2020 Presidential Election: Readers tell me my eyes lie
4 January 2021
On 20 November 2020, I posted an article to my website titled “Election Integrity: America, we have a problem“. My contention was that there is sufficient evidence to doubt the fairness and legality of the 2020 Presidential Election result. The prevailing conclusion is that Joe Biden won the election. The readers’ comments on that article fell into two groups. The first was that we should pray that God will lead us to the truth of what happened. I totally agree with that recommended action.
On the other hand, some respondents strongly argued that I should just accept that former Vice-President Biden won the election and move on. This is also the extremely strong message from Democrats and the liberal media, which is most media. In light of election related information made available over the past several weeks, what I hear is that I should accept that my eyes are lying to me. That is, even though I am seeing proof of errors and fraud in this election, I should conclude that what my eyes are seeing is not real.
The bottom line for me is that I am convinced that the 2020 Presidential Election was fraught with errors and fraud. The only way I will change this conclusion is that there is a thorough investigation of all the irregularities that have been and are being identified relating to this election. Further, until this is done, I will not trust the results of another election in the United States of America.
In what follows, I detail some of what I am seeing that convinces me that this election was fraught with errors and fraud. Be advised, this opinion piece is long and filled with details and numerous references. With the greatest of respect, I say, if you are a person who reaches conclusions based on headlines, soundbites, and/or have deep-seated contempt for Donald Trump, what I say here will be of no value to you. Simply put, if you are not willing to, with some reasonable degree of open-mindedness, give serious attention to all of what is presented here, do not waste your time and insult my effort by reading beyond this point.
Before moving ahead, here is a suggestion that might help you in quickly accessing video segments that are referenced. There are sections where I give a video link, but go on to refer to portions of the video. Each reference shows where, by time mark, the referenced comments appear on the video. For instance, 1:04:40 means the referenced segment starts at that time point on the video. A bar at the bottom of each video allows you to move back and forth by time. Consequently, my suggestion is that you write down the times for a given link; go to the link by clicking on it in the onscreen article and then to the times as you choose. This should be much easier than working from the list while it is displayed on your screen. For those who can use split screen or have two monitors, this step will probably not be needed.
The Trump legal team headed by Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York, has presented evidence of election errors and fraud to groups of legislators in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Michigan, and Arizona. They have brought several court cases and joined with plaintiffs in other cases. Interestingly, liberal media simply reports the number of cases dismissed, but do not give details as to why they were dismissed or sent to a lower court. This withholding of details is a means of pushing the narrative that there are no facts to support election errors and fraud allegations being made.
With that in mind, allow me to share just some of what has been presented. The evidence being made available is from, or corroborated by, witnesses who have submitted affidavits where lying is punishable by law. The first references are from video recordings of some of the legislative hearings mentioned above. The link for each hearing is given, and then the start time on that recording is provided for each summary of what was reported by a witness. Again, I suggest you copy the times and access video segments as explained above.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZXkAv7yKgw is the link for Michigan.
1:49. (That start time is one minute and 49 seconds.) The speaker, Patrick J. Colbeck, is an aerospace engineer, author, former Michigan state senator and former candidate for governor in Michigan. He makes additional comments regarding his extensive experiences and work history that make it clear he is qualified to address the matter at hand. Among several topics, he speaks to problems regarding chain of custody for ballots and reporting, the vote tally process, and data transmission. Based on his onsite observations, he questions whether the Dominion voting machines functioned properly and fairly. With confidence, he contends that those machines were connected to the Internet and open to outside manipulation. He gives detailed attention to “chain of custody” issues regarding vote tallies.
10:00. Colbeck reports that in Wayne County (Detroit), 172,000 votes could not be associated with registered voters.
11:20. Colbeck discusses the danger of having election machines connected to the Internet. He goes in to detail regarding how he knew the machines he observed were connected.
34:00. Colbeck responds to a legislator who says that where paper ballots, in a recount, yield the same count as the machine, there is no reason for concern. Colbeck explains that paper ballots can be generated so that these two counts agree. This possibility brings recounts into question. Colbeck and others have forcefully called for are forensic audits.
Allow an aside here regarding the calls for forensic audits of election processes in several states, not just Michigan. A forensic audit was conducted of voting in Antrim County Michigan after it was discovered that 6,000 votes were switched from Trump to Biden. Following is from an article by Lance D. Johnson titled, “Forensic audit finds that security log files were deleted from all Dominion machines to hide vote switching”:
This forensic audit found blatant evidence of a coordinated attack on the 2020 Presidential election. The Federal Election Commission allows an error rate of .0008 percent for all voting machines used in US elections. The Dominion machines in Antrim county had an error rate of 68.05 percent! Even more shocking: The ballot-adjudication logs and the security logs for the November 3 general election were removed. All log files for previous elections were still contained on the machines, but someone on the inside was able to erase the all-important log files for the 2020 election.
Please read the full article. Among other disturbing facts, you will see that this report was only released in response to a court order. This happening alone should cause every American to cry out for forensic audits in every state where there are clearly indications of errors and/or fraud.
56:24. Patty McMurray was a Republican poll watcher. She started her testimony by pointing to a huge binder that she said was filled with affidavits from others who were at the same voting location as her. She talks about being assigned to watch as ballots were duplicated. Apparently, this was a legitimate procedure. However, she was blocked from being allowed to get close enough to actually see that the process was being conducted properly. At one point, the Republicans were told to take a break. This was as military ballots were about to be processed. When the group returned, the doors were locked, but McMurray managed to get back in the room. She describes a threatening atmosphere and says that pizza boxes were being placed on the windows. She recounts what was observed being done with military ballots. What she says here is well summarized in an opinion piece by Rebecca Diserio titled, “Michigan Witness Drops Bombshell About Military Ballots – Statistically Improbable”:
McMurray finally got back in and went straight to the military ballot area.
‘“Not one of the military ballots was a registered voter and the ballots looked like they were all exactly the same Xerox copies of the ballot – they were all for Biden across the board, there wasn’t a single Trump vote and none of the voters were registered,” McMurray claimed.
“They had to manually enter the names, addresses, enter birthdate of 1/1/2020 which would override the system and allow them to enter non-registered voters of which I saw several that day, throughout the day, that’s how they would override voters that were neither in the electronic poll book or in the supplemental updated poll book,” she added.
1:15:04. Lori Levi was a poll challenger. She details not being allowed to carry out the responsibilities of that position. Among other hindrances, she was prevented from seeing documents necessary to meeting the requirements of her assignment. Levi reports that there were absentee ballots that were in different types of envelopes from what was usual; paper types differed, too. She explains that where all the checks for a ballot were not satisfied, the processor would make manual entries. She managed to write down eight or nine names and addresses of voters where this was done. Later, she and her husband drove around looking for those addresses. Of the eight or nine, they could only find one and that was a church. She points out that addresses for absentee ballots must be a residence.
In researching the testimony of Lori Levi, I was led to the text of a report by Christina Kim of NTD Evening News. The headline is “Witnesses at Michigan Hearing Testify on GOP Worker Harassment”. I was astounded to see that the report simply presents facts without commentary. There is a reference to Levi’s testimony, but pertinent segments of what was presented by other witnesses are also included.
Among the other information, Kim reports:
Poll challenger, Karen Cortes said she barely saw any Republican poll workers. She said she saw military ballots, all in fancy stationery envelopes, and while each ballot had different names, they had the same birth date of January 1, 1900—which she said was highly unusual.
“And nobody could tell me why the birthrates were 1900. When I went to challenge those votes, the supervisor told me, and I quote, ‘We’re not doing that,’” said Cortis.
“From my skin color everyone assumes that I’m a Democrat, so they just kind of come to me and one of the ladies was saying let’s get these m-f’s out. And I’m like m-fs who? … When I pulled out my tag, she looked at me and said you’re on the wrong side,” said poll challenger Hima Kolanagireddy.
The Kim text is accompanied by a video of her report. The text is a “must read” and, by all means, view the video.
5:52:18. Dr. Linda Lee Tarver makes it clear that the election errors and fraud that were present in the 2020 election are not a new happening. Tarver is a former Michigan Civil Rights Commissioner, a Republican activist, and a retired Michigan state employee. During her state employment, she served several years as Community Affairs Director and Election Integrity Liaison. In these positions, she assisted in preparing cases for referral to the state attorney general to prosecute for voter fraud.
Dr. Linda Lee Tarver is black. I mention that fact because my thinking is that this adds to her credibility. Without doubt, what she says in her testimony and while responding to questions constitutes the kind of thinking and comments that get a black person expelled from, banished by, the black community. Without reservation, I say that this kind of talk will definitely bring verbal attacks and, possibly, physical harm. Given this fact of life, I find what she has to say very credible.
What follows are some of her opening comments:
Ballot harvesting in Detroit, Flint, and Pontiac has been going on for decades.
Ballot stuffing, ballot curing, and complete fraud in the issuance, handling, and processing of ballots has not been addressed; and no election after 2020 should be considered fair unless we get this right this year.
The complete hate, apathy, and disdain for Republican poll challengers is but one way of how elections are stolen in Michigan.
Every election in the last twenty-five years, Republican poll watchers were removed by police.
It is a misdemeanor to intimidate and throw out Republican poll challengers.
Tarver also talks about how numerous precincts repeatedly fail to balance votes cast with the poll books, the inability to conduct recounts, poor training of poll workers, the high rate of errors and fraud in black areas, the need for election laws to be enforced, illegal curing of absentee ballots, unmonitored ballot collection boxes that allow for ballot harvesting, unfolded absentee ballots that look pristine, and the list goes on.
Note that when Dr. Tarver talks about “balancing”, she is referring to the requirement that the total number of ballots tabulated and the total number of voters who were issued a ballot be equal. Where this is not the case, there should be intensive investigation to determine why the two are not equal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93KKaRn2Gvc is the link for the first Part 1 of a hearing conducted by a group of Georgia legislators to hear concerns regarding the 2020 Presidential Election. Information is presented here in the same format as above with Michigan.
2:53. Ray Smith, lead council in Georgia for President Trump, opens the presentations. He contends that the Georgia election was not properly conducted and was fraught with errors and violations of law. He explains that the Georgia Legislature had, as prescribed in the United States Constitution, enacted procedures to be followed in the conduct of elections in Georgia. However, persons outside the Legislature, and lacking authority, put procedures in place that contradicted those enacted by the Georgia Legislature. Consequently, the state’s presidential election results are not reliable and the Georgia Legislature should appoint electors.
Specifically, Smith is referring to changes agreed to by the Georgia Secretary of State in order to settle a lawsuit brought by former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacy Abrams.
7:12. Smith says that Biden’s lead over Trump is 12,500; however, he points out that the number might change since so much is happening in the aftermath of the election. He then presents several occurrences that he contends would change the election result:
- 2,506 felons voted illegally in Georgia.
- 66,248 underage and, therefore, ineligible people to illegally register to vote before their 17th birthday when the law requires 171/2 years old.
- At least 2,423 individuals to vote who were not registered.
- 1,043 who illegally registered using a post office box.
- 4,926 individuals voted in Georgia who had registered to vote after their Georgia registration date; thereby, cancelling their Georgia voter registration.
- 10,315 or more individuals to vote who were deceased by the time of the election.
- 395 individuals to vote in Georgia who had cast ballots in another state, which is illegal in both states.
- 15,700 individuals to vote in Georgia who had filed a national change-of-address with the United States Postal Service prior to November 3, 2020.
- 10,279 individuals to vote who had moved across county lines at least 30 days prior to Election Day and who had failed to properly reregister to vote in their new county after moving. Also in violation of law.
Ray Smith ends his presentation by stating that his team has affidavits from over 100 Georgia voters attesting to violations of election laws. He then introduces Jackie Pick,
10:43. Jackie Pick, an attorney volunteering with the Trump effort, shows and provides commentary on a video of activity at a location where absentee and military ballots are being tabulated. The county is Fulton which includes Atlanta.
The big picture is that, as provided for by law, two Republican observers arrive in the early morning to observe the process. Instead of being given access adequate for them to actually see what is being done, they are put at a distance with the press. Around 10:00 p.m., an announcement is made that counting is being halted and will start again the next morning. Everybody is to leave the building. Everybody leaves except four people who are part of the staff.
After leaving, the Republican observers are told by some news people that the counting was restarted after they left. The Republicans go back to the tabulation area and are told that counting did restart after they left and just ended minutes before they returned. This counting was done by a total of six people without the press or Republican observers present.
You must watch the video.
Election officials contend there is nothing suspicious going on in this video. Among other places, this contention is reported in an article by Justin Gray, WSB-TV, titled “Georgia election officials show frame-by-frame what happened in Fulton surveillance video”.
My question is where is the official investigation of this incident? President Trump makes a request in a phone call and is impeached. I see this very suspicious video and am told to accept it as normal procedure. That is to be done while I disregard all the numbers Ray Smith presented.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFpHI2AaXUU links to another section of the Georgia hearing. All of this hearing was very informative. A disheartening observation for me is that facts are presented, but just disregarded when there appears to be sound reason for determining what really happened and making that information available to the public. A glaring example of this failure to investigate and disclose appears in the testimony of a lady in this second part of the Georgia hearing. This kind of disturbing testimony is presented and the liberal media and power-seeking politicians keep saying there is no evidence of fraud. They do this with absolutely no hint of having investigated happenings that are clearly deserving of investigation.
54:28. For over twenty years, Susan Boyles has served as a precinct manager in Fulton County. At the start of her comments, she said she had never seen an election conducted like that of 2020. Voyles contended that there was poor handling of machinery coupled with ballot chain of custody shortcomings.
Primary in her testimony was what she observed while participating in a recount. She and a lady working with her came upon a batch of 110 absentee ballots that she characterized as “pristine and unfolded”. Even further, all of them were on similar paper different from normal absentee ballot paper and appeared exactly the same with regard to a particular marking that she described in detail. Her clear suspicion was that these ballots were fakes that had been generated and put into the count. During the question and answer period, Voyles was asked how these votes were distributed among the presidential candidates. Her response was one for the third party candidate, two for Trump, and 107 for Biden.
In order to work on this recount, Voyles was required to commit to be present five days. However, when she returned the second day, after processing just 60 ballots, she and her co-worker were told that they were no longer needed and should go home, not to return. As though this sudden release were not enough suspicious activity, consider the following from an article in The Epoch Times (18 December 2020) by Zachary Stieber titled “Georgia Poll Workers Who Raised Election Concerns Get Terminated”:
Poll workers in Georgia who raised concerns about election irregularities were informed this week that their contracts are not being renewed, according to letters obtained by Epoch Media Group.
Bridget Thorne and Susan Voyles say they witnessed abnormal actions taken during the election in Fulton County. They’ve spoken to news outlets and state legislators about what they saw.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/georgia-election-data-shows-17650-votes-switched-from-trump-to-biden-data-scientists_3640670.html?v=ul. The video at this link shows a presentation made to the Georgia Senate Judiciary Subcommittee by a team of three individuals who analyzed various aspects of Georgia’s 2020 Presidential Election. They conducted hard data analysis. I literally beg you to watch this video.
A critical takeaway for me was a comment regarding recounts. One speaker explains what can be done by way of shifting votes to another candidate during ballot adjudication and that change will not be visible in a recount. Ballot adjudication is where the machine detects a problem with a ballot and identifies the ballot for human review. That review seeks to determine the voter’s intention. Once the voter’s intention is agreed to by a panel of reviewers, the agreed upon intent is put in via a new document. The original ballot is replaced and cannot be retrieved. Consequently, a recount looks at the new document only. That means votes can be illegally changed from one candidate to another and there will be no previous ballots to determine the legitimacy of the decision.
Further, the team was able to look at incremental data that would not be available in reports to the Secretary of State. That is, they reviewed vote totals by candidate over time and saw instances of votes shifted from Trump to Biden.
An article by Allen Zhong titled “Georgia Election Data Shows 17,650 Votes Switched From Trump to Biden: Data Scientists” reports on this presentation. Here are some pertinent segments of that article:
Georgia election data indicates 17,650 votes were switched from President Donald Trump to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, data scientists testified on Wednesday during a state Senate hearing.
A team led by Lynda McLaughlin, along with data scientists Justin Mealey and Dave Lobue, presented the results before the Georgia Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Elections.
“What we have here is we actually have fraud that we can prove in this election, there was fraud in Georgia’s election, we can prove it with data,” Mealey said. “The voting will of the people of Georgia is not reflected in what was certified by the Secretary of State.”
According to their analysis on time series election data which was published online as early as Dec. 24, Trump’s votes were decrementing in various counties instead of increasing as they do normally.
17,650 votes were allegedly switched from Trump to Biden as result.
A December 30, 2020 article by Petr Syab titled “Georgia Senate Panel Requests Forensic Audit of Fulton County Absentee Ballots” reports an action that I think indicates serious legislative concern that there might have been fraud in the Georgia election:
The senators are asking the state’s largest county to make the ballots “available for inspection” through a method outlined during the hearing by digital ID systems inventor Jovan Pulitzer.
Pulitzer suggested all absentee ballots in the state of Georgia be forensically examined and fraudulent ones identified in just a matter of hours. He called on state officials to allow the examination.
It will be informative to see whether election administrators allow this forensic audit.
Beyond what is presented above regarding the Georgia election, a civil action brought by L. Lin Wood, Jr. against Brad Raffensperger, Georgia Secretary of State, and others responsible for managing elections in the State requires attention. As was the case in some other states where the 2020 Presidential Election results are being challenged, voting procedures were changed in Georgia by administrators as opposed to action by the legislature. Wood argues that changes agreed to with various Democrat organizations by Raffensperger and others could only be made by the Georgia Legislature. The basis for this contention is Article I., Section 4.of the United States Constitution:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yam5mxlrkn9r3o5/2020-11-16%20Verified%20Amended%20Complaint_Wood%20v.%20Raffensperger%20et%20al.pdf?dl=0 will take you to the full text of Wood’s filing. If you do not read the entire document, at least review enough to understand the case he makes.
The next relevant piece is why the Court refused to hear Wood’s case. The Court’s refusal is detailed in a decision at https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202014418.pdf. The primary reason given was that Wood did not having standing. This is a critical term to understand because it has been the reason many cases challenging the 2020 Presidential Election results have been dismissed. Key to this reason for dismissing cases is that doing so has nothing to do with lack of evidence or facts. However, instead of explaining when cases are dismissed for lack of standing, Democrats, the liberal media, and others who oppose President Trump simply report the dismissal and lead people to think it was due to lack of facts, no evidence.
The following passage from the Court’s decision, in my estimation, explains “standing” in very clear terms:
A. Wood Lacks Standing Because He Has Not Been Injured in a Particularized Way.
Standing is a threshold jurisdictional inquiry: the elements of standing are “an indispensable part of the plaintiff’s case.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). To prove standing, Wood “must prove (1) an injury in fact that (2) is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and (3) is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.” Jacobson v. Fla. Sec’y of State, 974 F.3d 1236, 1245 (11th Cir. 2020). If he cannot satisfy these requirements, then we may not decide the merits of his appeal. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 94.
Wood lacks standing because he fails to allege the “first and foremost of standing’s three elements”: an injury in fact. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016) (alteration adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted). An injury in fact is “an invasion of a legally protected interest that is both concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Trichell v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 964 F.3d 990, 996 (11th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). Wood’s injury is not particularized.
Wood asserts only a generalized grievance. A particularized injury is one that “affect[s] the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.” Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1548 (internal quotation marks omitted). For example, if Wood were a political candidate harmed by the recount, he would satisfy this requirement because he could assert a personal, distinct injury. Cf. Roe v. Alabama ex rel. Evans, 43 F.3d 574, 579 (11th Cir. 1995). But Wood bases his standing on his interest in “ensur[ing that] . . . only lawful ballots are counted.” An injury to the right “to require that the government be administered according to the law” is a generalized grievance. Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197, 1205–06 (11th Cir. 1989) (alteration adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted). And the Supreme Court has made clear that a generalized grievance, “no matter how sincere,” cannot support standing. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693, 706 (2013).
A generalized grievance is “undifferentiated and common to all members of the public.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 575 (internal quotation marks omitted). Wood cannot explain how his interest in compliance with state election laws is different from that of any other person. Indeed, he admits that any Georgia voter could bring an identical suit. But the logic of his argument sweeps past even that boundary. All Americans, whether they voted in this election or whether they reside in Georgia, could be said to share Wood’s interest in “ensur[ing] that [a presidential election] is properly administered.”
Wood argues that he has two bases for standing, but neither satisfies the requirement of a distinct, personal injury. He first asserts that the inclusion of unlawfully processed absentee ballots diluted the weight of his vote. To be sure, vote dilution can be a basis for standing. Cf. Jacobson, 974 F.3d at 1247–48. But it requires a point of comparison. For example, in the racial gerrymandering and malapportionment contexts, vote dilution occurs when voters are harmed compared to “irrationally favored” voters from other districts. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 207–08 (1962). By contrast, “no single voter is specifically disadvantaged” if a vote is counted improperly, even if the error might have a “mathematical impact on the final tally and thus on the proportional effect of every vote.” Bognet v. Sec’y Commonwealth of Pa., __ F.3d __, 2020 WL 6686120, at *12 (3d Cir. Nov. 13, 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). Vote dilution in this context is a “paradigmatic generalized grievance that cannot support standing.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
https://demdoc2.perkinscoieblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/07/GA-Settlement-1.pdf links to the agreement that prompted Wood’s complaint. Following is a segment from that agreement. It gives the crux of the Democrats’ argument that resulted in the challenged agreement:
WHEREAS, in the lawsuit styled as Democratic Party of Georgia, et al. v. Raffensperger, et al., Civil Action File No. 1:19-cv-5028-WMR (the “Lawsuit”), the Political Party Committees have asserted claims in their Amended Complaint [Doc. 30] that the State Defendants’ (i) absentee ballot signature matching procedure, (ii) notification process when an absentee ballot is rejected for any reason and (iii) procedure for curing a rejected absentee ballot, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by unduly burdening the right to vote, subjecting similarly situated voters to disparate treatment, and failing to afford Georgia voters due process(the “Claims”), which the State Defendants deny;
Key on “…unduly burdening the right to vote, subjecting similarly situated voters to disparate treatment, and failing to afford Georgia voters due process”. A helpful explanation of due process is at https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process:
The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law (“legality”) and provide fair procedures.
Georgia Democrats argued that some Georgians were denied due process by the procedure for notifying voters of problems with their absentee ballots. The focus of this argument was black citizens. In response to this argument, State election administrators, without any action by the Legislature, became parties to the agreement in question.
I raise this Georgia use of due process because, even though it was effective in Georgia, the same argument went nowhere when employed in Pennsylvania. During the 2020 election, the Pennsylvania Secretary of State, Kathy Bookvar, gave all counties permission to cure absentee ballots. That is, if there was a condition that would cause the ballot to be rejected, the voter could be contacted and offered an opportunity to correct the deficiency. My research indicates there is a question as to whether ballot curing is even legal in Pennsylvania. That aside, some counties provided ballot curing while others did not. Trump’s lawyers argued that Democrat majority counties allowed curing while Republican majority counties followed Pennsylvania law and did not do so. Whether the Democrat/Republican argument is accurate, the fact is that not all Pennsylvania voters who needed to cure ballots were given the opportunity to do so.
In Georgia, the initial ballot curing procedure was extended to every voter, but under a due process argument, major changes were made. In Pennsylvania, what happened with ballot curing would appear to be a clear due process violation; however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third District, as lower courts had done, rejected the argument of Trump’s lawyers on this matter. This from the Court’s decision (Case 20-3371):
These county-to-county variations do not show discrimination. “[C]ounties may, consistent with equal protection, employ entirely different election procedures and voting systems within a single state.” Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., 2020 WL 5997680, at *44 (collecting cases). Even when boards of elections “vary . . . considerably” in how they decide to reject ballots, those local differences in implementing statewide standards do not violate equal protection. Ne. Ohio Coal. for the Homeless v. Husted, 837 F.3d 612, 635– 36 (6th Cir. 2016); see also Wexler v. Anderson, 452 F.3d 1226, 1231–33 (11th Cir. 2006) (recognizing that equal protection lets different counties use different voting systems).
If the Pennsylvania decision is correct on ballot curing, what made it acceptable for non-legislators to change procedures directed by the Georgia State Legislature? These kinds of contradictions need to be explained to the American people.
Now back to hard cold facts. LIVE: Trump lawyers and members of Arizona State Legislature hold hearing on election integrity – YouTube is link to a hearing before a group of Arizona legislators. Of particular interest is the testimony of Colonel Phil Waldron (U.S. Army Retired). He is a cybersecurity expert who spent half of his 30-year military career as a cavalry officer, conducting armed reconnaissance, and the last half of his career in information warfare. Starting at time 1:04:30, Waldron addresses concerns regarding the Dominion voting machines used by Arizona and numerous other states. He explains that the Dominion system is designed to allow for the manipulation of votes; describes how his team discovered vote changes in Michigan; contends the same patterns were seen in vote processing rates as witnesses saw in foreign elections where fraud was present; presents an email from an anonymous source who reports being in a meeting where a plan was reviewed to illegally add thousands of votes to machine counts; explains that Dominion machines were connected to the Internet and there were indications of interaction with external locations; explains how the Dominion system allows a person to change votes from one candidate to another.
Please go to the link and watch his testimony. An article by Debra Heine titled “Cyber Security Expert: Dominion Was Connected to Internet on Election Day, Communicated Overseas” provides a good overview of Phil Waldron’s testimony.
In the midst of Democrats and liberal media repeatedly saying that there is no factual support for claims of errors and fraud in the 2020 Election, what happened recently in the Wisconsin Supreme Court demands mentioning. President Trump’s attorneys argued that more than 221,000 ballots in Dane and Milwaukee counties be disqualified. A PBS (Public Broadcast Service)report titled “Trump asks U.S. Supreme Court to take Wisconsin case” summarizes the claims as follows:
Trump wanted to disqualify absentee ballots cast early and in-person, saying there wasn’t a proper written request made for the ballots; absentee ballots cast by people who claimed “indefinitely confined” status; absentee ballots collected by poll workers at Madison parks; and absentee ballots where clerks filled in missing information on ballot envelopes.
On a 4-3 vote, the Court rejected Trump’s claims. My reading of the majority opinion concludes that their decision focused most on the concept of laches. That is, the claims were made late; they should have been raised before the election. The majority also writes that many of the changes in procedures that were made were administrative in nature and not deserving of the remedies sought by President Trump’s lawyers.
Patience Drake Roggensack, Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, was one of the three dissenting justices. Her dissent starts of page 13 of the Court’s decision. See that decision at: https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=315395.
Following is just part of what Chief Justice Roggensack wrote:
In the case now before us, a significant portion of the public does not believe that the November 3, 2020, presidential election was fairly conducted. Once again, four justices on this court cannot be bothered with addressing what the statutes require to assure that absentee ballots are lawfully cast. I respectfully dissent from that decision. I write separately to address the merits of the claims presented.1¶63 The Milwaukee County Board of Canvassers and the Dane County Board of Canvassers based their decisions on erroneous advice when they concluded that changes clerks made to defective witness addresses were permissible. And, the Dane County Board of Canvassers erred again when it approved the 200 locations for ballot collection that comprised Democracy in the Park. The majority does not bother addressing what the boards of canvassers did or should have done, and instead, four members of this court throw the cloak of laches over numerous problems that will be repeated again and again, until this court has the courage to correct them. The electorate expects more of us, and we are capable of providing it. Because we do not, I respectfully dissent.
In my opinion, the Chief Justice cuts to the heart of the matter. She saw fact-based issues that, according to Wisconsin law, should have been addressed forthrightly by the Court. Instead, four justices took the easy way out. It certainly appears this is the course being taken by many of the justices and judges who have heard cases growing out of the 2020 Presidential Election.
That brings me to the Supreme Court of the United States. The State of Texas filed suit in the Supreme Court against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of Georgia, State of Michigan, and State of Wisconsin. Texas was joined in that action by seventeen states and President Donald Trump.
I understand the Texas argument to be that Joe Biden’s win in the Electoral College was due to voting irregularities and unconstitutional occurrences in those four states. That contention fits with Lin Wood’s argument referenced earlier in his Georgia case. That is, his vote for Trump was diluted by Biden votes that were allowed in contravention of state and federal laws. The court said Wood did not have standing to bring his case. Look again at that section earlier in this opinion piece. At one point, the decision says Wood did not have a “particularized injury”.
Against the backdrop of what was decided in Wood’s case, consider what the Supreme Court of the United States did in the Texas case. Without hearing arguments, the Court issued a statement posted at https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf:
The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.
That is all the Supreme Court says in response to Texas, seventeen other states, and the President of the United States. In an effort to get some understanding of their refusal to hear the case, I tried to understand “”judicially cognizable interest”. The following information is from https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/cognizable/:
Cognizable means capable of being known or considered. It means capable of being judicially tried or examined before a designated tribunal. A cognizable claim or controversy is one that meets the basic criteria of viability for being tried or adjudicated before a particular tribunal. The term means that the claim or controversy is within the power or jurisdiction of a particular court to adjudicate. That which is cognizable to a judge is within the scope of his or her jurisdiction.
Given that under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, disputes between states go directly to the Supreme Court; this is not a question of jurisdiction. That leaves standing. Again, looking back to what was said about standing in Wood’s case. The Supreme Court of the United States is apparently saying that voters in Texas were not personally harmed by the alleged contravention of state laws and the U.S. Constitution allowed by these four states.
Assuming this to be what the Supreme Court is communicating, I am outraged. The message I receive is that it does not matter that votes illegally counted in four states very likely elected Joe Biden President of the United States. This means the legal votes of millions of citizens outside those four states were made valueless. Given this set of circumstances, how does a court refuse to even hear the argument and simply, in one sentence, declare that those millions of Trump voters suffered no “particularized injury”? The candidate we voted for would have won had it not been for illegal activities. That seems and feels like pretty personalized injury to me.
If you have read to this point and still contend that people like me should get over the presidential election and move on, I have to wonder how you are able to hold on to that conviction. Among several, my thought is that it has to do with exposure. If I were still in my once-upon-a-time stance of trusting headlines, soundbites, manipulative politicians, self-serving so-called community leaders, and liberal media, I would very likely have the same response as you to people like me. My hope is that I have shifted from that approach to calmly and thoughtfully collecting and analyzing facts.
Go back a few paragraphs to that discussion of how the Supreme Court responded to the Texas case. From an article by Tal Axelrod titled “Biden team says it’s ‘no surprise’ Supreme Court rejected Texas lawsuit”, following is an example of what I speak to in the preceding paragraph:
“The Supreme Court has decisively and speedily rejected the latest of Donald Trump and his allies’ attacks on the democratic process. This is no surprise — dozens of judges, election officials from both parties, and Trump’s own attorney general have dismissed his baseless attempts to deny that he lost the election,” said campaign spokesperson Michael Gwin.
This Axelrod article, or the quote, makes no effort to address and explain what the Supreme Court did. No, both the article and the quote, by avoiding any effort to inform the public and encourage real thought, seek to advance an anti-Trump narrative. In what was my “trusting mode”, I would have read and accepted the narrative. Not now; I have learned, painfully, to do all that I can to get informed by gathering and thoughtfully assessing facts.
Regarding the 2020 Presidential Election, that process tells me my eyes are not lying; this election was fraught with errors and fraud.