat candidate Gary Peters was, very strangely, 69,093.
In Georgia, as of 6:05 AM EST Wed the difference between Trump and GOP offering Senator David Purdue was also in line with party preference. However , in checking the difference between Biden and the Democrat candidate for Senator, Jon Ossoff, it was 98,501. (Biden: 2,414,651 Jon Ossoff : 2,318,850)
This math is worthy of further scrutiny and explanation, but on the first examination can only be explained by either a lot of dyed in the wool republicans not voting the party line for Trump and Biden instead. Or….?
Certainly, this report from the first full day of post-election 2020 should pique the interest of any concerned voter, democrat and republican and demand their further personal scrutiny of the ongoing events. However, in anointing Biden as the winner already, the goal of America’s media is to suggest via its cover-up, that these current allegations, just like those of influence peddling, are now over and done with.
A review of the states that remain in play show, that unless Trump concedes, both sets of allegations will remain very much in play in each of these contested states and then, likely, in the Electoral College’s “Certification of Attainment” on Dec 14.
There is much penny ante finger-pointing by the GOP and combined these smaller allegations, such as restrictions of Republican observers, may turn into a playable hand. However, it is the legislative law and violations thereof that are the serious political chess moves that will, this week, be revealed by Trump.
Before looking at the main legal challenge, the easier subject is per state recounts.
Recounts can be required or commissioned by state law in WI, GA, MI and PA. While it is true that recounts rarely change a previous outcome, one might well remember the Florida recount of 2000 and…the strength of the allegations that seem to favor Trump. Should there be a recount, it will certainly be done under direct scrutiny, no matter what, by the GOP state operatives and the supervision of the courts.
At this time the margin for Biden-reportedly– is GA: 10,195; MI: 46,113; PA: 19,423 and WI: 20,510. This is a total of 96,241. Considering the cumulative total of allegedly illegal votes, this number, subject to a recount and the courts, would seem to be plausible.
Of, Recounts.
Already the Trump campaign has informally requested a recount in WI, but cannot as yet do so per WI statute.
Under Wisconsin election law, there is no automatic recount, even if the unofficial results are extremely close; a candidate must request one. According to the state’s manual outlining the process, candidates can request a recount if they are within the 1% margin of victory. Biden currently has a lead of just 0.7 percentage points with 99% of votes tallied. The request cannot be filed before the initial counting is complete, so that news is pending.
During a WI recount, it must be open to the public, and the Board of Canvassers has the option of a hand-count or to use voting equipment to re-tabulate the ballots, unless a court orders otherwise.
In Pennsylvania, where the margin is less than or equal to 0.5% of the total vote, an automatic recount may be required in the event of certain discrepancies as described here. At this time, Joe Biden has 49.608 percent of the vote, and Donald Trump has 49.098 percent of the vote, a margin of 0.51 percent.
Regardless of percentage difference, the recount can be requested, if filed, and subsequently paid for by the complainant, within five days of the election or five days after the computational canvass and must be requested through the Court of Common Pleas. If error or fraud is found, an additional five days is provided to make additional requests elsewhere, like the courts.
Georgia does not automatically initiate a recount. However, if a candidate falls with a 0.5% margin or less, a recount can be requested. Georgia law also states that a recount must be requested within two business days following the certification of results. State law does not specify who pays for the recount, but like PA percentage difference is not a requirement.
Michigan sets five criteria for requesting a recount: 1) The candidate ran for president. 2) The request “alleges that the candidate is aggrieved on account of fraud or mistake in the canvass of the votes.” 3) the request “shall contain specific allegations of wrongdoing only if evidence of that wrongdoing is available to the petitioner.” 4) The request “sets forth…the nature and character of the fraud or mistakes…” 5) The request “specifies the counties, cities, townships, and precincts in which the recount is requested.”
Presumably, Trump’s legal army have checked-off all five boxes.
It is true that in all four states Trump is losing, and in states like MI, PA, WI, is at the moment slightly over the threshold for an automatic recount. But it is the allegations of fraud that may put Trump within those limits for a recount, or possibly swing the state in his favor afterwards. With all these states still a day or more from final results, the term, “Re-count,” will soon hit the news on four separate fronts.
Pennsylvania, SCOTUS… and the Re-Count.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito late Friday ordered Pennsylvania election officials to segregate and separately count ballots that arrived after Election Day.
Alito ordered (pdf) that those segregated ballots must be kept “in a secure, safe and sealed container separate from other voted ballots.”
The justice, however, did not order the counties to stop counting but instead ordered those ballots to be counted separately pending review of their legitimacy. Here, Trump won a significant, although partial victory as to the segregation of these challengeable ballots and possible reduction of the Biden total.
This ruling and Alito’s words may be a forewarning of SCOTUS decisions to come.
In 2019, the PA legislature passed a law called Act 77 that permitted all voters to cast their ballots by mail but, in Justice Alito’s words, “unambiguously required that all mailed ballots be received by 8 p.m. on election day.”
Indeed, the exact text from 2019 Pa. Leg. Serv. Act 2019-77, reads, “No absentee ballot under this subsection shall be counted which is received in the office of the county board of elections later than eight o’clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election.”
Even more prohibitively, Act 77 also provided that if this portion of the law was ever invalidated, that the rest of Act 77, including its liberalization of mail-in voting, would also be void.
Pretty clear so far, except if you’re on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
After a four to three party-line vote, this court very strangely ruled that, first, mailed ballots don’t need to be received by election day and that ballots can be accepted if they are postmarked on election day or received within three days thereafter. Next, the court got creative allowing that, a mailed ballot with no postmark, or an illegible postmark, must be regarded as timely if it is received by that same date.
Of course, to most who read English this court’s rulings were not in keeping with Act 77.
Before Friday’s order, Alito had already assessed that,
“The provisions of the Federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures , not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election.” [Emph.added]
When bringing suit the Republicans also raised concerns that PA Secretary of the Commonwealth, Kathy Boockvar, had issued new guidance on Nov. 1 (pdf) directing county election boards to count late-arriving ballots.
Bottom of Form
Alito said in his order that he had not been informed that his guidance issued on Oct. 28, “which had an important bearing on the question whether to order special treatment of the ballots in question,” had been modified. Alito suggested that segregating the ballots would be necessary because, “if the State Supreme Court’s decision is ultimately overturned, a targeted remedy will be available.”
This means Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch (who joined Alito’s apparent skepticism on the Pennsylvania ruling) are open to legal challenges brought by Trump regarding post- Election Day fraud. That one decision will, after a full hearing, very likely invalidate thousands of votes cast illegally in Pennsylvania. However, with new allegations surfacing, more illegal ballots could add up. Or at the very least legitimize a recount.
This willingness by SCOTUS to already provide certiorari to actions brought to it regarding 2020 election fraud may foreshadow consequences in other states soon.
Case in point may be the news of the last hour that the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) told poll workers to ‘add a missing witness address’ to any deficient ballot and that some poll workers allegedly took it one step further by signing for non-existent witnesses. If true, in doing so, the workers may have invalidated thousands of more ballots, committed a felony offense and necessitated further SCOTUS intervention.
Wisconsin Statute 6.86 provides that
“an absentee ballot must be signed by a witness, who is also required to list his or her address. If a witness address is not listed, then the ballot is considered invalid and must be returned to the voter to have the witness correct.”
“The statute is very, very clear,” said retired Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman, a Milwaukee poll watcher on Election Day. “If an absentee ballot does not have a witness address on it, it’s not valid.”
With Alito’s words and Thomas’ and Gorsuch’s concurrence in mind, WI may have just come back into play; re-count pending.
The former ambassador to Russia under the Obama Administration, Michael McFaul, presumably knows a lot about Color Revolutions, since his boss used him in Ukraine in 2014. McFaul, who was also instrumental in the Russia-Gate disinformation campaign against Trump, also authored, “7 Pillars of Color Revolution,”
As this historic election continues, reporting and further analysis will highlight daily events and their parallels that already warn that these seven pillars are seemingly right in place here in America, as they were in the examples Ukraine, Bolivia and Venezuela, at least.
The initial step in each example has been to use a national election as the reason for a razor-thin and disputed vote result, one that the media stirs into a frenzy on both sides: A frenzy so viscous that the result becomes massive civil unrest followed next by violence.
And then military intervention.
In this, the first seventy-two hours of news from the election battleground of America 2020, this first step of a media fabricated victor, of which the other side detests and alleges criminal behavior, would seem in play.
Unless Trump concedes.
As this report continues to delve into the hard allegations of equally outrageous American election fraud, like its funded Color Revolutions past, America’s color may turn out to be, here in the homeland, “Pale Blue.”
Good night…
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Brett Redmayne-Titley has authored and published over 180 in-depth articles over the past twelve years. Many have been translated and republished worldwide. He can be reached at: live-on-scene ((at)) gmx.com. Prior articles can be viewed at his archive: www.watchingromeburn.uk
Featured image is CC BY 2.0/Wikimedia Commons
