Deep State Unraveling

[Ellen Stuttle]

Earlier, I quoted from a "Gateway Pundit" piece about Arizona joining the suit against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin - link:

"Arizona Rep. Mark Finchem last Friday called on his fellow lawmakers to come together and recall Arizona’s certification, [thereby] just go[ing] around Governor Ducey."

“'We only need to have 31 members of the House and 16 members of the Senate pass a resolution recalling our electors. It’s that simple,' he said. 'Our constituents are blowing up over this.'"

Subsequently, the number of members of the US House of Representatives signing on to the suit increased from 106 to "over 200," the latest figure I saw in a "Gateway Pundit" report.

And President Trump joined the suit.

AND so did the Pennsylvania House of Representatives!

So...

Suppose both the Arizona and PA legislatures choose their own electors - for Trump - that would change the current

306 Biden, 232 Trump to 

275 Biden, 263 Trump.

7 "faithless" electors from other Biden states would then give Trump the needed 270.

Ellen
 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 11/13/2020 at 9:17 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Facebook is garbage.

Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks this.

And, of course, there's the $400 million Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan dumped into election "grants." That may come back to bite Zuckerberg hard.

Incidentally, this is just my opinion, but Priscilla Chan's Chinese lineage goes to the part of China that is quite unhappy with the CCP. She grew up speaking Cantonese from what I read. So I doubt his interference in the US elections had to do with the CCP's intentions. But you never know on that level. Communist China is a gigantic market for a company like Facebook.

And, of course, there are cracks that show up like the following. The Chinese in the story below is the CCP.

Facebook Fact-Checker Funded By Chinese Money Through TikTok

From the article:

Quote

While Facebook portrays its army of fact-checkers as independent, the money behind at least one carries a distinct taint. One fact-checker, Lead Stories, is partly paid through its partnership with TikTok, a social media platform run by a Chinese company that owes its allegiance to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). TikTok is currently being probed by American authorities as a national security threat.

Moreover, the organization that’s supposed to oversee the quality of fact-checkers is run by Poynter Institute, another TikTok partner.

Lead Stories says it’s been contracted by ByteDance “for fact checking related work” referring to TikTok’s announcement earlier this year that it has partnered with several organizations “to further aid our efforts to reduce the spread of misinformation,” particularly regarding the CCP virus pandemic which originated in China and was exacerbated by the CCP regime’s coverup.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

YouTube was in the group for scrutiny as a part of Alphabet (the parent company of Google).

It just put itself in the crosshairs of the legislators going after Section 230.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

YouTube was in the group for scrutiny as a part of Alphabet (the parent company of Google).

It just put itself in the crosshairs of the legislators going after Section 230.

Here's an example.

Everybody knows who Scott Adams is. Geoffrey Miller is a famous evolutionary psychologist who has written some of the classics in the field, especially about mating among humans and other animals.

When I look at the subtext of what YouTube is doing, I see fear.

Well, I'll give YouTube this one. They have good reason to be afraid.

Michael

[ThatGuy]

On 12/8/2020 at 4:13 PM, ThatGuy said:

Anyone who can look at the Sullivan/Flynn situation and continue to deny significance/extend of the Deep State/election fraud/compromised officials/censorship, the denial and subsequent excuses about Antifa/BLM riots (and the repeated hoaxes about MAGA/white supremacist violence) and accept their surface level excuses and denials is being...well, they're being non-objective. Looking at every other possible explanation except the most logical one.

Just came across this quote, very timely and relevant to the above.
 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

TG,

That appeared on my feed, too.

I thought of posting it, but then something else caught my eye.

I'm glad you posted it.

Notice that the Trump side is for clarity of rules and transparency.

The Biden side is for changing rules so much at the last minute, nobody knows what they are, hiding as much as they can, nonstop doublespeak and outright lying when people have seen the contrary with their own eyes.

Michael

[ThatGuy]

22 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

TG,

That appeared on my feed, too.

I thought of posting it, but then something else caught my eye.

I'm glad you posted it.

Notice that the Trump side is for clarity of rules and transparency.

The Biden side is for changing rules so much at the last minute, nobody knows what they are, hiding as much as they can, nonstop doublespeak and outright lying when people have seen the contrary with their own eyes.

Michael

Indeed.

Incidentally, this G.K. Chesterton quote reminds me of this from Rand:

"The three rules listed below are by no means exhaustive; they are merely the first leads to the understanding of a vast subject.

    1.    In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.
    2.    In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.
    3.    When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side."

-“The Anatomy of Compromise,” CAPITALISM- THE UNKNOWN IDEAL

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is some wise advice.

I will be trying my best to keep the grapevine going, but I sure wish GAB, Parler, Brighteon, BitChute, Rumble, Infowars (including Banned Video), TheDonald.win, etc. had better search functions. Oh well, at least you can get accounts at these places and you can already find lots of stuff.

And there are news sites like Bongino Report, War Room, News Ammo, Just the News, National File, Big League Politics, What Finger News, Liberty Daily, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit and so forth.

I will try to put something together so people can have links to all these places and more, with some comments on the characteristics of the places and how to use them if you can get an account.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For example, this is already happening. I always "like" President Trump's tweets and retweets. They make you jump through some hoops at times, but I manage to do it.

I just tried to like President Trump's last two tweets and I get this instead.

Here are the two tweets.

and 

and 

On the technical side, Twitter is still allowing the tweets to be embedded. Here on OL, because all of the text goes through an encryption protocol on the IPB side, a copy of the text gets made. So even when Twitter deletes a tweet or cancels the ability to embed it, the text remains on OL. That's why you sometimes see a weird-looking tweet without all the Twitter stuff around it. 

So long as I can keep embedding them here on OL, I will do so instead of doing screenshots because text can be searched.

All this stuff is going to get worse before it gets better, though.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I was able to like this one.

I think people would be foolish to make light of this, especially coming from a man like President Trump, but some people gonna do what they gonna do...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I just tried to like President Trump's last two tweets and I get this instead.

Now I can like those tweets, although with the usual hoops to jump through.

And I did, of course.  

But, man, that was quick.

Something heavy has to be going on backstage.

Something heavy heavy, not just heavy...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 12/10/2020 at 5:53 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

To be clear, the paper ballot is not what is counted for tallying. The scanned image of the paper ballot is what is tallied.

Here's a guy who makes it drop dead easy and quick as lightening to check for fraud using paper ballots only and no access to the Dominion voting machines. As this needs to get out there among people of influence, I'm giving it in a Lin Wood tweet to show that it is on the way. But I'm also including the video so you don't have to click through.

Lin Wood:

The video:

If you only see one video about election fraud, this is the one you have to see.

I mean it. This one is it.

Here's the raw transcript from YouTube. I'll get it done properly later.

(NOTE on Dec. 30. I did and it is below. I did not revise it, though, so there might be a minor error or so.)

Quote

Kevin Freeman: Well, in The Economic War Room, we have amazing breaking news. There is a new way to determine whether or not this election was fraudulent. And we invited in Jovan Hutton Pulitzer who has an incredible background in technology and understanding. But the best part is he can make the complex things of technology simple. Jovan, welcome to The Economic War Room.

Jovan Hutton Pulitzer: Thank you, Kevin. I appreciate it. And yes, it's really very simple to tell where everybody's going wrong and to caress the right things to get some real results fast. 

Kevin Freeman: Well can you tell us just a little of your background? I mean it's so impressive, with all the patents and everything that you've received. Tell us a little of your background in technology and also in making things simple. 

Jovan Hutton Pulitzer: Now don't get thrown when I say this, because when you look at me I'm a nerd. I'm hiding out in a biker's body so don't get thrown by that because I don't look like your typical nerd. But I'm actually one of the most granite??? patent authors, not only the united states but in the world. 

And most people know me for what's called scan-connect, scan-commerce, or scan-the-tech platforms. And that's where, when you use your mobile phone, you actually scan a barcode or you scan a Q-Code and it loads up on your phone. Or now you track any product by it or you see it on any grocery store shelf. I'm the fellow that created that platform--originally called CRQ, "See Our Cube," and shortened to Q-Code. And now it's on... about 12 billion devices around the globe can do it. 

And so when I started looking at these ballots and everybody talking about, "Well codes can't be hacked," and, "These things are so hard to detect," I realized that everybody was speaking geek. 

And so, here's a good example. When you now go to an airport and you don't use a boarding pass and the code's on your phone and you do it, that's me. That was a very simple explanation. When you now go through toll tags and you no longer have to roll down your window and chunk the change and don't hit the brick wall, but it now records the transaction and dings your card or your shopping cart, that's me. 

Old days when we had computers and we finally looked at phone and it would look wonky but now it adjusts, that's me. So I have a deep history in making this stuff work, but also explaining it. 

And it's a real simple fact to prove that there was massive fraud in this election. 

Kevin Freeman: Okay, so what we're talking about is you've got the ability to scan. Scanning is an integral part of the modern ballot experience. You fill it out on one machine. It prints out something. You take it to another machine. You stick it in and it scans it. 

Or you get a mail-in ballot. They don't just take the mail-in ballot and stack them in piles. They don't just have an abacus and calculate them from that. They run them through a machine that's supposed to be tabulating. 

You're saying that you can take those ballots and you can determine whether those ballots that are run through a machine are real or fraudulent. Is that correct? 

Jovan Hutton Pulitzer: That's absolutely correct. We can take the physical ballot, the image scan of the ballot in the machine, the CVR file in the machine, and I can even take a shredded bag of trash of ballots and do what we do. 

First off, I want everybody to understand. These physical ballots from the election--when they go into a machine, it basically makes a duplicate copy. That's your property as an American citizen. We own it for 22 months after the election. And so when these courts started saying. "Well, you can't look at it," I realized it was all technical smoke and mirrors to fool judges, to fool lawyers, and say, "Oh, we can't really do it." 

So let me tell you how easy it is. And Ijust going to go through a very, very simple drill. If a mail-in ballot, which is what's most contested, was mailed to you, it goes through this process. Right? A machine prints a ballot. That ballot has rules. It has all kinds of secret coding and stuff in it. The machine folds that ballot, then rolls it flat, and then they use an air blower and they blow it into that first envelope with the second envelope. [It] goes through a series of other rollers. And then when the officials are going to mail it to you, that scan is caught by the system. 

Now, remember I said it goes through rollers. Now let's just do this drill real quick. So it goes from the state to the local offices, [the] local post office [is] supposed to deliver to you. Technically you're supposed to request it, but we gave these away like candy and welfare this year to everybody. Right? But it went through all these rollers. 

Then it comes to you. Well technically if it's a mail-in ballot, didn't you open it? Didn't you look at it? Did you fill it out right then? Most people probably didn't. They look at it two or three times. 

Now do this drill. They filled it in with a pen, did their little circles nice and neat, fold it back, send it back to the system. [It] went through a bunch of rollers again, didn't it? Then it went to the post office, logged in again. Even if you dropped it, it got scanned in again. When it goes to the polling place, it gets scanned in again. Somebody opens it and looks at it. 

I just described a trail of touch points that have nothing to do with the code on a Dominion machine or server. These are all separate things. Now when you think about the fold feature--just fold, as simple as fold... Now I'm going to show you a video here in a second. 

Once you fold that piece of paper, it is technically something else. In the digital world, it's a brand new piece of code. Here's how it works. How many times have your kids had science projects? And they're drawing markers on the poster board? And they bend the poster board? And now that mark looks ugly because you can see all the white in between. You can see the wrinkle. It's horrible. Or you bent the photo and now you can see the white underneath. 

That is actually what kinematics--it's called a kinematic artifact--is. It's the study of physics, that when two forces or two meta materials come together and bend and apply each other, it leaves a trail. So printing's on top, [and it's] very very fast to dry immediately. And it's on a piece of paper. What's paper? Paper is reconstituted wood. Right? It's all put back together. So technically, when these ballots get folded, everywhere there's printing on that page, it creates a kinematic artifact. 

So the bottom line is: How can it be a mail-in ballot if it has no signs of ever being mailed? 

Take a look at this video. 

Absentee and mail-in ballots are folded to mail. Well if such ballots have no fold marks, were they ever mailed? What you're seeing here is a forensic scan of an actual 2020 ballot. No folds. But when you see the fold, a kinematic artifact is detected. That's where the fold is. It can be seen. 

Well if such ballots have no fold marks, were they ever mailed? Forensic science shows, if no fold marks, it's not a legal mail-in ballot. 

Kevin Freeman: That's unbelievable. It's obvious. It's very clear that you can tell if paper's been folded or not. You've got the capabilities. You've got the scientific background. And this is science, isn't it? 

Jovan Hutton Pulitzer: Absolutely. This is science that works by the scientific method. This is not theory. If I was to look at a piece of paper and tell you, "That's been folded," it is technically, as an expert witness, only my opinion. Put it into machines and teach machines to read it--where it's grading it and scaling it--you're getting into the scientific method. You're reproducing it as an absolute fact. 

So here's the deal. Now first off, election officials... Look. Election fraud has been around for a long time. And my personal opinion, it's just really simple what happened in this scale. 

You have local actors on the very small level that do a little nefarious things. You have things like, you hear of Eeelon Omar [Ilhan Omar], or whatever her name is. Minneapolis. They go out and harvest ballots and they get them filled out. There's always the little stuff. 

Then there's the little actor that's going to copy some that they know is the one they want. And they're going to feed it into the machine a lot. Then there could be state stuff. Then the machine can actually miscount the votes, as you saw in the two Dominion machines yesterday presented as evidence in Georgia. And then you have foreign bad actors. 

What's the rule of criminals? If you were a criminal in a gang and you went and robbed 50 million bucks, and it was back in the old days. Right? And you had your share of the loot. And they're going to hide it in the woods for the night. Why does each guy sneak off to hide it in a separate place? Why? Because he's in bed with robbers. They'll go take his stuff. Right? So it's all kind of hidden from each other. And what you're seeing is a mass amount of fraud by disconnected players that made this show up on a grand scale. 

But they'll tell you that, "Well that's just a ballot that we fixed. It was called a spoiled ballot. It came in wrinkled and crinkled and tore and ugly, and we just wanted to make it prettier." Now...

Kevin Freeman: They adjudicated it. 

Jovan Hutton Pulitzer: That's right. They adjudicated it. Now that is really subject to human--right?-- error or human influx. 

Kevin Freeman: Right. 

Jovan Hutton Pulitzer: But if you look back in history, history is statistically on our side. We know in these states, take like Georgia, that all of a sudden on those rejected ones that don't meet those standards that they would adjudicate out, a high number might be 6%. Right? An average number is really only 1%, but in this election they only had one quarter of 1%. 

So here is the fact. Getting these regular ballots--the physical things--and inspecting them, you can see the folds. Inspecting them by machine and digitally you can really see the folds like you saw on the video. All we have to do is check the ballots that show us fold against what were done as "spoiled ballots" adjudicated. And they actually should match. Right? That's the only flat one that's supposed to be in there. 

The problem is that's not the truth. So here's the cause and effect of it. We're supposed to have the envelopes. They need the envelope to check against the signature. That's how that works. Why do we not have envelopes? Well, we don't have the second part of the envelope... is because, well, there were never any envelopes. 

And that's where we found the legal teams are trying to talk too technical, too geeky. They're relying on the big bang theory to give you the algorithm. And judges and lawyers don't understand it and they're simply asking for the wrong evidence. 

Kevin Freeman: So what should they be asking for? And what can our visitors to everylegalvote.com do to demand that we get this information? You said we own the information. It belongs to the American people. You said that this is a scientific proper process to evaluate that information. This is something that's used in courts all the time to determine whether there's counterfeits or frauds or whatever. So the court should accept this as good data--whatever you produce. And we haven't gotten that because the lawyers haven't asked for it yet. What should they be asking for? 

Jovan Hutton Pulitzer: It's not an issue of looking for hanging chads or bad data or machine data or coding to a German server, it's the simplicity of: we the American people own those physical ballots by law. We the American people own those scanned copies. They are scanned in at a high level so you know it's a very big file. We only need access to audit. Not audit on tech terms, but audit on very simple visual terms. 

Now, they'll tell you they're exposing a person's personal information. Well, technically, it's not there. It's already been de-identified. And in my system we can audit millions--millions--of these in a day automatically. So here's what it is. 

You want the right to see the physical ballot and the digital ballot natively off the machine--in a native format, not file encrypted. Attorneys will ask for files, but they get them an encrypted state that only belong to Dominion or others, and they don't get the key. Then they have to hack them. Well, if you have to hack the files, then you kind of kick the evidence out because they'll say you manipulated it. 

No. [Get] native physical scans of the files and physical ballots of the files. And then our systems can high speed look at them. And we look for that feature called the kinematic fold. But is that it? 

No. We look to see: is the ballot real to begin with? Does it have all of the upper level encoding? That means the standards by the election councils as to exactly how that ballot was to be printed. And then what most people don't know is all of these printers have hidden, beyond I-frequency code, that actually states the printer it came from. That's there. That's why they don't want you to see physicals. 

Secondly, we can actually look at: was this filled out by a person? Meaning hand signature? Think of your hand signature like a rocket. Right? But it's in reverse. It's impact first. That's when you hit that oval. And then it's take-off second. That means when you're doing it and you're filling in that oval yourself, which is supposed to be done by law by ink, and you think you're done, your artistic brain goes, "Okay, I'm done." And it starts to lighten the load off of it. You can see those marks. 

But when a machine does it, when a computer does it, there are none of those telltale marks. So not only can we see if the ballot was folded, we can audit: was it done by pen or machine? If it was done by machine, we can now look for patterns. We're looking for a symbol now. It has a a defined hard code. 

And even if they try to trick the pattern and make it squiggly, wiggly, or whatever, you have to ask yourself: did they make 10 million unique squiggly patterns in the system? Hell no. They printed these things out fast and they ran them into the machine. That's why we all said here ago: 10:30 at night? What do you mean you're going home, counting election? It's never happened before. You count them now. We're supposed to wait up till 3:30 in the morning like the last time. 

But that's where they know. They have these in bulk and they bring them in and they zip them in. So we can look for the spikes. We can look for the fraud. We can look for the number duplications. We can look for the timestamp duplications. We can look for handwriting, machine writing, and kinematic fold. 

And I say to you, if any one precinct or area had three million votes, and they sent out all these ballots, but they say that, "Hey, 800,000 of them came back and 2,000 of them were remedied." So all of a sudden we got this big difference of: why are still all these flat sheets in here? And now there's no spoiled ballot code. And there folks, you have provable, easy, low-hanging fruit to prove something nefarious happened. 

Kevin Freeman: Yep. Well... and there's no question. We've looked at the statistics and the statistics tell you where to look to find. And what you're talking about is a scientific approach to determining whether or not there was fraud. And once you run the science, then you'll have the knowledge. And... 

Jovan Hutton Pulitzer: Absolutely. 

Kevin Freeman: ... and no one has run this science yet. There's lots of questions. But this particular aspect has not been run yet. So what do we need to do to get this so that you're?... You've got the expertise. You've got the capability. How do we get the information to you? What do we need to have happen so that you can run this process and make a determination? 

Jovan Hutton Pulitzer: We're playing a two-part game here and you need to understand. This is not necessarily about party anymore. This is about us as Americans, as whether our vote will ever count again. That's what we're playing for, folks. So it doesn't matter what the real results are. We just have to get results. 

Secondly, everything that my team is doing today is the new security measure that will be in place for the next round of elections and this will never happen again. In order to make that happen, and so it can be written into law and become the security fact, we need unrestricted access to the original ballots. We need original scanned copies of the ballots. We need the CDR information off of the machines. Then we need to reconcile--with outside sources, which we can do--what was mailed, what came in from the mail, what was adjudicated for postage, what was paid by a consumer, and then we just run these at high speed. 

Stop asking for code that swaps ballots. You can't see that code. But you know what you can see? If I run in a million ballots. Right? And it was split 50-50 between each party, and we're just looking at the little footballs that you circle in, we're gonna have a number. And the bottom line is, if that machine has a different number than what the consumer intended, then that machine faked it. And we do not have to prove how it did it. It's a fact. It did it. 

I look at it this way. When you go to the grocery store and you're buying a gallon of milk, well the grocery store is the polling place, and you're the voter. And you're going in for that gallon of milk. You've made a decision: "I want that one at that price... that's my candidate." And so when you come up to the register. Right? The same way as it works in the grocery store, and they scan that code, it should say, "I've accepted your candidate." 

But what would you do if, all of a sudden, you walked into the grocery store and you're going to buy a gallon of milk, let's say for three dollars. Right? And it scans and the cash register says, "You owe me three thousand dollars because, actually, this is a change of your transmission in your car." You would have an ape fit. 

There are billions and billions and billions of transactions that happen every day and if it was happening in a grocery store, even if they were just sniping pennies off of you, and skimming them off, it would be fraud. They would go to jail. Why don't we have a very simple grocery store standard for our general election? 

Kevin Freeman: Well, we we absolutely should. And what I think we can do is we can ask the Attorneys General who have agreed to join Texas in the Supreme Court suit. They have the power, they've got the power to subpoena. They've got the power to seek out criminal activity and so forth. So they've got that authority. The court can order that the native files be given for a proper examination. And we're just going to make that available. We're going to ask the EveryLegalVote coalition to try and get people to demand this. Why not look at this? 

Because I agree with you. I don't see how we can accept this as a clean election unless we've properly looked at it. There are so many anomalies statistically. There's also these ideas of ballots that that are marked for one person only, for one candidate only, and no down ballot that are highly unusual anomalies statistically. So we know where to look. We know which ballots to ask for. We need to ask for them in the native format. And we need to ask an expert like you, Jovan, to take them and run them through this process. 

As I understand it, you are the guy. I mean, if you've done the tolls and you've done the scans and all that, you're the guy. So we need to get that information to you and your team so you can do this evaluation. And what you've just said is you can do millions of them in a day, so you can go rapidly through this and give the American people the answer they need. 

If it's a clean election for Biden, that's what it is. If it's not and it's a fraudulent election, we need to know. Because we'll never get a shot at this again. 

Jovan Hutton Pulitzer: We have to not be confused. To any lawmaker out there listening, Attorneys General, whatever. Don't be confused in the geek babble. When they tell you, "Oh, this is about protecting the identity. You'll see the person's name." No. They sent the envelope out with it printed inside in a window. And when the person put it back in that envelope, that envelope's sheltered. You never see the person's name. It's not a privacy issue. 

If they say, "Hey, you got a privacy issue on the code and everything else," we don't have the key to the code to see who it is. We just want to see the ballot. You want to be safe? Cut off the signatures. Cut off that code. We'll still look at the rest. The trail is there. We just need access. 

Kevin Freeman: Well, you know, the idea of protecting the identity of voters is ludicrous because you could sign by agreement that you wouldn't disclose it. The poll workers had access to that. The Dominion systems and all have had access to that. So that's a ludicrous argument. 

But Jovan, I really appreciate you taking time explaining this. We will push for this. This is another way to look into this. People keep saying, "Where's the proof?" Well, there's so much statistical evidence... But what you're talking about is giving actual legal proof. And that's something the American people need so we can move on from this election and go forward as a good nation united. 

So thank you. 

Jovan Hutton Pulitzer: Watch the video. Watch the video over and over and share it. There's your proof. Believe your eyes. You can see it and it's believable. 

Kevin Freeman: Great. Thank you, Jovan. This is Kevin Freeman from The Economic War Room.

Basically, the verification process goes like this.

1. Instead of looking at the digital scans of ballots, recounting them, etc. etc. etc., or sending paper ballots through the same voting machines, Jovan Hutton Pulitzer, who works with scanning technology like bar codes for the general market and industry, etc., says we need to have access to the actual paper ballots. Not voter rolls. Not signatures. Not voting machines. Nothing like that. Just the now-anonymous paper ballots. And the official tally results in the government records.

2. During voting by mail, the paper ballot goes through several touch points (folding, stuffing, etc.). Each touch point leaves artifacts on the paper (basically damage to the paper like a crease) that a digital scanner can pick up. So all paper ballots have to have these artifacts, otherwise, they were never mailed.

3. Jovan has high speed scanners that can scan millions of paper ballots in a day looking for these artifacts. 

4. Jovan simply wants to scan a batch of mail-in ballots (with his high-speed scanners) where this batch has a corresponding digital record on how many ballots are in it (the official government digital record that is used to certify the results). The number of paper ballots with artifacts should be identical to the number given in the digital records in a given batch. If there are only a few paper ballots with artifacts and a crapload with no artifacts like a crease from folding, that batch is fraudulent. Those smooth ballots were never in the mail.

There are other things Jovan can look for, also, but this is the gist.

Jovan says he can even do high-speed scanning on shredded ballots and come to the same conclusions.

He also says the geek-speak surrounding the audits of Dominion machines is what is killing the efforts with the public to prove malfeasance.

That is not to say the other methods of verification with geek-speak are invalid. Most of them are. But something quick and easy and infallible as the base process is called for at this stage of the election. 

So knowledge of this this simple method needs to get into the hands of everyone--like NOW. Including the hands of the relevant political and judicial people. I would say journalists, too, but in the mainstream, there are hardly any left.

Michael

[PDS]

Is there a state court lawsuit in which Trump’s lawyers (as opposed to Lin Wood or somebody) are alleging election fraud?  

It looks like Trump’s lawyers have actually disavowed any fraud claims in Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Nevada.  This is pretty important, no?

[Edit:  I just read the Wisconsin lawsuit filed by Trump on December 1, 2020, and there is no allegation of fraud.]

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 hours ago, PDS said:

Is there a state court lawsuit in which Trump’s lawyers (as opposed to Lin Wood or somebody) are alleging election fraud?  

It looks like Trump’s lawyers have actually disavowed any fraud claims in Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Nevada.  This is pretty important, no?

[Edit:  I just read the Wisconsin lawsuit filed by Trump on December 1, 2020, and there is no allegation of fraud.]

David,

I don't know the strategy. Maybe it's because election fraud and voter fraud are criminal in nature and the suits Trump's lawyers are running up the chain are civil.

I do know that it would be helpful if law enforcement had some kind of investigation going of the fraud being exposed daily.

Frankly, the FBI's behavior recently makes many Americans feel that it is nothing but a decoration. Even under Comey, it investigated Hillary Clinton's servers. It made a mess of it, but it investigated. During a brazen theft of an election, it's MIA. That's just not right. There are a lot of calls for it to be dismantled.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Antifa showed up to the Trump rally in DC today.

We normally see Antifa (and BLM) bullying Patriots, knocking out Patriots, bickering with Patriots, even killing them. 

The video below is what it looks like now. And I believe this is what it will start looking like from here on out.

The Patriot side is fed up with appeasing evil. What happened in that video is the only thing the Antifa and BLM people understand. So that's what they're going to get.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just a reminder of what that's about.

Scumbags.

They want it, they're going to get it.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is what the Patriots prefer to be doing.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

17 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Scumbags.

They want it, they're going to get it.

And don't expect much from police.

The bullshit politicians won't let the police defend innocent Trump supporters and the Antifa BLM attackers are all clamoring to defund the police.

So if the police won't do it, Patriots will.

Antifa Coward Allegedly Stabs Multiple Trump Supporters…Proud Boys Beat The Hell Out Of Him…DC Cops Stand By And Watch [VIDEO]

If martial law comes, it will not come in a vacuum.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I hope the cheaters are paying attention. The only difference between Lin Wood and a whole crapload of people who think like him is that he says it out loud.

... if not war...

Michael

[PDS]

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

I don't know the strategy. Maybe it's because election fraud and voter fraud are criminal in nature and the suits Trump's lawyers are running up the chain are civil.

I do know that it would be helpful if law enforcement had some kind of investigation going of the fraud being exposed daily.

Frankly, the FBI's behavior recently makes many Americans feel that it is nothing but a decoration. Even under Comey, it investigated Hillary Clinton's servers. It made a mess of it, but it investigated. During a brazen theft of an election, it's MIA. That's just not right. There are a lot of calls for it to be dismantled.

Michael

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.   Fraud allegations can be added to civil proceedings as a separate (Civil) cause of action.   The allegations need only be proven by a preponderance of evidence.  There is no reason for the Trump lawyers NOT to include fraud allegations in their swing states’ lawsuits—assuming they have the goods.

There is a logical and likely reason the lawyers haven’t specifically asserted fraud allegations in Trump’s swing states’ lawsuits—at least the ones I have reviewed.   The reason?   They don’t feel comfortable making that statement without facts, or admissible evidence.   The Trump lawyers could be sanctioned for doing so.  Unlike the purely legal arguments such as Equal Protection that are being dismissed by the courts pretty consistently, a fraud allegation requires facts to be pleaded—within the complaint itself—“with particularity”.   Has anybody seen the Trump lawyers do this?  In any of their lawsuits?   

Why bring this up?  Very simply, I just think it’s worth bearing in mind that Trump’s lawyers have by and large avoided making fraud claims.  Those are their actions, not their words.  It is tempting to blank out on this, and just keep focusing on general “fraud” theories that come up on the Internet, but those various fraud theories clearly aren’t going anywhere in the Trump War Room.  

If I have learned one thing from MSK over the years while reading OL—I’m being 100% genuine about this—it’s that a good rule of thumb is to watch someone’s actions, not their words, when assessing a situation.   That would seem to be especially important now.  And here.  

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 minutes ago, PDS said:

There is a logical and likely reason the lawyers haven’t specifically asserted fraud allegations in Trump’s swing states’ lawsuits—at least the ones I have reviewed.   The reason?   They don’t feel comfortable making that statement without facts, or admissible evidence.

David,

Have you looked at the evidence?

It's quite striking.

I can't think of a single reason why that would not be admissible in court as allegations of fraud.

Look at videos of Rudy's road show of hearings and tell me what the witnesses said is not admissible in court.

If you haven't looked, it's an eye-opener.

I don't know what to call that evidence other than testimony about fraud.

And yes, some of it comes with concrete facts that people can look at like more votes tallied than there are voters. When this is sporadic, it could be a mistake. When it is a lot and it always favors Biden, it's more than just an opinion of fraud.

There's a ton load of stuff like that.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

19 minutes ago, PDS said:

If I have learned one thing from MSK over the years while reading OL—I’m being 100% genuine about this—it’s that a good rule of thumb is to watch someone’s actions, not their words, when assessing a situation.   That would seem to be especially important now.  And here.  

David,

Cute.

(Well played, actually.)

Now do this with more than Rudy not including fraud.

 

Michael

[tmj]

Consider Pres Trump's actions during the pandemic in regards to DPA , acknowledging the ability and then publicly stated that it would not be necessary in certain instances because people , companies would 'do the right thing'. And it appears he used the powers sparingly , although I'm not sure as to the extant the act was used, but it seems like a fairly liberal use and not enough to get the media to even try and use any actions with regard to it against the administration, so probably fair to say it was not 'abused'. The administration allowed for unforced cooperation while acknowledging the discretion afforded to do otherwise.

Pres Trump has repeatedly called for courts to 'do the right thing', afforded them (state and federal courts) space to act in their purview to allow for transparent rendering of various and obvious ' dubious' 'happenings'.

Does the Commander in Chief have standing to assert sedition ,and act to institute curatives ? Can the CiC use the full force of the Exe branch to stop seditious act/actors before the Judicial branch identifies such actions? Did Lincoln have the SCOTUS on board before he acted or were his actions determined after the fact to be commensurate with his office and the findings of the actions ?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

T,

The election stealers are playing with real fire and not realizing it.

Michael

[tmj]

MSK

I fervently hope so.

My favorite RINO is the Only guy I could even imagine to have wherewithal to do it. God bless him.