Valfusk under USA-valet 2020? Rapporterade incidenter.

Many of the court cases being filed all over the Country are not ours, but rather those of people that have seen horrible abuses. Our big cases showing the unconstitutionality of the 2020 Election, & the outrage of things that were done to change the outcome, will soon be filed!

Former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell, a Trump campaign lawyer, suggested in a Sunday interview that there is still more evidence coming out in President Donald Trump’s claims of voter fraud and irregularities.

“We’re getting ready to overturn election results in multiple states,” Powell said, saying that she has enough evidence of election fraud to launch a widespread criminal investigation.

“I don’t make comments without having the evidence to back it up,” she added, saying that elections software switched “millions of votes” from Trump to Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

Powell notably provided legal counsel to Gen. Michael Flynn in 2019. She was named to Trump’s legal team in the past several days.

OF 96 POLITICAL DONATIONS COMING FROM EMPLOYEES OF DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS, NEARLY 96 PERCENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS WERE DIRECTED TO DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES.
The company in question, Dominion Voting Systems, improperly counted ballots to create a fraudulent win for Joe Biden in Antrim County, Michigan and caused several other “glitches” that required extended voting hours and delayed results.

Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, however, reveal the company is overwhelmingly staffed by Democratic donors – perhaps contributing to the explanation as to how the machines malfunctioned exclusively to Biden’s benefit.


FEC RECORDS.
From 2014 to 2020, nine individuals who list “Dominion Voting” or “Dominion Voting Systems” as their employer contributed money to national political campaigns, including the 2020 presidential election. Totaling 96 donations, the sum between employees amounts to $1,241.15.

Employees positions span the entirety of the voting system’s process from set-up to tabulation, including software developers, network engineers, software production specialists, and implementation managers.

Of the 96 donations, 92 in total – or 95.8 percent – went to Democratic candidate, predominantly via ActBlue. This means that of the $1,241.15, a total of $1,154.90 went to boost Democrats.

One donation, for example, from a Dominion software developer went to MoveOn.org – a leftist political action committee the describes itself as a “pillar” and “at the forefront” of the anti-Trump “resistance” movement.

In contrast, just four donations – equivalent to $86.25 – over the six-year period went to Republican candidates, specifically President Trump.

Facebook removed President Elect from Biden’s page, and now it says politician.

Virginia’s election results started coming in shortly after the polls closed on Election Day. There were 378 separate entries or feeds related to Virginia found in the file obtained and shared around the web from the New York Times since a few days after the election. The NYT data feed shows all the entries from the NYT for the Presidential election at a state by state level. This data does not include county or precinct level data feeds.

One oddity in the file noted immediately is that the results for votes are not in whole integers (e.g. 1, 2, 3…). All of the entries have fractional amounts. This makes no sense since ballots do not come in fractions in the US. Each vote equals one vote.

The first 125 entries reported in the NYT data feed were basically reasonable. The results varied in percentage of votes between Presidential candidates and appeared to be random with most votes going to President Trump. Up through this time (11:03 Eastern), President Trump was leading 52% to Biden’s 46%. At this time 3.3 million of the eventual 4.4 million votes had already been cast or about 75% of the vote was in. This is when things went off the rails.

Eight entries totaling nearly (800,000) votes were removed from the database during this time. This makes no sense. Each vote should be added to the vote totals not taken away.

Nikki Haley
@NikkiHaley
Despite what the media tells us, election fraud does happen, and
policies like ballot harvesting and mailing ballots to people who
don’t request them makes it easier. That needs to stop.
@standamericanow

A close read of the piece shows that the Times once again is relying on unnamed sources and asking readers to believe that they actually exist, b) really said it, and c) are accurate in what they are saying.

This is a long-standing pattern with the Times with regard to having “anonymous” sources making unsubstantiated claims. Most recently it was revealed that an anonymous op-ed they published back in 2018 claiming widespread dissent within the Trump administration was in fact a hoax penned by bureaucrat Miles Taylor.

Apparently while they were fishing for either real or contrived anonymous sources, they missed speaking to Federal Election Commission Chairman Trey Trainor who was willing to say on the record that there are credible reports of election fraud in key states.

The Times has run similar pieces since the election including one in which they say they called election officials in differing states and found no evidence of fraud.

The Times is not alone in contending that the claims of election tampering are without evidence. Every one of the MSM outlets, and the weaker cable members like CNN and MSNBC, have been using the “no evidence” line in their news reporting, as have all MSM political guest experts who are seeming to work from the same set of talking points.

Human Events news thought it would be interesting to ask the question: What exactly do you mean by no evidence and how are you defining and judging evidence?

In a criminal proceeding, arguably the kind where the nature of evidence is most important because of what is at stake, there are four types of evidence: real, demonstrative, documentary, and testimonial. Beyond the types of evidence, there are then three criteria for admissibility: relevance, materiality, and competence.

In the case of The People of the United States v. Democratic Party of the United States, what exactly would be the case regarding the types and admissibility of evidence in a mock court convened to take a look at a mockery of an election?

In Pennsylvania and in Michigan, there is documentary evidence that dead people have voted in this election. While the numbers may or may not reach the level of materiality, without further investigation it is impossible to know whether or not they do. Certainly there is evidence of a demonstrative nature based on the work of Public Interest Legal Foundation where they have proven that dead voters remain on the rolls in states across the country.

There appears to be real evidence, evidence that is the equivalent of the knife used by Mr. Mustard in the library, that the voting machines provided through Dominion Voting Systems have been somehow altering votes. This includes a case in Michigan, where a Dominion “software glitch” in voting machines caused enough votes in one district to go to a Democrat instead of a Republican to momentarily flip the results until discovered.

Dominion machines are used extensively in the disputed states. This real evidence uncovered in Michigan should be enough to satisfy all criteria for admissibility.

In terms of testimonial evidence, we have sworn statements from the state of Michigan alleging they witnessed widespread voting fraud using several different methods. Over 130 sworn affidavits have been signed by people who witnessed vote fraud in that state. This is an extraordinary amount of evidence from this category that meets all three criteria for admissibility.

In Pennsylvania, the court has ruled that some ballots that were mailed in past the deadline for submitting proof of ID be thrown out. The Court ruled that the Secretary of the Commonwealth, Kath Boockvar, did not have the authority to permit exceptions to the state voting rules. A ruling like this by the court becomes demonstrative evidence that could be used in the case of People v. Democrats.

To tell the truth, the New York Times, along with their brethren in the MSM are deliberately misleading their readers into thinking that there is no evidence. To be clear, there are examples of all four categories of evidence that rise to a level of materiality, relevance, and competence. There is plenty of “admissible evidence” for the trial of the People of the United States v. Democratic Party to go to proceed. The Times goal is simply to try to have its readers fall in line with a predetermined, fabricated narrative for the purpose of helping the Biden/Harris administration consolidate power.