Contributor Post Created with Sketch. What Follows Coming Apart? Revolution?

 

The center isn’t holding—if there still is a center. Now approximately 39 percent of Americans believe the election was rigged. The belief is held by 67 percent of Republicans, 17 percent of Democrats, and 31 percent of Independents.

Peter Navarro, assistant to the president, director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, and national Defense Production Act policy coordinator, has produced a 35-page report assessing the fairness and integrity of the election. The findings are distressing to believers in democracy and the American tradition of fair elections. The report examines six dimensions of alleged election irregularities in six key states, usefully compiling in one place the truly massive evidence we’re constantly being told doesn’t exist.

Numbers from around the country just don’t add up and Navarro’s not the only one to question the integrity of the election results. Patrick Basham, the director of the Democracy Institute, gave some specifics on the December 6 “Mark Levin Show.”

Basham pointed out that Trump improved his national performance over 2016 by almost 20 percent, and that no incumbent president has ever lost a re-election bid if he has increased his votes. President Obama’s vote total in 2012 was 3.5 million fewer than his 2008 total, but he still won comfortably.

Trump got even more votes from the white working class than he received in 2016. And he held his own among women and suburban voters against most of the polling expectations.

He did very well among Catholics. He improved his total from Jewish voters. He had the best minority performance for a Republican since Richard Nixon in 1960, doing well with African Americans, and importantly, with Hispanics. Biden actually received less than 90 percent of the African American vote.

So why didn’t Trump win? Why did he suddenly start losing in the middle of the night?

Basham concedes that that could have happened legitimately, but that it is most unlikely. And if that unlikely happening was legitimate, it should have shown up generally across the country and “not just in key precincts, in key cities, in key swing states, and nowhere else.” Basham said that even though Biden was the challenger, he allegedly received more votes than any candidate for president in American history. He did very, very poorly in most of the country, except where it absolutely mattered.

So in an election in which Republicans at all levels throughout the country did extremely well, and against all polling expectations, Trump lost. Not. Bloody. Likely.

In addition to the innumerable claims of fraud, there are technicalities—and technicalities count if we are a nation of laws. Georgia entered into an illegal Consent Decree, effectively gutting the signature-match requirements for millions of mail-in ballots.

Under the constitution of Pennsylvania, any changes to the election law have to be made by amending the state constitution. But the changes that were made in the last year and a half to allow mail-in ballots (of which there were millions) were not made by amending the constitution. Pennsylvania’s Democrat Secretary of State issued illegal guidance on the acceptance of naked ballots, ignored the direction from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to fix the problem, then allowed ballots to be illegally cured in contravention of state law.

Wisconsin’s Election Committee illegally placed five hundred drop boxes for absentee ballots, largely in urban Democratic strongholds, when by statute, any use of a drop box is illegal.

And those are just some of the problems. Navarro itemizes numerous others, including instances of official law-breaking in Michigan, Arizona, and Nevada.

Not surprisingly, Navarro’s report was treated with disdain by the usual suspects in the mainstream media. But they, along with so many formerly esteemed institutions, a short list including the FBI, Justice Department, and the intelligence community, lost all credibility years ago.

It is useful to remember that fifty former senior intelligence officials, including John Brennan, a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency; James Clapper, former director of National Intelligence; and Michael Hayden, former director of the National Security Agency, signed a letter shortly before the election stating that the Hunter Biden laptop emails had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” Now we’ve learned that the Justice Department has been conducting a criminal investigation into Hunter Biden’s tax affairs since late 2018!

And we have been told unequivocally that the voting machines in six key states were essentially unhackable—or at least not hacked. Yet we read on the front page of the December 18 edition of The Wall Street Journal a story on Russian hacking titled “U.S. Cyberattack Suggests More Sophisticated Hack.” If Russia, a gas station run by a drunk, can hack into the big stuff, it seems likely that crooked Democrats, perhaps with the aid of their Chinese friends, can fix a few voting machines.

But even if the voting machines weren’t hacked, even if every single witness is lying and every single one of their affidavits amounts to perjury; even if SCOTUS has suddenly become supremely disinterested in the equal protection clause they found so compelling when the rights of Bush voters were being violated, the patently illegal actions by officials in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Wisconsin could well have been enough in themselves to give the election to Biden. There doesn’t need to be any fact-finding or, to quote the former Attorney General, “fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome” to invalidate the election in those states.

What should people who are losing or have lost faith in the integrity of the democratic process do?

Seventeen state attorneys general and 106 Republican members of Congress joined an unsuccessful suit brought in the US Supreme Court by the state of Texas to block Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin from voting in the Electoral College because changes their legislatures made concerning mail-in ballots violated their own state laws and thereby the US Constitution.

It is true that courts have not been receptive to any of the lawsuits charging election irregularities, but claims by the woke media that no court has found even a single instance of fraud are—this will surprise you—misleading. The court’s rulings have been based mostly, or entirely, on procedural grounds, not merit—which means they haven’t considered the evidence. Some of the courts have been controlled by partisan Democrats. And a court may be an imperfect forum for discovering the truth of election fraud claims in the time allowed. And, we should always remember, even Abraham Lincoln expressed concern about a free people being ruled by the Supreme Court.

And so we find ourselves with a large segment of the population convinced, with justification, that the election was stolen. And yet the FBI and Justice are acting deaf, dumb, and blind, and the courts have apparently decided that the Constitution is optional when it comes to Trump.

There’s one last chance to right the election wrong before things go far enough to get ugly. Congress could intervene, throwing the election of the President into the House of Representatives, where Trump might win, and of the vice president to the Senate, where Pence might win.

Twelve senators and perhaps as many as 140 representatives plan to challenge the electoral votes during the January 6 joint session of Congress. But if the effort fails, what happens next? Revolution?

Millions of Americans might well approve of … some effort to demonstrate their outrage. For the last four years, they have suffered through what it seems fair to describe as an attempted coup mounted by corrupt deep state officials at the FBI, Department of Justice, Department of State, Department of Defense, and the intelligence agencies, among others, together with eager congressional accomplices. That crowd promoted the Russia-collusion hoax and, when that ploy failed to remove the president, the impeachment hoax—all of it supported by a dishonest, left-wing, woke media.

Who among the lefties would have the standing to complain about Republicans engaging in their own, let’s call it civil disobedience—or to put it less euphemistically, massive civil unrest? Those who manage “sanctuary cities” and their supporters? They are perfectly happy to flout the nation’s laws and protect illegal immigrants. Those who refused to stop or condemn the BLMing chaos last spring and summer following the death of George Floyd? People killed. Businesses destroyed. Billions of dollars lost. Those people like violence.

How could they reasonably object to any expedient the nation’s disenfranchised voters think up—such as a little martial law, perhaps? We The People Convention, a non-profit Tea Party-affiliated organization based in Ohio, has published a petition calling for just that—a very partial martial law in order to supervise a re-do election and make sure it’s conducted fairly this time. The most prominent person to join them so far is General Michael Flynn, which is not surprising given how he was mauled by the “intelligence” agencies, the deep state, and the Democrats—when they were out of (official) power.

Even a limited martial law lasting only a short period of time might seem un-American to most people—other than students of Abraham Lincoln’s actions during the Civil War—but they should contemplate what the Democrats have in store for us. Senate majority leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) has already issued the call to arms: “Now we take Georgia, then we change America!” Republicans are right to worry about what that means.

Trump voters and Republicans in general aren’t usually of the activist, disgruntled type that normally takes to the streets. Their few demonstrations are made up largely of middle-aged, middle-class citizens who hold down steady jobs and start small, sometimes large, businesses. They believe in the rule of law and treat the police with deference and respect. There are no hoods. No baseball bats. No “commercial grade firecrackers,” no broken windows or broken heads; no looting or attempts to seal the doors of a police precinct and burn people alive, as happened in Seattle. For all the talk of “right-wing violence,” when the media reported on November 4 that Trump had lost, all the plywood boarding came down. Apparently, it wasn’t marauding Trump voters the shopkeepers were worried about.

But all the Deep State operatives, election officials, editors, columnists, and talking heads who think they can disenfranchise a large segment of the American people, and all the judges and lawyers and professors who think the usual legal mumbo jumbo will convince the American people simply to accept this patently corrupt election and return to business as usual, are playing with fire—and playing loose with American history.

There are different types of revolution. The American Revolution was led and fought by shopkeepers, small businessmen, and farmers, a demographic not dissimilar to modern-day Trump voters. Here’s the tragedy: much as everyone may deploy the thought, a revolution seems not out of the question. Perhaps, but only perhaps, not this week, or this month.

But a feeling of contempt for the political class is likely to grow, as well as contempt for US institutions and the rule of law. If violence does come in the future it may be triggered by some seemingly new or separate event. But in reality, it will be a direct result of a large portion of the country’s being disenfranchised, disrespected, and having their small businesses closed down, while the oligarchs got filthy rich, and congressional staffers, whose salaries were been paid in full and on time, got the vaccine before the taxpayers.

If Republicans lose both Senate seats in the coming Georgia election, this much seems certain: a revolution we will have. The only questions are, which one will it be? And when?

Daniel Oliver is a Senior Director at White House Writers Group in Washington DC. In addition to serving as Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission under President Reagan, Dr. Oliver was Executive Editor and subsequently Chairman of the Board of William F. Buckley Jr.’s National Review.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 34 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western ChauvinistJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Thank you, Mr. Oliver! Very happy to see this on the front page of Ricochet.

    • #1
    • January 5, 2021, at 3:37 PM PST
    • 17 likes
  2. Heisenberg Member
    HeisenbergJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Even a limited martial law lasting only a short period of time might seem un-American to most people

    If it’s over this complete asininity, then count me with “most people.”

    How did this make it immediately to the Main Feed? I have been gratified to this point that these fantastical diatribes have been doomed to a death of dwindling comments on the Member Feed. Now we risk the site being openly known as the home of this conspiratorial nuttery.

    Look, I did not vote for Trump in ‘16 but did in ‘20. He lost. People REALLY don’t like him. All of you – take a good solid look in the mirror, step back from the abyss, put on your big boy pants, and get on with your lives.

    • #2
    • January 5, 2021, at 3:46 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  3. DrewInEastHillQuarantineZone Coolidge

    Heisenberg (View Comment):
    How did this make it immediately to the Main Feed? I have been gratified to this point that these fantastical diatribes have been doomed to a death of dwindling comments on the Member Feed. Now we risk the site being openly known as the home of this conspiratorial nuttery.

    What’s nutty about it?

    We’ll need more than just your assertion.

    • #3
    • January 5, 2021, at 3:49 PM PST
    • 12 likes
  4. Annefy Member

    The disruption that would come from the election being (correctly IMO) overturned is hard to fathom. 

    But if it’s not; if it’s allowed to stand, the Republic is dead. Could be it died a while back and this is the wake.

    • #4
    • January 5, 2021, at 3:55 PM PST
    • 23 likes
  5. DrewInEastHillQuarantineZone Coolidge

    But a feeling of contempt for the political class is likely to grow, as well as contempt for US institutions and the rule of law. If violence does come in the future it may be triggered by some seemingly new or separate event. But in reality, it will be a direct result of a large portion of the country’s being disenfranchised, disrespected, and having their small businesses closed down, while the oligarchs got filthy rich, and congressional staffers, whose salaries were been paid in full and on time, got the vaccine before the taxpayers.

    How is that nutty? That is a correct assessment of where we are.

    • #5
    • January 5, 2021, at 4:04 PM PST
    • 17 likes
  6. Misthiocracy got drunk and Member
    Misthiocracy got drunk andJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    A revolution is not the collapse of a nation. A revolution is a wholesale change in a nation’s governing order, but the nation itself continues to exist. 

    Most revolutions happen when a nation is increasing in prosperity, and almost never after a nation has collapsed. e.g. The American Revolution happened when the colonies were gaining in prosperity. The Russian Revolution happened when the Russian monarchy was embracing liberalism and the Russian people were gaining in prosperity. The Cuban Revolution happened when Cuba was at its most prosperous. Etc.

    What happens after coming apart is political division, not political revolution. The nation subdivides into smaller competing nations. e.g. Alexander’s empire became five competing kingdoms upon his death. When Rome collapsed in the West it was replaced by dozens of competing kingdoms and duchies. When Byzantium collapsed in the East it was replaced by a dozen or so kingdoms rather than one monolithic Islamic empire. When the European empires of the 19th century collapsed in the 20th century their former possessions became independent states. 

    If the United States collapses it won’t be a revolution but rather a new partitioning of North America.

    • #6
    • January 5, 2021, at 4:06 PM PST
    • 14 likes
  7. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. StephensJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    I am afriad it is comming. No one trusts anyone anymore. 

    • #7
    • January 5, 2021, at 4:12 PM PST
    • 9 likes
  8. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member

    Daniel Oliver: Basham concedes that that could have happened legitimately, but that it is most unlikely. And if that unlikely happening was legitimate, it should have shown up generally across the country and “not just in key precincts, in key cities, in key swing states, and nowhere else.” Basham said that even though Biden was the challenger, he allegedly received more votes than any candidate for president in American history. He did very, very poorly in most of the country, except where it absolutely mattered.

    I do not think that this is true, based on my analysis.

    I did my own analysis of Pennsylvania, county-by-county, and reported it at Ricochet here. I calculated the change in margin for each county in Pennsylvania. Trump lost more ground in the 54 Pennsylvania counties that he carried in both 2016 and 2020 (3.2% swing) than he lost in the 11 Pennsylvania counties that he lost in both years (1.5% swing). His biggest percentage gain was actually in Philadelphia County, which swung 4.6% toward Trump, though he still lost the county by a huge margin.

    The 2020 Wikipedia page for the election (here) has a good “Results by State” table — you have to scroll down to it — which includes a “Margin Swing” column. You can sort by the “Margin Swing.”

    It does not show Trump gaining ground everywhere “except where it absolutely mattered.” It generally shows that most states — 43 of them, in fact — had a margin shift in Biden’s favor.

    The biggest shift toward Trump was actually Hawaii, of all places, though he still lost the state by almost 30%.

    Here is a selection of states in which Trump performed less well in 2020 than in 2016 — all solid Red States which he carried handily:

    • Nebraska – Margin down 5.99%, though Trump won by 19.06%
    • Kansas – Margin down 5.95%, though Trump won by 14.65%
    • Alaska – Margin down 4.67%, though Trump won by 10.06%
    • Montana – Margin down 4.05%, though Trump won by 16.37%
    • Oklahoma – Margin down 3.99%, though Trump won by 33.09%
    • Kentucky – Margin down 3.90%, though Trump won by 25.94%
    • South Dakota – Margin down 3.63%, though Trump won by 26.16%

    I could go on, but you see the point. Trump generally did a bit more poorly in 2020 than in 2016, even in very pro-Trump states.

    I am disappointed in the election result. I am concerned about the legitimacy of the vote in several key states – Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

    But the claim quoted in the OP is not correct. This was a close election, and Trump lost margin in most states.

    • #8
    • January 5, 2021, at 4:19 PM PST
    • 6 likes
  9. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. StephensJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

     

    Jerry that does not pass the smell test.

    You are concerned about legitimacy in key states., But hey, he lost.

     

    • #9
    • January 5, 2021, at 4:29 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  10. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge

    DrewInEastHillQuarantineZone (View Comment):

    Heisenberg (View Comment):
    How did this make it immediately to the Main Feed? I have been gratified to this point that these fantastical diatribes have been doomed to a death of dwindling comments on the Member Feed. Now we risk the site being openly known as the home of this conspiratorial nuttery.

    What’s nutty about it?

    We’ll need more than just your assertion.

    Very little is nutty about it. Plus all they have is their assertions.

    Nine out of ten Globalists feel that the defeat of Donald Trump is a necessary event for the survival of their personal economy.

    And since they benefit by his political demise, they certainly are not going to entertain any thoughts of how so many various occurrences came forth in the wee hours of the morning after the election, almost always to the detriment of a Trump victory, such that the statistical probability of such happenings all being an accident is exorbitantly low.

    • #10
    • January 5, 2021, at 4:52 PM PST
    • 12 likes
  11. DrewInEastHillQuarantineZone Coolidge

    Jerry, this piece doesn’t concern itself with the question of whether fraud happened — I believe it did, and I think the writer does, too — but that perception, correct or not, by the country class that they have effectively been disenfranchised. That their votes don’t mean anything anymore. That there is no longer any means to redress grievances. That we are simply cattle to be milked for our tax money which will be distributed among the ruling class and their pals. That the rule of law no longer matters.

    And then what happens? That’s what this is about.

     

    • #11
    • January 5, 2021, at 4:54 PM PST
    • 20 likes
  12. philo Member

    A great post. Pure Main Feed material.

    (Of course, the two or three die hard philo readers out there will recognize the poor man’s version of most of this material/theme from the buried depths of the dozen posts since election day. Those who stick to better writing will similarly recognize much from the assortment of Ole Summers posts since election day. Yet other dwellers of the Lower Feed will notice… … … Well, maybe you get the point(s).)

    • #12
    • January 5, 2021, at 5:12 PM PST
    • 11 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  13. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Thatcher

    DrewInEastHillQuarantineZone (View Comment):

    Jerry, this piece doesn’t concern itself with the question of whether fraud happened — I believe it did, and I think the writer does, too — but that perception, correct or not, by the country class that they have effectively been disenfranchised. That their votes don’t mean anything anymore. That there is no longer any means to redress grievances. That we are simply cattle to be milked for our tax money which will be distributed among the ruling class and their pals. That the rule of law no longer matters.

    And then what happens? That’s what this is about.

    I believe the comment points out that this perception itself is being created by a bodyguard of lies which many people seem to have fallen for.

     

    • #13
    • January 5, 2021, at 5:23 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  14. MichaelKennedy Inactive

    Heisenberg (View Comment):

    Even a limited martial law lasting only a short period of time might seem un-American to most people

    If it’s over this complete asininity, then count me with “most people.”

    How did this make it immediately to the Main Feed? I have been gratified to this point that these fantastical diatribes have been doomed to a death of dwindling comments on the Member Feed. Now we risk the site being openly known as the home of this conspiratorial nuttery.

    Look, I did not vote for Trump in ‘16 but did in ‘20. He lost. People REALLY don’t like him. All of you – take a good solid look in the mirror, step back from the abyss, put on your big boy pants, and get on with your lives.

    The people who faked the votes really did not like him. Your point?

    • #14
    • January 5, 2021, at 5:43 PM PST
    • 10 likes
  15. DrewInEastHillQuarantineZone Coolidge

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillQuarantineZone (View Comment):

    Jerry, this piece doesn’t concern itself with the question of whether fraud happened — I believe it did, and I think the writer does, too — but that perception, correct or not, by the country class that they have effectively been disenfranchised. That their votes don’t mean anything anymore. That there is no longer any means to redress grievances. That we are simply cattle to be milked for our tax money which will be distributed among the ruling class and their pals. That the rule of law no longer matters.

    And then what happens? That’s what this is about.

    I believe the comment points out that this perception itself is being created by a bodyguard of lies which many people seem to have fallen for.

    I don’t believe these are lies, but for the sake of argument, even if they are, the perception is real. And it’s about a lot more than this election. After a series of ongoing perfidies, this fraudulent election is perhaps the final straw for the citizen class.

    • #15
    • January 5, 2021, at 5:47 PM PST
    • 10 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  16. OmegaPaladin Moderator

    What really galls me is that so many people are not even slightly curious about election fraud and violations of election law. It does not matter if they swung the election or not, they are deadly serious crimes. If elections are illegitimate, the government is on the way to a banana republic. Driving drunk is a crime even if the roadway is deserted, after all, and election law violations are crimes even if the vote shift is not known to have mattered.

    We are in an era when someone can commit crimes to get elected, and then ensure the crimes are not prosecuted. If they did not do so this election, they will ramp it up each election, each time growing more brazen. That’s how you get civil unrest, when people believe they cannot make changes via the system, its only claim to legitimacy is force.

    I don’t want that. By God, I don’t want to watch decent people get shot by some blue-haired tattooed antifa scumbag or see our civilization crumble. Despite the nightmarish scenario, there must be consequences for fraud.

    • #16
    • January 5, 2021, at 5:51 PM PST
    • 22 likes
  17. Matt Upton Lincoln

    I don’t understand the skepticism that a deeply polarizing President in the middle of a pandemic that (in conjunction with government action) shut down the country for months, could both gain votes and loose the election. 

    There were a lot of bad compromises in election laws which were made leading up to the election because of the pandemic. But what’s the legal remedy after the votes are cast? Grandma was told by her state that she could drop off her ballot. Should her vote be thrown out even though she followed everything officials told her were fine? 

    It’s untrue that every suit was dismissed on procedural grounds, but the even the procedures are there for a reason. If you are Trump’s (or state GOP) legal teams watching most of these changes go by without challenging it, then bringing suit only in the swing states after the results are in, it’s the legal equivalent of the 3am ballot stuffing theory. Wait to see if you are loosing, and use the legal technicalities to dismiss thousands of legitimately cast ballots. 

    Absentee ballots are far less secure than in person matching, not because of loose signature matching rules, but because signature matching itself is very difficult to do in the best of circumstances. By all means, state legislatures should tighten down, but it’s going to have to be for the next election. 

    • #17
    • January 5, 2021, at 7:17 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  18. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge

    Matt Upton (View Comment):

    I don’t understand the skepticism that a deeply polarizing President in the middle of a pandemic that (in conjunction with government action) shut down the country for months, could both gain votes and loose the election.

    There were a lot of bad compromises in election laws which were made leading up to the election because of the pandemic. But what’s the legal remedy after the votes are cast? Grandma was told by her state that she could drop off her ballot. Should her vote be thrown out even though she followed everything officials told her were fine?

    It’s untrue that every suit was dismissed on procedural grounds, but the even the procedures are there for a reason. If you are Trump’s (or state GOP) legal teams watching most of these changes go by without challenging it, then bringing suit only in the swing states after the results are in, it’s the legal equivalent of the 3am ballot stuffing theory. Wait to see if you are loosing, and use the legal technicalities to dismiss thousands of legitimately cast ballots.

    Absentee ballots are far less secure than in person matching, not because of loose signature matching rules, but because signature matching itself is very difficult to do in the best of circumstances. By all means, state legislatures should tighten down, but it’s going to have to be for the next election.

    Again, as was the point of my putting up the video of Mr Pulitzer’s testimony on the capabilities of the current day technology to ascertain for certain whether Granma dropped off her ballot or mailed it in, or whether its duplicate was kept in secret file and released along with 134,000 other duplicated ballots illegally in the wee hours after the election, a forensic audit needed to be done pertaining to this election. And the audit was capable of being done.

    But when the President of the United States asks for the ability to have real certitude occur with regards to a possible theft of his election, he is told by state officials to “go fish”. So it is easy to understand why it is that although the first alarms about vote switching through computer code, printing up ballots which should not exist as they are duplicates or are for registered dead voters came about in 2004, we are still in “unresolved territory.” Because any demand for a real audit and real determination always ends up in the laps of the very people who created the fraud itself.

    • #18
    • January 5, 2021, at 7:28 PM PST
    • 8 likes
  19. DrewInEastHillQuarantineZone Coolidge

    Matt Upton (View Comment):
    By all means, state legislatures should tighten down, but it’s going to have to be for the next election. 

    The trouble is, when states have tried to, for example, clean up voter rolls or enact Voter ID laws, the courts come along and say “no, you can’t do that.”

    So the courts are both denying the states the opportunity to fix their election laws before the vote, and then denying them the opportunity to challenge fraud after the vote.

    • #19
    • January 5, 2021, at 7:30 PM PST
    • 19 likes
  20. MarciN Member

    DrewInEastHillQuarantineZone (View Comment):

    Matt Upton (View Comment):
    By all means, state legislatures should tighten down, but it’s going to have to be for the next election.

    The trouble is, when states have tried to, for example, clean up voter rolls or enact Voter ID laws, the courts come along and say “no, you can’t do that.”

    So the courts are both denying the states the opportunity to fix their election laws before the vote, and then denying them the opportunity to challenge fraud after the vote.

    Exactly. 

    • #20
    • January 5, 2021, at 7:51 PM PST
    • 12 likes
  21. Matt Upton Lincoln

    DrewInEastHillQuarantineZone (View Comment):

    Matt Upton (View Comment):
    By all means, state legislatures should tighten down, but it’s going to have to be for the next election.

    The trouble is, when states have tried to, for example, clean up voter rolls or enact Voter ID laws, the courts come along and say “no, you can’t do that.”

    So the courts are both denying the states the opportunity to fix their election laws before the vote, and then denying them the opportunity to challenge fraud after the vote.

    This summary of recent and pending cases by the ABA suggests the cases are not predominantly swinging against election integrity measures. 

    • #21
    • January 5, 2021, at 8:19 PM PST
    • Like
  22. Matt Upton Lincoln

    CarolJoy, Thread Hijacker (View Comment):

    Again, as was the point of my putting up the video of Mr Pulitzer’s testimony on the capabilities of the current day technology to ascertain for certain whether Granma dropped off her ballot or mailed it in, or whether its duplicate was kept in secret file and released along with 134,000 other duplicated ballots illegally in the wee hours after the election, a forensic audit needed to be done pertaining to this election. And the audit was capable of being done.

     

    Could you link to the video again? I recently rejoined Ricochet and haven’t seen your post.

    Because any demand for a real audit and real determination always ends up in the laps of the very people who created the fraud itself.

    In the case of Georgia, they provided a full hand recount and signature audit in the county in which evidence of irregularities occurred. The Republican AG and Governor did what was initially asked, and found no problems. The campaign’s legal team then came up with additional theoretical avenues of fraud, and were denied because their first complaints were fruitless. State resources aren’t endless, no amount of audits will dissuade a candidate who is convinced millions of votes across the country were switched against him. 

     

    • #22
    • January 5, 2021, at 8:33 PM PST
    • 1 like
  23. Stina Inactive

    Matt Upton (View Comment):
    In the case of Georgia, they provided a full hand recount and signature audit in the county in which evidence of irregularities occurred.

    No they didn’t. Where’s your link? In all the audits I’ve heard of from Georgia, one was a re-tally of the voting machine data and another was a risk-limiting audit. Neither of those went after signatures.

    Where is your link?

    • #23
    • January 5, 2021, at 9:08 PM PST
    • 9 likes
  24. Stina Inactive

    Matt Upton (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillQuarantineZone (View Comment):

    Matt Upton (View Comment):
    By all means, state legislatures should tighten down, but it’s going to have to be for the next election.

    The trouble is, when states have tried to, for example, clean up voter rolls or enact Voter ID laws, the courts come along and say “no, you can’t do that.”

    So the courts are both denying the states the opportunity to fix their election laws before the vote, and then denying them the opportunity to challenge fraud after the vote.

    This summary of recent and pending cases by the ABA suggests the cases are not predominantly swinging against election integrity measures.

    Oh wow. The CRA was a bs law. And I’m so tired of Republicans who should KNOW better using this as a reason for election integrity laws being shot down. It is Bull. I don’t care what lawyers and judges care to say on it, as they were all trained by the same CRT corrupted academics ensconced in ivied halls.

    • #24
    • January 5, 2021, at 9:13 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  25. Stina Inactive

    This was an excellent article! Thank you for writing it and finally getting past the sound barrier here.

    • #25
    • January 5, 2021, at 9:14 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  26. Flicker Coolidge

    Stina (View Comment):

    Matt Upton (View Comment):
    In the case of Georgia, they provided a full hand recount and signature audit in the county in which evidence of irregularities occurred.

    No they didn’t. Where’s your link? In all the audits I’ve heard of from Georgia, one was a re-tally of the voting machine data and another was a risk-limiting audit. Neither of those went after signatures.

    Where is your link?

    I hear that Kemp retracted his signature audit the next day, when his daughter’s boyfriend’s car blew up, killing him.

    • #26
    • January 5, 2021, at 9:20 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  27. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge

    Matt Upton (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Thread Hijacker (View Comment):

    Again, as was the point of my putting up the video of Mr Pulitzer’s testimony on the capabilities of the current day technology to ascertain for certain whether Granma dropped off her ballot or mailed it in, or whether its duplicate was kept in secret file and released along with 134,000 other duplicated ballots illegally in the wee hours after the election, a forensic audit needed to be done pertaining to this election. And the audit was capable of being done.

     

    Could you link to the video again? I recently rejoined Ricochet and haven’t seen your post.

    Because any demand for a real audit and real determination always ends up in the laps of the very people who created the fraud itself.

    In the case of Georgia, they provided a full hand recount and signature audit in the county in which evidence of irregularities occurred. The Republican AG and Governor did what was initially asked, and found no problems. The campaign’s legal team then came up with additional theoretical avenues of fraud, and were denied because their first complaints were fruitless. State resources aren’t endless, no amount of audits will dissuade a candidate who is convinced millions of votes across the country were switched against him.

     

    Here is the link to the just under 24 minutes video that was made of expert computer and device forensics expert, a Mr Pulitzer and his testimony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR2vAVa18ixFjhzNNrGgFSu5yyNXcYaAnJUGQohccgQ_GDxmRmbBQ6rmIM4&v=AKEdxrqOS6c&feature=youtu.be

     

     

    • #27
    • January 5, 2021, at 10:30 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  28. Danny Alexander Member

    The GA signature audit was done in Cobb County, but the Trump campaign had very specifically demanded this be done for *Fulton* County.

    Totally brazen diversionary tactic by GA SOS Raffensperger and his (documented) NeverTrumper elections systems stooge Gabriel Sterling. And even then, poll workers/recounters in Cobb County had the brass to yell at campaign/GOP observers to back off to distances that made a mockery of their roles and the whole process.

    (To say nothing of the brazenness Raffensperger has just displayed in his Saturday phone call with President Trump and his Sunday passive-aggressive leaking to the WaPo of his recording of the call.)

    • #28
    • January 6, 2021, at 1:09 AM PST
    • 11 likes
  29. Guruforhire Member

    Matt Upton (View Comment):
    I don’t understand the skepticism that a deeply polarizing President in the middle of a pandemic that (in conjunction with government action) shut down the country for months, could both gain votes and loose the election. 

    Trump wasn’t polarizing. The country was polarized before he got here.

    • #29
    • January 6, 2021, at 4:58 AM PST
    • 11 likes
  30. Theodoric of Freiberg Member

    Why did the Trump administration’s lawyers say, “never mind,” when asked to present evidence in every election court case? They must be double agents working against Trump.

    • #30
    • January 6, 2021, at 6:29 AM PST
    • 1 like
    • This comment has been edited.