Recommended Posts

On 12/19/2020 at 1:17 PM, Mark said:

In one of Yaron Brook’s recent podcasts he refers to Giuliani’s claim of a spurious extra 156,000 votes for Biden in Michigan (though Brook mentions only the vote count not the state).  Brook then says

(1) Giuliani later retracted the claim.

(2)  The extra votes in fact went in the opposite direction, that is, at first they went to Trump when they should have gone to Biden.

Brook also says that Giuliani has retracted other of his claims but he doesn’t elaborate.

Is any of that true?  I don’t think Giuliani made the 156,000 claim Brook says he did, and hasn’t retracted any of his allegations.

Here is Brook himself:

“Even Rudy’s retracting his, some of his earlier claims because it turns out, there was there’s this one example: where uh they they uh, there’s a tweet. Let me let me just find this um. There was a tweet where there were a hundred and something thousand votes right. Um hundred thousand something thousand votes that supposedly like this just flipped uh increased in in Biden’s case. So so there so there’s a tweet or a Facebook announcement saying look, here’s the picture before and then 10 minutes later you know, nothing’s changed and Biden has an extra 156,000 votes or something like that, and um. And what’s up with this and then everybody retweets it and people comment on it and everything, and then later on, it turns that, Yes, there was an adjustment made because of some clerical error and somebody had forgot a zero and they adjusted it and they made the adjustment. It also turns out that they got the two screenshots the other way around and actually the extra 156,000 votes went to Trump, not to Biden, and it turns out that everything about the story was wrong.”

Why quote this nothingness? He's not even worth criticizing any more about anything.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

"Don't worry; we'll pick up the slack." It's...strange. When Trump first ran, I was not a fan of his, for a few reasons. But then I saw the over-reactions from others turn into TDS. I started to se

Michael, everyone, Notice, too, the Pence-Ryan email exchange linked to from the letter: https://files.constantcontact.com/899f3f04701/106dc3d3-c645-4215-bdd3-addad65bade2.pdf Ellen

Have you guys been watching the press trying to frame President Trump with the white supremacy thing? Let's start with the end first, then look at the idiot press. Here is just one compilation am

Posted Images

If you search for "ARI Watch" using Bing or DuckDuckGo you find ARIwatch.com listed first. That used to be how it was with Google as well. No longer.  ARI Watch has effectively disappeared as far as Google is concerned, ranked so low it might as well not be there. Who knows for sure why but I suspect the new articles on election fraud caught Google's attention.

Imagine that.  Google is going after low traffic, niche websites like ARI Watch, trying to hide discusion of election fraud from their hapless users.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mark said:

If you search for "ARI Watch" using Bing or DuckDuckGo you find ARIwatch.com listed first. That used to be how it was with Google as well. No longer.  ARI Watch has effectively disappeared as far as Google is concerned, ranked so low it might as well not be there. Who knows for sure why but I suspect the new articles on election fraud caught Google's attention.

Imagine that.  Google is going after low traffic, niche websites like ARI Watch, trying to hide discusion of election fraud from their hapless users.

Mark,

We may have some differences, but I am 100% with you on this.

I believe you hate tyranny just as much as I do.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just saw this:

So I checked the news. Yup. It's all over the mainstream news. But I don't want to quote the fake news media. Not even Breitbart right now (an article about this is there, too).

So here is corroboration from The Gateway Pundit:

BREAKING: “I Cannot Vote to Certify the Electoral College Results on January 6th” – MO Senator Josh Hawley Announces He Will Object to Electoral College Certification Process

Missouri Senator Josh Hawley announced on Wednesday that he will object to the certification process on January 6th.

Senator Hawley is the first Republican senator to release a statement on his intentions to decertify the fraudulent election results.

. . .

Here is Senator Hawley’s Statement.

image.png

That statement is an image (which was on article). Here is the text as text:

Quote

"Following both the 2004 and 2016 elections, Democrats in Congress objected during the certification of electoral votes in order to raise concerns about election integrity. They were praised by Democratic leadership and the media when they did. And they were entitled to do so. But now those of us concerned about the integrity of this election are entitled to do the same.

"I cannot vote to certify the electoral college results on January 6 without raising the fact that some states, particularly Pennsylvania, failed to follow their own state election laws. And I cannot vote to certify without pointing out the unprecedented effort of mega corporations, including Facebook and Twitter, to interfere in this election, in support of Joe Biden. At the very least, Congress should investigate allegations of voter fraud and adopt measures to secure the integrity of our elections. But Congress has so far failed to act.

"For these reasons, I will follow the same practice Democrat members of Congress have in years past and object during the certification process on January 6 to raise these critical issues."

:) 

Michael

EDIT: And for further confirmation, I just saw this:

:) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I just saw this:

So I checked the news. Yup. It's all over the mainstream news. But I don't want to quote the fake news media. Not even Breitbart right now (an article about this is there, too).

So here is corroboration from The Gateway Pundit:

BREAKING: “I Cannot Vote to Certify the Electoral College Results on January 6th” – MO Senator Josh Hawley Announces He Will Object to Electoral College Certification Process

Missouri Senator Josh Hawley announced on Wednesday that he will object to the certification process on January 6th.

Senator Hawley is the first Republican senator to release a statement on his intentions to decertify the fraudulent election results.

. . .

Here is Senator Hawley’s Statement.

image.png

That statement is an image (which was on article). Here is the text as text:

:) 

Michael

EDIT: And for further confirmation, I just saw this:

:) 

Get a load of this...someone at Walmart done !@#% up over this...

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I think Georgia is going to go down after this.

[Two minute Twitter video of Pulitzer] At the moment Pulitzer was speaking, voting machines in Georgia were connected to the Internet in two-way communication.

I think you mean poll book, not voting machines. As I understand Georgia systems (from VerifiedVoting.org), if you want to check out your Georgia voter registration, you can use the internet to query a state database of registered voters.  "Two-way communication" can imply 'Pulitzer was able to query a Georgia registered voters "poll book" via the internet" -- or/and "Pulitzer was able to alter someone else's voter registration information."

The state senate hearing that Pulitzer spoke at is still ongoing, or was at the time of this posting. Rudy was there when I first landed on the YouTube page; I don't know if or when documentation from his appearance will be available via the Georgia senate itself:

(11) LIVE: Giuliani testifies—Georgia Senate subcommittee continues hearing on election issues (Dec. 30) - YouTube

-- I'll take a longer cut of the Pulitzer appearance and post it here shortly.  His appearance is at around the 55 minute mark.

I love Pulitzer's appearance in Curse of Oak Island on History channel.

 

 

Edited by william.scherk
Channel
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mark said:

If you search for "ARI Watch" using Bing or DuckDuckGo you find ARIwatch.com listed first. That used to be how it was with Google as well. No longer.  ARI Watch has effectively disappeared as far as Google is concerned, ranked so low it might as well not be there. Who knows for sure why but I suspect the new articles on election fraud caught Google's attention.

Imagine that.  Google is going after low traffic, niche websites like ARI Watch, trying to hide discusion of election fraud from their hapless users.

This morning ARIwatch.com was still de-ranked.  I checked just now, this afternoon, and things seem back to normal.

Google de-ranked many websites over the election fraud issue.  Maybe they stopped because of complaints from users.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I think I will finish the transcript of the Jovan Pulitzer video I posted earlier and you will see why I believe this will be the fatal shot.

I did it. I am quoting the video and transcript below so you won't have to go back through the thread.

On 12/12/2020 at 11:24 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

Transcript:

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.

Granted, this is about examining the paper ballots, but I believe this will be adopted for the other states.

Jovan needed a HUGE splash, so hacking into a Dominion machine while is was on the Internet in two-way communication during an election, and doing it in a State Senate hearing, is about as dramatic as it gets. 

Other states will not be able to ignore this. But, as I said, when they look at the calendar I believe they will adopt the paper ballot verification because it is so much faster. And, to me it's a no-brainer. After this, there will be a huge outcry to verify.

Jovan established his credibility in such a thorough and bombastic manner, there is no way the public or authorities can ignore his message.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Granted, this is about examining the paper ballots, but I believe this will be adopted for the other states.

Jovan needed a HUGE splash, so hacking into a Dominion machine while is was on the Internet in two-way communication during an election, and doing it in a State Senate hearing, is about as dramatic as it gets. 

Other states will not be able to ignore this. But, as I said, when they look at the calendar I believe they will adopt the paper ballot verification because it is so much faster. And, to me it's a no-brainer. After this, there will be a huge outcry to verify.

Jovan established his credibility in such a thorough and bombastic manner, there is no way the public or authorities can ignore his message.

I just now saw Jovan's presentation to the Georgia Senate, not just that last part where his team had hacked into the online Dominion voting machine being used in an election when it was never supposed to be connected to the Internet.

See the video below. It is magnificent. Now that I have seen it, multiply everything I said in my quote above by 10.

This (in addition to the hacking splash) is why the Senate committee voted unanimously to have Jovan Pulitzer do a forensic audit of the absentee ballots in the 2020 Georgia election.

I don't believe the US is so corrupt that this will not spread. And once it spreads, it will stop the impostor Biden and his crew in their tracks. They will not take power.

President Trump will be inaugurated for his second term.

In fact, when all of this is over, I expect to see many on the impostor side in jail.

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2020 at 4:04 PM, Mark said:

This morning ARIwatch.com was still de-ranked.  I checked just now, this afternoon, and things seem back to normal.

Google de-ranked many websites over the election fraud issue.  Maybe they stopped because of complaints from users.

I spoke too soon.

It used to be that if you searched for
... ayn rand iraq war
or even
... "ayn rand" "iraq war"
one of my Iraq War articles would be number one. No longer. It's not among the first 30 and I lost patience checking further. Ditto for lots of other subjects.

Some aren't so bad. "carl barney" used to be number two, now it's six. "richard minns" used to be number two, now it's five.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now